Getty
Show Hide image

It’s not self-indulgent to prioritise choice in maternity care

Birth is painful, frightening and unpredictable, and it is also highly politicised.

I knew I should have waited a little longer before having my third child. According to the Times headline “Pregnant women get £3,000 for private births”. Huh. All I got from my local NHS birthing centre was tea, toast and a shot of Syntometrine. Sure, the staff were lovely and my baby was healthy, but it wasn’t exactly plush. Certainly it was nothing like the Sex and the City-style shopping trip the Times imagines future mothers planning in response to Baroness Cumberledge’s National Maternity Review:

“Home births, acupuncture and hypnobirthing would be offered by companies and midwife co-operatives in exchange for the vouchers as health chiefs aim to use competition to force the NHS to listen to women’s choices”

Way-hey! Bring on the whale music and essential oils! It’s deep, meaningful birthing “experiences” for all, apart from those unfortunate enough to live in a poorly-resourced area and just want your basic, no-frills, safe birth, minus any Primrose Hill bullshit.  

The response to the Cumberledge report, with its proposal that pregnant women in England receive a “personal care budget” of £3,000, has been lukewarm, to say the least. “Can the NHS afford to give pregnant women exactly what they want?” asks ITV News, rather suggesting that given half the chance, they’ll bleed the country dry with their frivolous demands for foot massages and pickled onion ice-cream. “The idea might sound attractive,” concedes the Independent’s Jane Merrick, “but mothers should resist the temptation.” Merrick fears the burden of choice will be too much for mothers and, unlike ITV, she also views it as an attempt to cut costs by increasing the number of home births. The Times leader argues that the report is a “missed opportunity” since “the greatest threat to mothers’ safety is a deep-seated reluctance of some midwives to defer to doctors when necessary” (conveniently failing to mention that the US, where midwife attendance is rare, has a maternal death rate of 28 per 100,000 compared to the UK’s 8).

These are all different criticisms but it is easy to detect a common theme: there is, on the one hand, the medical care of pregnant women – clear, objective, reliable – and then, on the other, we have the haphazard free-for-all that is maternal choice, whereby pregnant women, midwives and doulas prioritise romantic visions over comfort, safety and pragmatism. As Rebecca Schiller, co-chair of Birthrights, writes in the Guardian, there remains a widespread belief that “silly women with their unrealistic and downright irresponsible ideas about birth can’t be the ones who decide what happens to their bodies in pregnancy because it’s just not safe for the baby”. Putting important decisions in their hands doesn’t help anyone, but merely muddies the clear blue waters of research-based care.

I can fully understand resistance to the idea of maternal choice. It smacks, not just of foolish romanticism, but of unchecked privilege. Coming from a family in which not one, but two poorly managed births led to disastrous, life-long consequences, I used to rage at the idea of smug mummies planning their perfect, candlelit home births, conceitedly imagining that nothing bad could ever happen to the likes of them. Women would complain about the need for continuity of care and I’d want to ask them about continuity of oxygen supply to an infant’s brain. I didn’t want choice, I just wanted the baby to be out of me and alive.

But what’s the right way to get a baby out of a body? With forceps? With drugs? With knives? Is it the same for every woman? Is there a way of balancing torn flesh, mental trauma and abandoned autonomy against potential – only ever potential – reductions in risk to one’s future child? I liked to think there was a right answer to all of these questions. It turns out there isn’t, not for any of them. Birth is painful, frightening and unpredictable, and it is also highly politicised. If there is a way in which we romanticise it, it is by convincing ourselves that in avoiding the pitfalls of personal choice women can free themselves from new age mumbo jumbo and enjoy expert-led care that is neutral, evidence-based and measurably safer in all instances.

Cumberledge’s Better Births report promotes a vision of “personalised care” which includes women being able to “choose the provider of there antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care and be in control of exercising those choices through their own NHS Personal Maternity Care Budget”. There are things that make me very nervous about this. I worry that it brings us one step closer to a privatised model of healthcare. Like Schiller, I fear that the resources to enable women to make these choices are not yet in place and that “there is a risk that the phrase ‘personalised care’ could replace ‘woman-centred care’ as a distractingly shiny bow on a system that’s actually quite the opposite”.

One thing that does not, however, worry me is that pregnant women are not equipped to make the right choices. Because there are no “right” choices. No one else can experience giving birth for you and no one can tell you how your mind and body will respond (in my case, remarkably well to a complete absence of intervention, contrary to everything I’d feared).

Childbirth can be both awesome and terrible. It is a leap into the unknown. That such a leap can come with a price tag may be disconcerting, but that’s no reason not to trust the person who ultimately bears the biggest cost. Pregnant women have to make choices without certain outcomes. Let’s acknowledge and respect that instead of using it as a reason to question their judgment.

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May is paying the price for mismanaging Boris Johnson

The Foreign Secretary's bruised ego may end up destroying Theresa May. 

And to think that Theresa May scheduled her big speech for this Friday to make sure that Conservative party conference wouldn’t be dominated by the matter of Brexit. Now, thanks to Boris Johnson, it won’t just be her conference, but Labour’s, which is overshadowed by Brexit in general and Tory in-fighting in particular. (One imagines that the Labour leadership will find a way to cope somehow.)

May is paying the price for mismanaging Johnson during her period of political hegemony after she became leader. After he was betrayed by Michael Gove and lacking any particular faction in the parliamentary party, she brought him back from the brink of political death by making him Foreign Secretary, but also used her strength and his weakness to shrink his empire.

The Foreign Office had its responsibility for negotiating Brexit hived off to the newly-created Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) and for navigating post-Brexit trade deals to the Department of International Trade. Johnson was given control of one of the great offices of state, but with no responsibility at all for the greatest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War.

Adding to his discomfort, the new Foreign Secretary was regularly the subject of jokes from the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues. May likened him to a dog that had to be put down. Philip Hammond quipped about him during his joke-fuelled 2017 Budget. All of which gave Johnson’s allies the impression that Johnson-hunting was a licensed sport as far as Downing Street was concerned. He was then shut out of the election campaign and has continued to be a marginalised figure even as the disappointing election result forced May to involve the wider cabinet in policymaking.

His sense of exclusion from the discussions around May’s Florence speech only added to his sense of isolation. May forgot that if you aren’t going to kill, don’t wound: now, thanks to her lost majority, she can’t afford to put any of the Brexiteers out in the cold, and Johnson is once again where he wants to be: centre-stage. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.