Why do Women Sue?

Statistics published by the National Health Service Litigation Authority relating to ten years of maternity claims provoke a sharp intake of breath. The total value of these claims over the first decade of the 21st century was £3,117,649,888 (NHS Litigation Authority 2012). The United Kingdom is not the only country to witness an astronomical increase in the level of litigation relating to maternity services. As far afield as Saudi Arabia (Henary et al 2012) and the United States (Berkowitz 2011), reports are being published of the demands on maternity budgets as a result of dissatisfaction with care received during pregnancy, labour and birth. The papers referenced above attribute adverse outcomes to negligence, misdiagnosis, surgical blunders and inefficient administration. Berkowitz(2011:7) suggests that what is needed is wholesale and whole-hearted adoption of ‘…electronic fetal monitoring [EFM] certification for all staff working on their Labor and Delivery floor, protocols for managing common clinical scenarios, simulation drills for dealing with uncommon dangerous events, and pre-procedure checklists’. The NHS Litigation Authority (2012:5) recommends that Trusts ‘…engage with the risk management process at all levels; provide suitable learning and training; ensure appropriate supervision and support; have in place up-to-date protocols and guidance with which staff are familiar; learn lessons from claims’. It is relatively easy to ensure that staff are sent on fetal heart rate (FHR) training days (although whether use of EFM produces better outcomes has, of course, never been clearly demonstrated (Alfirevic et al 2013) and that protocols for managing events during labour and birth are drawn up and even put into practice. It’s uncertain, however, whether doing so will make the problem of maternity litigation go away. There is something ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’ that is fuelling women’s dissatisfaction and which ‘the system’ has not been able to get its head round.

Markets, Depots and Sales Tables: The Women's Institute's Rural Retailing

In 1917 the Coventry Evening Telegraph noted that the problems of ‘surplus garden produce’ had arisen and that ‘smallholders were being encouraged to group together in order to bring their supplies in quantity to market. Women’s Institutes have been formed, and these arrange for the opening of a market for a certain number of hours one day a week’. WIs, which had begun being formed under the auspices of the Agricultural Organisation Society from 1915 could be seen to be one of the earliest examples of Farmers Markets. These rural women were to improve the food supply in wartime when there was a food crisis; shortages, queues, price rises and in 1918 the introduction of rationing. The WIs encouraged food saving and preservation their markets enabled small holders, cottage gardeners and allotment holders to find a financial non- exploitive outlet for their produce. Markets and retail outlets developed in a number of towns or even cities in rural areas: Worcester, Leamington Spa and Lichfield and in post-war Britain depot trading centres were set up in some county towns Maidstone in Kent in 1919, Winchester in 1920. Between them they provided rural women with a retail space initially for their garden produce and then in time for the preserves, baking and craftwork. Jam, cakes, toys, knitted toys and garments even a wedding trousseau were ordered or sold through these retail outlets. The Markets were not restricted to WI members and often sold work produced by small­holders, the disabled and ex-servicemen. Membership required buying at least one share; as they were a co-operative venture there was a limit on the number of shares it was possible to purchase. Sales tables at some monthly WI meeting provided yet another retail outlet for rural women. This paper will explore the significance of these retail opportunities to rural women: as a chance to earn much needed cash, in placing a value on domestic labour and as an indication that when looking at rural women’s lives, in first half of the twentieth century, divisions between being consumers and producers of food and domestic products may be more fluid than it is something assumed.