
Bobbi was denied access to an Aboriginal midwifery program in her last pregnancy – and nearly lost her life
After a life-threatening three-day labour, Bobbi Lockyer woke up alone in a single room in the intensive care unit of a Perth hospital with an IV drip in her arm. She had lost five litres of blood and had been rushed to intensive care for an emergency hysterectomy. Her new baby had been discharged while she was unconscious into the care of her now ex-partner.
'I woke up alone and thought something had happened to my baby,' she says. 'I was distraught.'
With three children already, Lockyer thought she was well prepared for the joys and the challenges of a newborn. But during the birth of her fourth child, now eight years old, she experienced a medical emergency. 'While I was pushing, I literally remember telling them, 'Something isn't right, something's going wrong,'' she says. 'I birthed my baby, and then immediately started haemorrhaging and was rushed into theatre.'
The Ngarluma, Kariyarra, Nyulnyul and Yawuru woman says her unease grew throughout her pregnancy. She was moved to another hospital due to zoning changes and was denied access to the Aboriginal midwifery program after being marked as 'high risk', despite repeatedly testing negative for gestational diabetes and her young age. The test is usually only required once between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy. Lockyer says she believes she was tested repeatedly because she was Indigenous.
'They said to me I had to do it again and again because there was no way that I would have passed because I was Indigenous and overweight by their standards,' she says. She says it felt like doctors had 'ticked the box to say, 'You're Aboriginal, so you're high risk.' It's racist and it's traumatic.'
She felt pressed to accept an induction and epidural, driven by warnings about her baby's and her own health. Her uterus tore, triggered by too much synthetic oxytocin during her medically induced long labour.
'I was rushed into surgery and woke up in ICU several hours later,' she says. They told me my uterus had torn and I'd never have children again.'
The experience stood in stark contrast to the birth of her three older children, all born at Perth's King Edward Memorial hospital, Western Australia's major maternity hospital, grounded and loved through culture and family. 'Our family – our sisters, our aunties and mum, are very important part of that birthing process. When you're denied access to that – it's incredibly hard.'
Lockyer is one of more than a dozen First Nations women who spoke to Guardian Australia as part of an investigation into alleged racism and discrimination in mainstream maternity services. Aboriginal mothers, midwives and clinicians claim they've witnessed or experienced racial profiling, lack of consent, inadequate care or culturally unsafe treatment – failures they say can erode trust in the healthcare system, contributing to trauma, poor outcomes and long-term fear of seeking care.
Lockyer says she 'basically couldn't move' during a painful post-birth recovery and three-week hospital stay.
'I had a scar from my navel down to my vagina and that took six months to heal,' she says.
Lockyer says the hospital gave her no psychological support, even after her mother requested counselling on her behalf.
'They said they don't offer anything until six weeks postpartum. I remember just laying there in the hospital crying. I'm holding my newborn. I'm supposed to be celebrating this new life, but I'm mourning the loss of my body.'
She says despite a complaint to the hospital, she received no apology, no follow-up or meeting to discuss her concerns. 'We just felt extremely dismissed. Nothing came of it. Nothing.'
Asked by Guardian Australia about Lockyer's allegations, the WA Department of Health said it 'can't comment on individual patients' but it was 'committed to improving culturally safe and respectful care for Aboriginal women and families'. It said it provided 'a number of culturally tailored maternity programs' to support Indigenous women through pregnancy, and worked with Aboriginal health practitioners, liaison officers and midwives 'to help women feel safe and supported'.
'The Department continues to work with Aboriginal communities and health partners to build trust and ensure care is culturally safe, trauma-informed, and responsive to the needs of Aboriginal women and families,' it says.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers are up to three times more likely to die during childbirth than other mothers who give birth in Australia. Their babies are more likely to be born preterm, stillborn or die suddenly.
A birth trauma inquiry by the New South Wales parliament in 2024 heard harrowing testimony of women receiving poor care, including feeling disrespected or coerced, or experiencing unwanted or unnecessary intervention, and a lack of culturally appropriate care.
Dr Marilyn Clarke has worked in obstetrics and gynaecology for more than 20 years. The Worimi woman now works at Coffs Harbour hospital on NSW's mid-north coast.
'The mainstream system is not always a culturally safe space for Aboriginal women, particularly in the maternity spaces [with] the effects of colonisation and effects of racism in the care,' Clarke says.
'I've seen it in action, it still happens. They [non-Indigenous doctors] just don't see it because they're not seeing it through the lens of an Aboriginal person.'
Cultural safety training is slowly increasing awareness among junior doctors and staff but Clarke says it needs to be embedded at all levels.
Sign up to Five Great Reads
Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning
after newsletter promotion
'There is definitely an assumption sometimes that [Aboriginal women are] bad mothers, just because of their race,' she says. 'Racial profiling happens big time.'
She says Indigenous women have been flagged for review for child protection services just because they were Indigenous and were therefore considered high risk for intervention, or had experienced a lack of care stemming from unconscious biases.
'Complications might be starting to develop, like infection,' she says. 'Picking up signs and symptoms early, getting antibiotics started … It comes down to engagement with services early but also receiving good care.'
