Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Antenatal Care: Vasa Praevia Screening

Tuesday 11 February 2025 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 0 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Connor Naismith asked a question regarding a constituent's experience with vasa praevia during childbirth.
  • The minister expressed sympathy for the constituent's experience and highlighted the importance of safe, personalised, and compassionate maternity care.
  • The minister mentioned that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been asked to review the guidance on the condition.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Connor Naismith Lab Crewe and Nantwich
NHS
Context

The constituent Cate Maddison suffered from severe vasa praevia during childbirth, which can cause significant bleeding and complications for both the mother and infant. She is campaigning to reduce unnecessary deaths and complications arising from this condition.

Question

My constituent Cate Maddison suffered with severe vasa praevia in childbirth. This condition causes severe bleeding and can often result in the death of infants during childbirth and complications for the mother. However, the risks are significantly reduced when identified during pregnancy. Thankfully, Cate’s child survived, but she is campaigning to reduce unnecessary complications and deaths arising from the condition. Will the Minister meet me and Cate to discuss how we can tackle this important issue?

Answer from The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)

I am incredibly sorry to hear about Cate’s experience. We want to ensure that women receive safe, personalised and compassionate maternity care and that women with the condition are supported. That is why we have asked the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to look at the guidance. I will of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)