I wouldn't say this 'seems pretty crazy' at all. Just like any service, there are certain capacity limits. At least the NHS provides care to all mothers and not just those with cash in hand.

"Baby factory?" Really? Babies come when they come and it has little to do with convenience for the mother or the hospital/clinic. This seems more like a symptom of overpopulation than a new way to fuck with women, and I'm always on the lookout. This happened to me and it wasn't a huge deal. I live in a relatively small city with two hospitals and my insurance only covers one of them. My midwife wasn't worried so neither was I. Did the UK maternity wards just send them home with a wave and a "good luck"? Is this an issue of poor accessibility or is it overpopulation and pervasiveness of abstinence only education?

I think more details are needed before judging if it is a problem.

If they are turning away emergency cases, then it seems like a problem.

If they are every once and a while referring non-emergency cases to nearby facilities and have an established and efficient system for doing so, then it seems less concerning.

This actually happened to me a little over 16 years ago. I went into labor and we went to St. Luke's (NYC)where we were supposed to give birth and waited for about 3 hours. Then the hospital personnel told me they would have to send me to their sister hospital (Roosevelt) because they were out of beds. I was still able to have my doctor attend my delivery. For whatever reason, St. Luke's had a record number of births that day.

I'm due in a few weeks, and my ob's office has the hospital they deliver at normally and a back-up hospital, too. They warned us that there's no way to guarantee a bed, so if the first one is full, we go to the second one. I'm hoping that's the case because the alternative is MUCH nicer!

"'When this does happen, it is often only for a few hours and to ensure mother and baby can receive the best care possible.'

"Okay, but can't a few hours be critical in some cases?"

I ngot the impression that this is *why* they divert women and girls in labor.

If every bed/birthing pool/etc. in one's first-choice facility already has another patient in it during those critical few hours, then would she rather spend those hours in the waiting room of her first-choice facility or in a bed/birthing pool/etc. of another nearby facility?

It certainly happens. This is what a Swedish (Stockholm) central agency for health care writes on their web site:
"Can I give birth where I want to?
Generally it's your pick, but it's possible your ward is full when it's your time. Every maternity ward in Stockholm has a coordinator that keeps in contact with other wards in the district and will arrange a place for you."

Obviously it's not something that surprises them when it happens.

Y'all need a new stock photo for pregnant ladies. I've seen this one a million times. :)

(I know, really NOT IMPORTANT. But for some reason it bugs me...)

adminassistant: we don't have abstinence-only sex education.
It is however pretty patchy; some kids don't get any sex education at all, and what there is focuses on the mechanics, ignoring the emotional aspects of sex. So while we do at least accept that some teenagers are going to have sex, and therefore it's better if they use contraception, a lot of teenagers are still clueless.
And the Daily Mail will tell you most of the UK births are immigrants and teenage single mums ;-) - the NHS is suffering due to chronic underfunding, but hey, as someone said, at least we have a free health service!

I second Betsy's comment about the pictures. It bugs me because it is of headless pregnant women. The photo on the linked article is also a headless pregnant woman... Can't a pic of a pregnant woman be more than just her protruding stomach?

This is public health spending. Every penny they spend on making pregnancy comfortable and convenient is a penny not spent saving lives.

jessicapenn,

I'd assume they selected a small photo with printed versions of the article in mind, to displays the relevant part of the anatomy large enough to be easily recognizable without the picture taking up too much space. (Cf. a picture of a bicep-flexing arm in articles about workouts, for instance.)

This is public health spending. Every penny they spend on making pregnancy comfortable and convenient is a penny not spent saving lives.

I don't know. To me that sentence seems to be guilting women for wanting reasonable care by playing the 'other people are more important' card. I don't think midwives would be running around treating blunt trauma cases if they weren't held up by all the mothers in early labor. Putting more beds in a labor ward does not necessarily take beds away from the ER. Specious argument.

The UK health system is overburdened in general, though. "Reasonable care" in an overburdened system is not, "You like it," but rather, "You survive it." Since mortal danger is not the norm for pregnancies, other people are more important.

Putting more beds in a labor ward does not necessarily take beds away from the ER.

Probably not, but adding personnel will take away personnel from other areas. I don't know the details of the UK health system's logistics, but "beds" are very rarely the problem. In America, the particular shortage is nurses, and to a lesser extent general practitioners and surgeons.

The article only references "capacity" problems, which could mean beds or staff.

Or both, even.

This happens in the US of A, too. I am planning on going into obstetrics as a specialty. Many areas of this country have no prenatal care or delivering physicians, or other health care practitioners that can deliver babies, for that matter. And women in these communities are not sent to a nearby facility, and when they are, their birth is not necessarily paid for.

Here is one example:

http://www.gatewayva.com/biz/virginiabusiness/magazine/yr2004/nov04/hospitals.shtml

Oh, and I should have mentioned that this happened when I was with a transfer patient at a hospital in Miami on a busy night when I was training as a midwife.

We were not turned away, but others who showed up after us were. And, we had to wait several hours for a cesarean. Luckily, it was a non-emergency section.

If the NHS is having problem creating big enough maternity wards (and god knows "big enough" is tough to judge; the maternity ward in my city will occasionally be empty, and sometimes it's overflowing, with women labouring on cots in recovery rooms), then they should be promoting home birth!

It's exponentially cheaper and, for low-risk mothers with trained midwives or a willing doctor, just as safe. Your own home is never too "full" to give you a bed!

I don't think this is anything against women or shooing them away saying "go home" as much as the ward just being full at the time you go into labor because its not a sheduled thing. you cant tell the doctor "okay, I'll be in labor on this day" and them go "okay, I have you writen down, you get a bed"

Looking at the other comments from mothers who have experianced this from all over the world, it seems to be in a "as need" situation. If a woman needs emergancy care, shes sent somewhere she can get it. If she is doing well and there are no beds, she can opt to another hospital with a bed, or wait for one. My mother when she had me, the ward was full, and she was waiting out in the waiting room. I guess I decided not to wait and she had me right there in the waiting room. doctor rushed in the door right as I was born to catch me(lucky he did, I had the ambilical cord around my neck and had strangled myself getting out. they were able to revive me)

All this talk makes me wonder about my own birth. would they have known I was strangling myself if she had been in a room with the kind of equiptment they could use to tell this kind of thing? probably not back in 1978 when I was born. but I'm guessing ultra sounds could pick that up now? maybe? ultra-sound picked up the exact shape of my heart surely it could see that a baby was in need.

anyway, my point derailed to this I guess. you can't predict what is going to happen or when it is going to happen so I'm going to side with it being a mater of trying to get women the care they need, when they need it and if they are busy that day, they go somewhere that isnt so they can have care and not have babies in the waiting room....

About 2% of UK women give birth at home, but in a joint statement the colleges of OB/GYNs and midwives estimated that 8-10% would do so if fully informed about this option. That could do a lot to alleviate overcrowding. It also reduces costs (because the rate of tech interventions is lower) and is associated with equivalent outcomes and greater patient satisfaction.

I also think home birth should be more utilized in the USA. We all know health care costs are skyrocketing and we frankly do not have a good record for infant & maternal health. I can't figure out why we won't embrace an opportunity to get better outcomes at lower costs -- it seems win-win to me. (That's why I'm studying this issue as my master's thesis.)

right now in japan there is a huge doctor shortage. i could be wrong but i think a few women have passed away because they werent able to find a hospital that would admit them. i dont about the situation with midwives. i wonder if they exsist here... must do more research.

"Many areas of this country have no prenatal care or delivering physicians, or other health care practitioners that can deliver babies, for that matter. And women in these communities are not sent to a nearby facility, "

Bleah. I can understand not having a lot of options stay open in a large area with a very low population, but there should be good transportation available for prenatal care, childbirth, etc. (whether getting the pregnant woman or girl to the healthcare facility she chooses or getting the healthcare provider she chooses to her home).

I don't think this is aimed at harming women, no more than not having massive redundancy in Accident and Emergency departments is aimed at harming victims of large car crashes. It's a balance of efficient use of limited money/staff/space with an unpredictable intake.

Given that over half the hospitals need to divert patients elsewhere less than once a year, and it seems that when they ahve to do this they have established systems to deal with this exception from the normal running of the departent they seem to be running the system with a large amount of redundnacy already. Certinally much more redundancy than Accident and Emergency departments which very regulary have to send patients (who are often in much more imminent danger) elsewhere.

Of course you could add an extra bed to every maternity ward, but although I'm not an expert on hospital costs I suspect that will be a LOT of money that could help many many more people in more dire situations. You'd save far more womens lives by spending that money on an extra ER/A&E bed than on a contignecy Maternity ward bed.

This happened to my sister-in-law here in the UK. The hospital was full and they tried to make her leave, but there was nowhere else for her to go and she refused. So they left her on her own in a bath tub.

On the flip side, a maternity ward can only effectively manage a set number of patients. There are only so many operating rooms, doctors, nurses, and anesthesiologists.

Would it be better if women WEREN'T diverted to other hospitals when their hospital was full and then substandard care was given because no operating room was available when one was needed, or the nurses were unresponsive because their patient load was too high?

Either way, it makes for a great "OMG, socialized medicine sucks!" kneejerk article, but on closer examination, it might not hold up.

"Your own home is never too 'full' to give you a bed!"

Unless you household sleeps in shifts, I guess...

Re: headless pregnant women --

I looked for some free stock photos and the vast majority of them are either headless or have a partner kissing the belly, hugging it, etc. So here's one with just a pregnant woman and she's not beheaded.

I can't believe how man people just read an article and fall hook line and sinker for the oldest trick in the book about scaring people away from universal healthcare. Good thing the commenters here didn't fall for it.

Fact is the UK has a lower infant mortality rate than the US, and no nation without universal care beats the US in this regard.

Maternity wards are boom/bust. Staffing levels at boom would be a waste of resources, IMO.

At least they're referring to other facilities in the UK, and the services are covered by National Health.

In my hometown, the "charity" hospital . . . the only place that uncovered/Medicaid patients are accepted . . . the L&D ward "manages" boom/bust by dropping Pitocin on EVERY SINGLE WOMAN who shows up in labor. I kid you not. The doctors want births to happen during their normal shifts. I only know about this barbaric practice because I have family members who are nurses there. And no, sadly my family members are NOT outraged by it.

I agree that the issue in the UK is that we don't fund birthing centres (midwife led, low intervention, low tech centres for natural birth) or encourage home births. These are much cheaper options and all the stats seemt o show they are much safer for mother and baby. I am pregnant and have begun thinking of birth in midwife led care but there are no birth centres available. I am constantly told by healthcare proffessionals that home births are high risk but all the evidence I read says the opposite. However, all the people I know who gave birth in hospital had a brilliant experience and no fucking bill to pay at the end of it all simply because she was born with a uterus!
I love the welfare state!