A 2019 study of 344 Indigenous women living in urban, regional and remote areas of South Australia found more than half felt they had been discriminated against or received unfair treatment by hospitals or health services during pregnancy and soon after childbirth.
The same study found Aboriginal mothers who experienced discrimination in perinatal care were more likely to have a baby with a low birthweight, even after adjusting for other causes.
Mikayla*, a midwife from the Torres Strait, has spent the last five years in hospitals and clinics based in Cairns, Brisbane and Thursday Island supporting women through pregnancy and postpartum care. She says she witnessed multiple cases where consent was bypassed or ignored – especially for Indigenous women who spoke English as a second or third language.
'One midwife just grabbed a woman's breast without consent and shoved it into the baby's mouth. No tenderness, no care,' she says. 'I had to step in and say something.'
She has also seen midwives perform vaginal examinations without asking.
'I asked one woman, 'Is it OK for them to be doing this to you?' and she said no. I told the midwife, 'Even if she doesn't speak English well, at least try to ask for consent.''
Mikayla says she knew of women who were left so traumatised by receiving episiotomies (an incision to widen the birth canal) without proper explanation that they feared having more children. 'They feel stripped of their dignity, their self-determination, their right to a decision they didn't give permission for.'
A spokesperson for Queensland Health told Guardian Australia it did not tolerate racism, discrimination or unsafe care. It would not comment on specific cases but all complaints were thoroughly investigated.
Queensland is funding 17 First Nations maternity models of care in state-run and Indigenous community-controlled health organisations, the spokesperson said, as well as programs for more First Nations maternity staff, culturally safe care and wrap-around services. They said consultation was under way to 'understand how First Nations people would feel safer in raising concerns about their own health or that of a loved one whilst in hospital'.
Lockyer says she still felt 'ripped of those first moments' with her son and now feels anxious when accessing health services.
'That trauma is always there. I get really anxious for them, and I just hope that they're receiving the right care.'
* Name has been changed
In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. The Indigenous crisis hotline is 13 YARN, 13 92 76
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Trump to force NHS to pay for wonder drugs
NHS patients have been given new hope of accessing wonder drugs previously blocked in Britain as Donald Trump pressures the health service to spend more with US suppliers. Ministers are understood to be reviewing the value-for-money rules that govern which drugs the NHS can buy, amid demands from the Trump administration for the UK to be more welcoming to US pharmaceutical companies. Under the trade agreement signed between the two nations earlier this year, the Government agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the UK'. Earlier this week, The Telegraph revealed that this could result in the NHS paying more for US drugs to see off criticism of the differences in medicine prices between the two nations. However, it is understood that discussions include not only paying more for treatments already supplied on the NHS but also making it easier for US drug giants to sell their most cutting-edge treatments to the health service. It follows a wave of high-profile rejections of so-called 'wonder' drugs in recent years. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (Nice), which approves new NHS drugs for purchase, has blocked treatments including one which stopped the progression of Alzheimer's disease and another that doubled the life expectancy for terminal breast cancer patients. Nice has rejected them based on assessments of how long they would extend a patient's lifespan and improve quality of life. To qualify under Nice rules a new treatment must deliver one extra year of perfect health, or longer for less perfect health, for no more than £30,000. This figure has not increased in line with inflation since 1999. If it had, it would be just over £53,000. Nice has maintained that, to get approval for use on the NHS, medicines 'must not only provide benefits to patients but also represent a good use of NHS resources and taxpayers' money'. However, critics say a failure to raise the threshold in-line with inflation meant life-changing drugs were being blocked. Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: 'There is growing evidence that it is becoming harder to bring new medicines to NHS patients. Increasingly, some new medicines may not be launched in the UK at all.' Companies including US giant Eli Lilly have said the regulator must rethink how 'value-for-money' is assessed. On Monday, a spokesman for the company said: 'The UK has historically focused on medicines as a cost to the NHS rather than evaluating their social and economic value.' Ministers are understood to be listening to demands from the industry for Nice to shake up its formula, with medicines such as AstraZeneca's breast cancer treatment Enhertu likely to be resubmitted for approval for NHS use if the formula is updated. Nice and AstraZeneca previously failed to reach an agreement over a price for the drug, which costs an estimated £118,000 per course of treatment. The NHS typically gets discounts, although the level is commercially sensitive. The Nice formula is being discussed after President Trump took a personal interest in the NHS issue. In trade documents between the US and UK, it said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that sees companies pay revenue back to the NHS if costs rise faster than expected. Drug companies paid £3bn back to the NHS last year. In April, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he was proud that the UK had kept prices of medicines low. However, he admitted that the UK had become too focused on cost rather than the benefits in some cases. Mr Streeting said: 'We've moved from quite rightly trying to drive a good bargain on the price of drugs and treatment to a position where sometimes people view medicine spend as a dead weight cost'.


