On the third day of being in labour with my first child, I entered a new state of being. It was time to dig deep. This is what I had learned in all the childbirth classes. As long as I remained calm, breathed as instructed, moaned through the pain, things would happen as they were meant to. My body knew what it was doing. Only, it didn’t.
On the fourth day, I started to beg. This wasn’t right. Despite contraction after relentless contraction, I wasn’t dilating. I hadn’t slept, I couldn’t even sit down. I needed help. And still, they waited. For what, I never understood.
When Yvette Cooper told the Guardian this week that women must not “feel pressurised” to have “an ideal birth experience”, it was a relief to hear her name this all-too-common phenomenon in which maternity staff are reluctant – or refusing – to escalate. But Cooper’s characterisation of the problem is not the full picture. The harm here is not just in women being nudged towards a certain kind of birth experience, but in a culture that can completely override women’s physical and psychological safety in favour of a low-intervention ideal.
Half of Britain’s maternal deaths are considered preventable, and low-intervention births are the ideal for a reason. Midwife-led care usually results in better outcomes for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies – lower risk of infection and severe bleeds, and quicker recovery. In 2024-25, 45% of all hospital deliveries in England (542,235 total births) were performed via caesarean section – it was the first time C-sections outnumbered unassisted natural vaginal births. (Another 11% needed extra support through instruments such as forceps.) There is a natural, and warranted, cautiousness about the over-medicalisation of birth, which can lead to avoidable complications, and leave women who would prefer a natural birth feeling pressured to take a different route. But we can’t ignore that there are also structural forces at play here: lower intervention also translates to lower cost for an overstretched, under-resourced system. One midwife told me explicitly that they would have admitted me to the labour ward earlier if there had been a bed.
Read more:USWNT defender Emily Sonnett stretchered off in Gotham FC draw with Portland Thorns
Of course most first-time mothers would choose the lowest possible intervention if they could. I had hoped to float blissfully in a birthing pool under the soft glow of fairy lights. But when it comes to the messy, unpredictable, dangerous act of bringing new life into the world, the concept of choice can quickly be revealed as a fallacy. By day five of my labour, I was not thinking about my birth plan. I was not thinking about very much at all. My only focus was survival.
The demographic of people giving birth today looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. The average age of a mother in England and Wales is now 31, a figure that has been creeping up since records began. There is something deeply flawed about a system that pushes quite so strongly for low-intervention births despite the fact that mothers over 30 are more likely to require a higher level of medical involvement. Almost half of UK women aged 30-39 have caesareans, and for those over 40, it is now the most common way to give birth. Yet the narrative of an “ideal birth” persists, leaving women who end up needing more help wondering where they went wrong. Maternity practices must reflect this reality, or risk perpetuating a cycle that leaves women at risk and then pushes the blame back on to them.
After the best part of a week, I was eventually wheeled down for an emergency C-section. Even then, it wasn’t the desperate pleas from my husband and me that finally spurred action, it was the fact that my baby started showing signs of distress. The doctors who greeted us displayed clear consternation that I had been left in that state for so long, a factor that probably played a part in my child developing an irregular heartbeat. The ideal birth narrative – that low-intervention, midwife-led care is always best – has hardened into institutional bias, amid a system in which women’s choices about their medical care are too often sidelined.
Read more:Metabolic syndrome: Cardio and strength training may best reduce risk
In one of her first acts as health secretary, Cooper said she intends to reintroduce binding national maternity standards. They will include ending the postcode lottery for levels of care, and tackling racial inequalities that have meant worse outcomes for poorer and for black and Asian women. Her promises sound reassuring, but we have heard similar things before. What’s needed is a fundamental cultural shift so that women’s voices are treated as clinical evidence, not background noise.
There is a deep-rooted disconnect in NHS maternity units. Between the needs of patients and the people treating them, and between different parts of the system itself. When midwife-led care and obstetric intervention are positioned in opposition, rather than as complementary approaches, escalation can be perceived as failure instead of necessary care. And in that gap, women at their most vulnerable have their pain minimised and their instincts questioned, sometimes to the point that risk becomes life-threatening.
Read more:Gianni Infantino calls emergency FIFA staff meeting as pressure grows – report
Trauma is a brutal introduction to motherhood, and one that is all too common. For me and thousands of other mothers, our births could have gone so differently if we had only been heard. My ideal birth is not defined by candlelight or calm breathing. It is one where I am listened to, believed and responded to in time. One that both my baby and I survive at any cost.
