Maternity Policy and a Generation of Anxiety and Fear

  • Julia Lidderdale
  • Kathryn Gutteridge


This chapter examines how fear influences both parents and the strain it puts on life and relationships. How do external agencies influence policies and guidance so that women’s experiences shape future strategy and policy? What can support groups and peer collectives offer that maternity services do not? What is it that women want from service provision and what does it look like so that women experience less anxiety and worry? What do some services do well that others can learn from? How do women access information outside of traditional maternity settings and how does this match expectation? This chapter discusses how women are prepared for their childbearing life and then go back to work or stay at home in a new role.


Maternity policy Risk influence Support groups 


  1. Anaesthetists, The Royal College of Midwives, The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (2007) Safer childbirth: minimum standards for the organisation and delivery of care in labour. RCOG Press, London.
  2. Beech B (2009) Midwifery - running down the drain. AIMS J 21(3):3–5Google Scholar
  3. Beier LM (2004) Expertise and control: childbearing in three twentieth century working-class Lancashire communities. Bull Hist Med 78:379–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bragg R (2008) Maternal deaths and vulnerable migrants, vol 371. Accessed 16 Mar 2019
  5. Brocklehurst P, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) et al (2011) Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011:343. (Published 25 November 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell R, MacFarlane A (1994) Where to be born? The debate and the evidence, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC (1989) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Chester TE (1956) The Guillebaud report. Public Adm 34(2):199–210. Scholar
  9. Cochrane A (1971) Effectiveness and efficiency. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Coxon K, Chisholm A, Malouf R, Rowe R, Hollowell J (2017) What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a ‘best fit’ framework approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17:103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtis S (2005) Midwives and their role in the reduction of direct obstetric deaths during the late nineteenth century: the Sundsvall region of Sweden (1860–1890). Med Hist 49:321–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis A (2011) A revolution in maternity care? Women and the maternity services, Oxfordshire c. 1948–1974. Soc Hist Med 24(2011):389–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis A (2013) Wartime women giving birth: narratives of pregnancy and childbirth Britain C 1939-1960. In: Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences journal. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Health and Social Security (1970) Domiciliary midwifery and maternity bed needs (Peel report). HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dick-Read G (1942) Childbirth without fear. William Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Donnison J (1988) Midwives and medical men. A history of the struggle for the control of childbirth, 2nd edn. Historical Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Dwork D (1987) War is good for babies and other young children, Tavistock, London, 1987. vi + 307 pp. J Soc Policy 16:582–584. Scholar
  18. Equal Opportunities Council (EOC) (2005) Britain’s hidden brain drain – final report. Equal Opportunity Commission, Manchester. Accessed Mar 2019
  19. Expert Maternity Group (1993) Changing childbirth: the report of the expert maternity group. HMSO, London (Cumberlege report.)Google Scholar
  20. Fomon S (2001) Infant feeding in the twentieth century: formula and beikost. J Nutr 131(2):409S–420SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greer FR, Apple RD (1991) Physicians, formula companies, and advertising. A historical perspective. Am J Dis Child 145:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heagerty B, Kirkham M, Perkins E (1997) Willing handmaidens of science? The struggle over the new midwife in early twentieth-century England reflections on midwifery. Baillière Tindall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hope E (1917) Report on the physical welfare of mothers and children 1917, vol 1. The Carnegie United Kingdom Trust Curtis, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  24. House of Commons (1992) Second report: maternity services (Winterton report). HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Joint publication of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, The Royal College of Midwives, The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (2007) Safer childbirth: minimum standards for the organisation and delivery of care in labour Issued October 2007Google Scholar
  26. Leap N, Hunter B (1993) The midwife’s tale: an oral history from handywoman to professional midwife 1993. Scarlet Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis G (2007) The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer—2003–2005. The seventh report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom. CEMACH, London. Scholar
  28. Maternity Alliance (2018) What price safe motherhood? Charging for NHS maternity care in England and its impact on migrant women. Accessed 16 Mar 2019
  29. McIntosh T (2012) A social history of maternity and childbirth: key themes in maternity care. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. McKeown TF (1976) The role of medicine-dream, mirage or nemesis? Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller A (2009) Midwife to myself’: birth narratives among women choosing unassisted home birth. Sociol Inq 79(1):51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ministry of Health (1959) Report of the maternity services committee (Chairman: Lord Cranbrook). HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland). Judgment date. 11 Mar 2015. Neutral citation number. [2015] UKSC 11. Case IDGoogle Scholar
  34. National Childbirth Trust (2011) NCT policy briefing: choice of place of birthGoogle Scholar
  35. NHS England (2016) Better Birth. Improving outcomes of maternity services in England. Accessed Mar 2019
  36. Nursing and Midwifery Coucil (2013) Freebirthing. Accessed 24 Feb 2015
  37. Oakley A (1984) The captured womb: a history of the medical care of pregnant women. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (2008) Standards for maternity care. Report of a working party. RCOG Press, London.
  39. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (2015) Each baby counts. Accessed Mar 2019
  40. Savage W (2011) Birth and power: a savage enquiry revisited. LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Schiller R (2013) Your no guilt pregnancy plan: a revolutionary guide to pregnancy, birth and the weeks that follow. Penguin, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  42. Searles H (1967) ‘The dedicated physician’ in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. In: Gibson RW (ed) Cross currents in psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 128–143Google Scholar
  43. Stoll K, Fairbrother N, Carty E, Jordan N, Miceli C, Vostrcil Y et al (2009) It’s all the rage these days. University students’ attitudes toward vaginal and cesarean birth. Birth 36(2):133–140. Scholar
  44. Tew M (1980) Is home a safer place? Health Soc Serv J 89:702–705Google Scholar
  45. Tew M (1981) Effect of scientific obstetrics on perinatal mortality. Health Soc Serv J 91:444–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tew M (1995) Safer childbirth? A critical history of maternity care. LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Therese H, Garthus-Niegel S, Adams SS, Vangen S, Eberhard-Gran M (2015) Fear of childbirth and elective caesarean section: a population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 221:2–10. Scholar
  48. Thomas J, Paranjothy S (2001) Royal College of obstetricians and gynaecologists clinical effectiveness support unit. National sentinel caesarean section audit report. RCOG PressGoogle Scholar
  49. Walton I, Hamilton M (1995) Midwives and changing childbirth: Edinburgh & elsewhere: Books for MidwivesGoogle Scholar
  50. WHO (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2:436–437Google Scholar
  51. Williams AS (1997) Women and childbirth in the twentieth century. Sutton Publishing Limited, BodminGoogle Scholar
  52. Winterton N (1992) House of commons health committee, second report, maternity services, vol 1. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolf J (2011) Is breast best? taking on the breastfeeding experts and the new high stakes of motherhood. NYU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Lidderdale
    • 1
  • Kathryn Gutteridge
    • 2
  1. 1.Maternity Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS TrustSurreyUK
  2. 2.Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations