Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 1 Sep 2021
A MATERNITY CAMPAIGNER has said a draft version of new guidance on Covid-19 maternity restrictions will “continue to separate pregnant people from their partners”.
The Journal last night reported details of the expected updated guidance on visitations to maternity units and hospitals. The guidance will be finalised and published later this week.
The new guidelines are expected to tell hospitals that partners do not need to leave during labour and childbirth if a pregnant person has been taken directly to a single-occupancy room.
Senior health sources say that the guidance will outline that controls on access for partners should be the minimum needed to prevent Covid-19 transmission.
Partners should be facilitated to accompany the pregnant person during admission and their initial assessment until they have been settled in an assigned bed.
Linda Kelly, who is part of the #BetterMaternityCare campaign, said she was “really disappointed” with the draft guidance.
Kelly was among those meeting with officials in the HSE today to discuss the restrictions.
“There was a very constructive engagement at our last meeting. We felt that they understood the issue, we felt there was a real willingness to find solutions – we don’t see any of that reflected in the document,” Kelly said.
“The main aspect of concern for us is that there is a continued policy of separating pregnant people and their partners during labour.”
She said there is “no credibility to any guidelines that continue to separate pregnant people from their partners, that’s the nuts and bolts of this”.
Dr Kyrsia Lynch, chair of the Association for Improvements in Maternity Services – Ireland (AIMS), said she felt “huge disappointment on several levels” about the draft guidance.
She criticised that “effectively, the restrictions are not being lifted”.
“The only slight change is that there is an emphasis on the partner going into maternity hospitals or units for initial assessment and potentially having to leave when they are moved,” Lynch told The Journal.
“For us, we would always advocated, as the national maternity strategy advocates, that care in maternity services is woman-centred or family-centred, and what this has shown us is that the plan has been designed around bed allocations.
It’s almost as if the people experiencing maternity services and the people making policies and drawing up restrictions are speaking two completely different languages.
Following today’s meeting, the HSE said it will carefully consider feedback from all stakeholders and update the guidance shortly.
“We remain committed to facilitating the maximum possible access for nominated support partners at all stages of the pregnancy pathway, where possible in the context of ensuring the safety of women and infants given that there is a high prevalence of Covid-19 in the community,” the health service added.
Lynch said the draft guidance drawn up before today’s consultation with advocates “indicates a system in which peoples’ experiences are not valued”.
“One of the things that worries me is that there is such focus on single-bed occupancy,” she said.
“This could create a situation where people availing of private care have a leg up on people not receiving private care.”
With private healthcare, pregnant women can usually stay in a single-occupancy room after their birth to recover if a room is available. This is generally not the case for public patients.
“We would like to see measures that can be applied irrespective of what occupancy status people find themselves in,” she said.
“We need solutions for multi-bed occupancy because that is what most people are going to be experiencing.
“We need solutions-focused responses that address everybody’s experience, not just people who find themselves in single-occupancy rooms.”
Advocates have always pushed for partners not to be considered as non-essential visitors, and Lynch said officials should work to create “all measures around the two people instead of just the one person carrying the baby”.
“There is still an opportunity to do that and we would urge the government to do that. Review these guidelines and see if something else can arise or if they can come up with something else.”
Draft guidance
If the pregnant person is going directly to a single patient occupancy room, sources say there should be no requirement for the partner to leave during labour and childbirth.
Single occupancy rooms should be provided if it’s expected that a labour or induction will be long, complex, or high-risk.
However, in multi-bed areas, it will still be considered necessary to limit a pregnant person’s partner to two one-hour visits per day.
When someone in labour is preparing to be transferred to the labour ward, the partner should be facilitated to accompany them.
Linda Kelly said many maternity hospitals don’t have a high volume of single-occupancy rooms and before and after labour, many would be in multi-bed rooms where restrictions remain.
“There’s nothing about single occupancy that will address anything to do with people being on their own in early labour, including induction,” Kelly said.
Social Democrats TD Holly Cairns has criticised having “no estimate for when restrictions at maternity hospitals are likely to be lifted” after a roadmap was outlined for the reopening of society.
“Maternity care should not be an afterthought, but that has been the consistent approach by this government. At every step, and every stage, women and pregnant people have been ignored,” Cairns said in a statement.
‘As open access as possible’
Last week, the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI) expressed concern about the implications of continued maternity restrictions on parents and the wider family during the Covid-19 pandemic.
There has been criticism in recent months of the different approaches taken by maternity hospitals, with some found not to be fully compliant with official guidance – having tighter restrictions on partner access during labour and at prenatal appointments.
Health Minister Stephen Donnelly said last night that the existing restrictions in maternity units and hospitals “really have very little to do with Covid”.
“What they have to do with is decades of under-investment in maternity care and women’s healthcare,” the minister said on Virgin Media Television’s The Tonight Show.
