The National Maternity Crisis and the Untapped Potential of International Human Rights Law
The National Maternity Crisis
Childbirth is a profound time for many women, which can be highly empowering. Yet, for the one in three women in the United Kingdom who describe their birth as traumatic, and the approximately 5% who develop post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their experience, this is far from the case. Despite wealth and health advancements, women in the UK continue to experience vast differences in terms of access, experience and outcome under NHS maternity care.
Over the last few years, the UK government has begun to take greater notice of maternity harms, and a number of independent national and regional reports have been published, detailing thousands of stories of harm experienced by women in NHS maternity wards.
You may have heard of some of these reports. The Ockenden Review (2022) detailed 1592 clinical incidents in Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust, of which nine maternal and 201 neonatal deaths were declared avoidable, had the Trust fulfilled nationally recognised standards of care.
Similarly, the Kirkup Inquiry (2022) investigated East Kent NHS Trust and found that of the 202 cases reviewed, 46.9% involving maternal morbidity and mortality could have had a different outcome.
The Nottingham University Inquiry, which has just been released in June 2026, revealed that over 500 mothers and babies suffered avoidable harms, and many serious harms were known to the Trust as far back as 2010. These regional reports sit alongside national inquiries, which cite similar harms, such as the Birth Trauma Report (2024) and the Independent National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation (2026).
These reports all point to reoccurring issues: women not being listened to, staff feeling isolated and under-supported and accountability measures lacking.
‘Obstetric Violence’
It is encouraging to see the interest that the government is taking in investigating this much needed area. However, a major flaw of these findings is the failure to label these as examples of ‘obstetric violence’.
Originating in Latin America, the concept of obstetric violence: violence against women during childbirth, committed by healthcare professionals, and a violation of human rights, is a rapidly evolving area of global academic investigation. By contrast, the UK continues to mislabel (and ultimately misunderstand) these harms within their reports, minimising them to examples of a ‘lack of kindness’, or isolating these issues to examples of poorly performing professionals or Trusts. Their failure to correctly label these harms hampers meaningful reform.
Using the terminology of ‘obstetric violence’ has a number of important benefits. Alongside more accurately denoting the severity of the harms experienced, ‘obstetric violence’ has been recognised across a number of international legal bodies such as the Inter-American Human Rights system and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women as conduct which violates numerous human rights, including the right to personal integrity, privacy, freedom from torture and freedom from discrimination. Likewise, a number of UN entities recognise obstetric violence as part of a broader continuum of gender-based discrimination and stereotypes. This explains how acts of violence committed in maternity wards become normalised, or even are considered as justified, because they uphold traditional understandings of what makes a good mother or good woman. It also helps direct interventions towards the root causes of harm, rather than their potential symptoms.
The UK government is responsible for ensuring our access to the full spectrum of human rights. Under human rights law this demands both negative action (refraining from harming us) and positive action (ensuring that there is sufficient infrastructure for our needs to be met). Thus, the label of obstetric violence is also tactical, providing us with a stronger foundation to demand meaningful and effective governmental action in order to fulfil their obligations under international human rights law. Importantly, this lens also allows us to move away from blaming healthcare professionals, who are very often working harm under immensely difficult conditions. Solutions to these harms will require more than simply asking healthcare professionals to ‘be kinder’.
Human rights violations exist in the UK, and they are closer than you think. Many of these issues are systemically embedded into the NHS and require more than simply asking for greater compassion or focusing on individually poorly performing Trusts. Resolving the National Maternity Crisis requires far deeper work. International Human Rights Law could provide the infrastructure to do this in a way which benefits all.
Frances Hand is a DPhil candidate and Assistant Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Oxford. Her recent speaking engagements include the Mexican Supreme Court, Royal College of Obstetrics and the General Medical Council. She is a BBC New Generation Thinker 2026, underlining the impact of her ideas in both the academic sphere and for the wider public. Frances welcomes connections with those working in government, policy, law, healthcare or advocacy who align with her interests in sparking national reform.