The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
MPs have personal beliefs, but also solemn duties: that's why they must reject the assisted dying bill this week
As MPs prepare for the final decisive votes this Friday on one of the most consequential laws of our generation, an act that could determine a person's right to live or die, they should take time to consider the fundamental flaws in the bill that have been exposed during the debates of recent months. For it has become clear that whatever views people hold on the principle, passing the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill into law would privilege the legal right to assisted dying without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death. I understand the often-cited case for assisted dying – that we should not deny terminally ill people the freedom to choose. But there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish. Every year, more than 600,000 people die in the UK. It is estimated that between 75% and 90% of them should have the benefit of palliative care, and that 100,000 terminally ill people do not receive the palliative care that they need. The charity Cecily Saunders International estimates that demand for this type of care is expected to rise by 42% by 2040. Access to such care is perhaps the country's worst and least defensible 'postcode lottery', a person's fate depending on whether there is hospice help nearby and whether places or home care are available. Delaying legislating until the recommendations of the recent commission on end-of-life care – drawn up by MPs, doctors and charities, who propose guaranteeing new rights to and resources for those seeking palliative support – are incorporated into our NHS would begin to end the imbalance between the right to assistance in dying over the right of the dying to assistance in living. For at one and the same time, the bill removes the need for final judicial approval for legalised dying, while it contains no equivalent measures to make it easier for hard-pressed hospices to obtain the resources that would guarantee high-quality care. In fact, in polling carried out in November last year by Focaldata for the campaign group Care not Killing, a big majority – 66% – of respondents agreed that 'the government should sort out palliative and social care first before considering legalising assisted suicide'. Better end-of-life care is surely the priority. Last year Hospice UK, which represents more than 200 hospices, said that one in five were warning of cuts to services, and this year the position seems worse. Just last month, for example, the Kirkwood hospice in Huddersfield announced it has been forced to cut its beds from 16 to 12, as well as reducing home support, with the result it will serve 800 fewer patients each year. This is now a pattern – from St Giles in Lichfield, St Catherine's in Crawley, to Birmingham Hospice and Hospiscare in Exeter. Late last year, Hospice UK estimated that 300 beds in England are out of use because of insufficient funding. And with integrated care boards required to manage their expenditure within funding constraints set nationally, only about 60% of NHS hospitals provide seven-day on-site specialist palliative care, and only a third of localities have out-of-hours access. We don't yet know whether, and for whom, the government will be prepared to cover 100% of the costs of assisted dying. What we do know, however, is that, on average, a hospice patient is publicly funded for barely a third of his or her costs. And so MPs are being asked to pass a bill in the full knowledge that, whenever it is implemented, the services available to all those who would prefer assisted living to assisted dying are inadequate. 'The lack of a cohesive national strategy for effective palliative care delivery has resulted in fragmentation of specialist palliative care services,' said the recently published commission on end-of-life care, 'with inequity of provision, confusion over who takes responsibility for each patient, and lack of advice and support to the public and to staff in all services.' If the bill were to go through, anyone who was terminally ill might be faced with a dilemma: they could exercise the right to apply to die under the legislation by referring to two doctors and an expert panel, but they might continue to find it difficult to exercise their right to access quality end-of-life care. While I could apply directly to the proposed new panel to enforce my right to die, the process if denied quality palliative care is difficult and complex. I would first have to file a complaint with the healthcare provider – for example to the patient advice and liaison service for hospitals, or a localised complaint process for primary care. Once this process was exhausted, I would then have to ask my MP to make an application to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman (PHSO), whose website says that the current waiting time is seven months – and that would be before a caseworker was assigned, which also takes months, delaying still further the time before what should be an urgent judgment could be made. I understand the pressure on MPs from those who are in desperate pain, and who want relief that is not currently available to them. But as the palliative and end-of-life care commission's recently published report tells us, pain relief is becoming possible for almost every terminal illness and the government should make it a medical imperative to ensure this will continue to improve. I also understand that MPs will be advised by many that the sum of their responsibilities is the avoidance of unnecessary harm. But irrespective of whether you see life as a gift, and notwithstanding any religious convictions or the lack of them, an MP's personal preferences cannot be separated off from the duties they have as members of a community to ensure that the way we treat the dying reflects the values of a decent, compassionate country. That should mean upholding the role of the medical professions as care-givers, and exclusively care-givers; avoiding the possibility of private profiteering by legal-medical consortiums which might well commercialise assisted dying as a lucrative business; safeguarding vulnerable people about whose fate the royal medical colleges have all expressed concern; preventing unacceptable coercive pressures that can be brought to bear on disabled people, and those who are incapacitated or mentally stressed; and thus showing that as a society we value life above death. These concerns can be best addressed by speedily implementing the report of the end-of-life care commission. For none of our obligations to each other are well served if our laws focus on the few who wish for assisted dying and do too little to support the majority of those facing their final days who want – and deserve – access to the best of palliative care. Gordon Brown was UK prime minister from 2007 to 2010


Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
My patient died in a cubicle behind a curtain while surrounded by the drunken and drug-fuelled. This is what you must do to stop it happening to you: PROFESSOR ROB GALLOWAY
Working in A&E, I see the best of care but also the worst – and that's not necessarily the NHS 's fault. A few weeks ago I was looking after an 89-year-old gentleman who received care that utterly failed him – devastating for him and his loved ones, and for us as clinicians. Yet it was entirely preventable. It's a lesson for all of us.