“It’s around diagnostic suites that are too small, it’s around multi-occupancy wards which women shouldn’t be in in this day and age.
“So we are dealing with Covid, but actually this government is making women’s healthcare, and I am making women’s healthcare, one of the pillars for healthcare in this government. We need massive investment.”
Speaking at a media briefing yesterday following the announcement of a further easing of Covid-19 restrictions, the Taoiseach said the government’s commitment is “to have as open access as possible” at maternity hospitals and units following months of ongoing restrictions.
“The HSE have developed new guidelines in respect of access for partners to maternity wards, and those will issue imminently from the Department of Health,” he said.
“Our intention is, and the commitment from the HSE, is to have as open access as possible.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I don’t understand the need for the phrase ‘pregnant people’. I would instinctively say ‘pregnant women’.
@sean o’dhubhghaill: does it impact you in any way? If using inclusive language prevents even one person from feeling hurt and not impact anyone else in the slightest, then what’s the problem?
@Cookie: what about women labouring alone? Oh wait “Cookie” you don’t actually care. You’re just here to spread your hatred, not to support and advocate for women in horrendous situations.
@: you keep using the word women here, you do realise that? By your own standards you’re being ‘exclusionary’, I mean it’s nonsense but at least try to be consistent.
@Colette: so did the article Collette, but there you are moaning about it
@Colette: that’s it Collette, stay off point railroading your hatred into the discussion. People see you for exactly what you are. Have a nice day.
@: that’s totally unfair. If caring for my own sex and the preservation of our safety, privacy and dignity is ‘hate’ then maybe you’re the one with the problem here not me. Best of luck with the rest of your pregnancy, I hope you are given the utmost care and respect in spite of everything.
@Colette: I won’t be given the utmost care, because whenever we campaign to get such care, people like you talk about “gender ideology” rather fighting along side us. Maybe you should help us, rather than fight an imaginary foe.
Doesn’t like labeling but then calls any female who doesnt agree with her (hope that pronoun is OK pet ;) ) a terf. Give your head a wobble as clearly you can’t see the wood for the trees.
@: The article has been updated to include the word ‘women’ – there was zero reference to ‘women’ in this morning’s article.
I guess the Journal wasn’t aware of how offensive the original was to so many women.
Linda Kelly cannot be trusted as an advocate for pregnant women if she is unable to identify our sex.
@Cookie: I read the article first thing this morning and it contained the word woman/women. Now you’re just lying. So what have you don’t to campaign on the issue of reproductive rights, other than change the topic?
@Elaine Phelan: grow up
@Aileen Lawlor: so do you believe that trans men are actually women? How about intersex people? Are they women? There are people who have uteruses who don’t fit with your narrow definition. People includes all of them, including your narrow definition of “women”. The term women, on the other hand, excludes others. Why is this so difficult to understand?
I am currently heavily pregnant with twins, I choose to do this by myself. Everywhere I turn titles and literature tell me I will be a single parent not mother, I constantly see information or paperwork with, father details here on it, or please tick married, unmarried no single option. At least let me keep pregnant woman, its upsetting enough. I don’t like the term pregnant person or want to be called it, this is my own personal opinion. I am not trans phobic and should not feel like I have to defend myself for wanting to be called a woman.
@Jenny Parkinson: totally agree Jenny, we weren’t consulted, unless every single woman agrees it should be left as is and we shouldn’t be accused of all sorts for asserting this.
@Jenny Parkinson: twins!!! Congratulations. Your Life is about to change dramatically, enjoy every minute of it.:)
@Jenny Parkinson: it’s awful that pregnant woman can’t request to be referred to as such without being accused of hating trans people. I am not a birthing parent, I’m a mother. I’m not a pregnant person, I’m a pregnant woman and I do not chest feed, I breastfeed. I have absolutely no issue with using these terms for people who prefer them but I wish I was offered the same respect in return. I fully recognise that trans women are women and trans men are men. I don’t see why not wanting my identity erased means that I’m transphobic or a terf especially as over 99% of pregnant people identify as women.
pregnant people!!!!!!
@Michael Creagh: Also known as ‘pregnant women’.
@Cookie: not anymore if a minuscule number of PC gone mad people get there way….
Amazing how many transphobic people are in the comments ignoring the genuine issue being highlighted to instead railroad their hate campaign instead.
You’re not feminists. You don’t care that I will likely give birth, doing most of my labour alone. You just want to manipulate language to exclude trans people. You don’t actually care about women, supporting women or advocating for women.
Agreed. I never understand this anger. If using inclusive language saves one person from feeling hurt and does not in any way impact anyone else, why the outrage?
@Elaine Phelan: how is it inclusive if it excludes the word women? Are pregnant women not allowed to feel hurt by our exclusion? What’s wrong with the term ‘pregnant women and people’? You may be ok with this forced language but your consent is not transferable.
