Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Could you imagine if this happened here in the US?

Hospital bed shortage shuts 4,000 pregnant British women out of maternity wards
Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 %, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20% in some areas…
‘It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown’s tripling of spending on the NHS.
‘Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds and by shutting down maternity units.’…
The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more.
However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the Government’s blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters.

Answer Question

Asked by grlygrlz2 at 11:26 PM on Aug. 26, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
Answers (21)
  • grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 11:27 PM on Aug. 26, 2009

  • More moms who are low risk would be having their babies at home :-)

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:30 PM on Aug. 26, 2009

  • It's never been great. I was born in the UK and my mother had to go 26 miles to the hospital. Back then you also stayed in the hospital for a week too; she got home in 5 days after my sister was born but that took some string pulling. I'm not sure how long it is now but I believe it's still longer than the US.

    Answer by RhondaVeggie at 11:34 PM on Aug. 26, 2009

  • That the govt actually recognixed the worth of midwives, and was actively recruiting them? And the govt was willing to spend money on midwives? I think it would be great.

    I am not being facitious, I am not sure of the origin of what your question is. The lack of hospital beds is deplorable, but that can happen in the US just as easily.

    Answer by LiliM at 11:41 PM on Aug. 26, 2009

  • The woman who died on the ER floor last year while wating to be seen comes to mind.

    Answer by LiliM at 11:44 PM on Aug. 26, 2009

  • They will probably have to shorten the hospital stays, as they did in the US. I was home less than 48 hours after I had my baby, I believe that is the standard length of time.

    Answer by stacymomof2 at 11:53 PM on Aug. 26, 2009

  • That really doesn't bother me. Low-risk women have no reason being in a hospital and taking up space that's meant for people who are sick or having a serious emergency in need of immediate medical attention.

    Answer by MamaSueCongdon at 11:56 PM on Aug. 26, 2009

  • Reminds me of the Gov military hospital I went to. I had an NST all beds were taken I had to do an NST in an uncomfortable chair! Then they told me they were going to induce me. I had to wait in the NST room hooked to monitors 6 hours, before a bed became available. I was in a room with 2 other women. A woman next to the chair I was sitting in was in FULL BLOWN labor! She was screaming and her water broke all in my line of vision. So I am not looking forward to more Government care.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:57 AM on Aug. 27, 2009

  • Low risk women should just have babies at home- MY ASS. I WAS low risk... or so they thought. I or the baby, or both of us would have died at home due to unforeseen problems. Let's get real for a minute people.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:26 AM on Aug. 27, 2009

  • Most UHC countries are imploding because of it. Thats why private ins is on the rise in Canada. Its unsustainable.

    Answer by Carpy at 5:15 AM on Aug. 27, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.