ABOARD AIRFORCE ONE (AP) — President Donald Trump on Sunday night said he has “no problem” with a Russian oil tanker off the coast of Cuba delivering relief to the island, which has been brought to its knees by a U.S. oil blockade.

“We have a tanker out there. We don’t mind having somebody get a boatload because they need… they have to survive,” Trump told reporters as he flew back to Washington.

When asked if a New York Times report that the tanker would be allowed to reach Cuba was true, Trump said: “I told them, if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem whether it’s Russia or not.”

On Monday, Russia’s Transport Ministry said the oil tanker Anatoly Kolodkin arrived at the Cuban port of Matanzas carrying “humanitarian supplies” of about 730,000 barrels of oil.

Trump, whose government has come at its Caribbean adversary more aggressively than any U.S. government in recent history, has effectively cut Cuba off from key oil shipments in an effort to force regime change. The blockade has had devastating effects on the civilians Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio say they want to help, leaving many desperate.

Island-wide blackouts have roiled Cubans already grappling with years of crisis, and lack of gasoline and basic resources has crippled hospital and slashed public transport.

Experts say the anticipated shipment could produce about 180,000 barrels of diesel, enough to feed Cuba’s daily demand for nine or 10 days.

Island-wide blackouts have roiled Cubans already grappling with years of crisis, and lack of gasoline and basic resources has crippled hospital and slashed public transport.

Childbirth is often framed as a choice between two extremes: “natural” birth or medical intervention. The real challenge is making sure women can decide how they give birth, without pressure in either direction.

Debates about childbirth often focus on pressure to accept medical interventions in hospital, such as caesareans or forceps delivery. But recent NHS maternity inquiries suggest some women feel pressure in the opposite direction. They describe being discouraged from medical assistance even when they believed it would be safer, or better for them.

One healthcare professional giving evidence in the 2022 Ockenden Review, which examined preventable deaths and injuries affecting mothers and babies between 2000 and 2019, described a culture in which avoiding caesarean sections had become a source of institutional pride:

They were always very proud of their low caesarean rates … I personally found all the failed or attempted instrumental deliveries very difficult to deal with. I had never seen so many injuries … or resuscitations … Nothing to be proud of.

Evidence presented to a House of Commons inquiry into the safety of maternity services similarly found that “hundreds of women felt pressure to have a normal birth”, without medical assistance.

During my doctoral research examining childbirth narratives across several major UK maternity inquiries, I analysed thousands of women’s birth stories submitted to public investigations. Some accounts describe women who felt discouraged from receiving medical assistance even when they would have preferred it.

The natural birth movement – which emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction against the increasing medicalisation of childbirth – advocates for minimal pain medication, midwife-led care, and avoiding caesarean sections and instrumental deliveries where possible. It was designed to encourage women to reclaim control of their bodies from a medical establishment that had, in many cases, taken that control away.

While the movement acted as an important counterweight against routinised, unnecessary interventions, that same cultural force has, in some settings, created its own pressure – one where accepting medical help feels like a failure.

When legal rights meet clinical reality

One of the most influential cases in modern medical law addressed this issue of informed choice during childbirth. In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health NHS Trust (2015), the doctor did not warn the patient about the risks of vaginal delivery because they believed “it was not in the maternal interests for women to have caesarean sections”.

The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning. Instead, it emphasised that patients must receive clear information about risks and alternatives so they can make their own decisions about treatment.

Current Nice guidelines reinforce this principle. They stress that maternity care should support women’s choices during birth and caution against allowing personal opinions to influence the interventions that are offered.

The UK government also recently abandoned the World Health Organization recommendation that caesarean births should not exceed 20% nationally, after concerns that rigid targets were pressuring NHS Trusts to prioritise statistics over safety.

Despite these safeguards, institutional practices can still shape the choices that women feel able to make.

How pressure can shape birth decisions

Some women say these pressures reflect wider cultural narratives about childbirth. In recent years, messages celebrating “natural”, “empowered” or “positive” birth have become increasingly visible in antenatal classes, books and online communities. While these approaches are often intended to build confidence and support informed choice, some women say they can also create an environment in which accepting medical help feels like a failure, or where women worry they may be judged for being “too posh to push”.

These narratives don’t just circulate in parenting spaces or social media. They are also seen in how hospitals – intentionally or unintentionally – present different birth options to expectant parents.

This can feel particularly significant because it comes from institutions that women expect to trust. It shows how legal protections don’t always translate into everyday clinical practice.

À lire aussi :
Why labour decision-making shouldn’t start in the delivery room

In some cases this influence appears in the language hospitals use to describe different birth options. Recently archived material from one hospital promoted non-medicated birth approaches by stating that “treatments are usually non-invasive and rarely cause the unpleasant or long-lasting side effects that can be associated with medication”.

Language like this is often intended to reassure patients. But it can also shape how different options are perceived, particularly when the potential drawbacks of medical interventions are emphasised more strongly than their benefits.

In other cases, the pressures are structural. Some maternity units are organised in ways that make it difficult to move quickly between midwife-led and obstetric wards. Women have described having to walk between departments while in pain and sometimes partially undressed. Situations like this illustrate how problems can arise not from individual professionals, but from how hospital systems are designed.

Finally, recent research by Birthrights, a UK charity that campaigns to protect women’s rights during pregnancy and childbirth, highlights institutional barriers to maternal request for caesarean sections. The organisation found that 113 NHS Trusts do not fully align with Nice guidance. Some policies delayed decisions until 36 weeks of pregnancy, creating uncertainty for expectant mothers.

Pressure to avoid medical intervention should be taken as seriously as pressure to undergo it. Although more than half of first-time mothers experience some form of obstetric intervention, many report feeling ashamed when this occurs.

This matters because some research has linked birth-related shame with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts among mothers, associated with an expressed sense of failure to birth “normally”. When hospital policies create additional barriers to accessing care, they may reinforce these feelings.

À lire aussi :
Maternal death rates in the UK have increased to levels not seen for almost 20 years – experts explain why

Why the term ‘obstetric violence’ matters

Around the world there is growing recognition of the concept of “obstetric violence”, a term used to describe systemic harms that women may experience during childbirth. The concept highlights how these harms often arise not from malicious individuals but from institutional cultures, clinical norms and wider social expectations about motherhood.

Much of the global discussion about obstetric violence has focused on the dangers of overmedicalisation. However, similar pressures can arise when women feel discouraged from accepting medical interventions. In both situations, expectations about the “ideal” self-sacrificing mother can shape how decisions about birth are framed.

In the UK, the term “obstetric violence” is rarely used in policy or public discussion. This reluctance matters. Without language that clearly names systemic harm, it becomes harder to recognise patterns, challenge institutional norms and push for meaningful change.

Many women have positive experiences of both natural and medically assisted birth, and most maternity professionals work hard to support women’s choices. What matters most is that decisions about birth are based on balanced discussions of risks and benefits.

Recognising how pressure can operate in both directions is essential if maternity care is to genuinely support women’s autonomy during childbirth.

Essano, situated on Manchester Road, was rated zero following an inspection on October 14 last year.

However, after a more recent visit in March, the business has raised its score to a three.

The takeaway offers a range of fast food, including burgers, pizzas, kebabs, and fried chicken, which it describes as “freshly made, expertly packed, and ready for pickup or fast delivery.”

Food hygiene ratings are designed to reflect the standards found at the time of inspection.

They assess several key areas, including how food is handled, stored, and prepared, the cleanliness and condition of facilities, and how food safety is managed overall.

During inspections, officers evaluate how hygienically food is handled, the physical state of the premises, and whether appropriate food safety systems are in place.

Where serious risks are identified, authorities have the power to partially or fully close a business until improvements are made.

A rating of three indicates that a business is generally satisfactory and meets the minimum legal requirements for food safety and hygiene.

The latest rating shows a significant improvement for the Manchester Road takeaway since its previous inspection.

Good Morning Britain presenters Kate Garraway and Paul Brand spoke to the Minister for the Environment, Emma Reynolds, on Monday’s show.

Good Morning Britain viewers were left less than impressed with Kate Garraway and Paul Brand during Monday’s show.

The duo sparked backlash after challenging the Minister for the Environment, Emma Reynolds, about fuel supply concerns.

Kate, stepping in for ITV’s Susanna Reid while she’s on break, challenged the minister and was often seen interrupting and speaking over her, a move she also acknowledged.

At one point during the interview, Kate noted that Slovenia has become the first country in Europe to ration fuel.

She remarked, “Newsreaders now wearing jackets because they didn’t want to have the air conditioning on, it feels like it’s coming. What’s the government really, practically doing or can do?”

Emma remarked: “Some parts of the world are more exposed to the supply issues from the Middle East-” However, Kate could be heard shouting over her, adding: “But, why is Slovenia more exposed than we are?”

While the minister tried to continue speaking, the ITV host was heard cutting in once again mid-sentence.

Kate commented: “Sorry to keep interrupting you, but I just want to press you on this. It’s one thing to say they shouldn’t feel that, but none of us wants to feel that on our Easter holidays, but is it coming? Will they have to?”

At another point, Paul also apologised to the minister for interrupting her as she spoke about concerns about fuel demand.

It wasn’t long before people watching commented on their discussion, with some turning off due to how Kate and Paul spoke to the minister. One person said, “What a terrible interview. If I were a minister, I would refuse to come on the show.”

Advertisement

Someone else added: “She’d get to the point if you didn’t keep interrupting all the bl**dy time, so annoying.” Another viewer replied: “It was an appalling interview, wasn’t it? Made me turn off.”

One person shared: “Does Kate let anyone else speak? What’s the point in asking a question and not letting the person answer it?”

Another added: “Dreadful interview, appalling.” While someone else shared: “They are being rude to her.”

Good Morning Britain is available to watch on ITV weekdays from 6am.