@Colette: I’m a pregnant woman. I’m also a person. The use of the words “people” and “person” include me. Ergo, it is inclusive. You’d want to give your head a wobble if you don’t understand that.
@: You conveniently ignoring the women who do not want to be called ‘pregnant people’. Then again gender ideology doesn’t like women speaking on behalf of our biological sex.
Linda Kelly needs to explain why she refuses to use the term ‘pregnant women’.
What absolute convoluted nonsense.
@Cookie: Hey Cookie, read the article. They also use the term “women”. You lot aren’t the sharpest.
@Elaine Phelan: Yeah, I think it’s the “does not in any way impact anyone else” part that’s confusing you.
@: The article was updated 2 hours ago and only now refers to women.
The words ‘woman’ or ‘women’ were not include in the original.
@Cookie: They were, but keep lying “Cookie”
@: no they where not. You are the one that is lying.
No they weren’t stop embarrassing yourself.
@Nollaig Ó Ceallaigh: how does the term “people” impact anyone?
@Colette: it doesn’t exclude women though. Women are people too
This is beyond a joke, if you are going to open up general society which I’m all over why not lift the maternity restrictions, it just makes no sense. If the concern is really covid, angien test the partners
It’s very clear that there is a coordinated effort by transphobic social media accounts to erase the maternity issues being highlighted in the article by pretending there is an issue with the words “people” and “person”.
Do you really think you’re helping women by ignoring the fact that they’re labouring alone, getting the worst antinatal news alone and undergoing coercive medical tests alone and without advocacy?
You don’t care for women, you just hate trans people. You inability to discuss the topic at hand shows this.
@: This is not true.
There is clearly an issue with erasing the term ‘pregnant women’ in favour of ‘pregnant person’ and Linda Kelly made a deliberate choice to erase women to be ‘inclusive’.
How and when she came to that decision is a reasonable question. The tiny number of people who identify as men who get pregnant doesn’t justify erasing women as a sex class.
Very obvious, I agree. Absolutely coordinated.
They’re on the Texas Abortion Law too.
They don’t care that they’re deflecting from far greater issues as long as they get their transphobic digs in.
@Cookie: Yeah, you’re not fooling anyone.
@: why doesn’t inclusion extend to women, that very specific group that gets pregnant? If By requesting to refer to us explicitly we are transphobic therefore by neutralising the term are trans people gynophobic? If not why not? Also why are we not seeing equivalent changes to men’s health literature? As a self-identifying feminist maybe you should have a wee think about these things rather than regurgitate what you’re told.
@Colette: also maybe you could join the dots on the massive failings by the state connected to women’s healthcare more broadly – cervical cancer checks, symphysiotomies, abortion access and now this – what connects all of the ‘people’ affected do you think? Do they deserve to be named?
Women are being cancelled.
it must be an absolute nightmare for some women to have to go through the birth of their child alone without a partner present. The conversation between the patient and the doctor that they have to go through the experience alone is one that both don’t want to have. But the restrictions in place to limit the amount of time a partner can spend with them is to avoid a far worse conversation between all parties involved in the pregnancy. The I’m sorry but the child has contracted COVID-19 and they are fighting for their life. surely that is the ultimate nightmare, I know if it was my partner that was pregnant again, which of the conversations I’d want to be having.
@Gordon Larney: But in most cases the partner is living with the woman giving birth. I also don’t see why my partner, or anyone else’s for that matter, was less likely to contract or transmit covid when I was 2cm dilated or 4cm as is the metric for established labour. In my case I went unchecked and my partner was allowed in only 20 minutes before baby was born, I did the rest completely on my own, in a room by myself. There’s also a huge issue around women being forced to consent to unnecessary checks just to guage progress to enable their partners to be present. You’re then sent to a ward with 6 other new mammies who have also just had their partner with them, it really doesn’t make sense.
@Eileen Murph: I honestly think it’s all about a numbers and time game with the doctors and nurses in the maternity wards. They want the least amount of people, for the shortest amount of time in the wards and in contact with staff. I’m sure they think it will lesson the chances of staff and patients catching and spreading anything from partners. Ill be honest with you that some of it dosent make any aense to me either, but these restrictions have been put in place by our medical experts and im pretty sure that they have nothing but the best intrests of the parents and the new born children at hand. Congratulations on the birth of your child by the way, hope all is well.:)
@Gordon Larney: the minister for health admitted that the continued maternity restrictions have little to do with covid at this point. It’s not about safety
@Eileen Murph: completely agree. I also fell in the bathroom of my room and couldn’t reach the bell. Door to room closed, completely on my own & crippled in pain. Eventually got myself up. I was checked and 4cm at the time.
have your say