No toilet, no exceptions: One woman’s humiliating walk home while pregnant
- Replies 0
A heavily pregnant woman was left humiliated after wetting herself outside a grocery store.
She had begged staff to let her use their toilet—only to be told it was against policy.
Despite explaining her urgent need and visible discomfort, she was turned away.
Now, she’s asking if she was wrong to expect a little compassion.
The woman, who already had two children and was close to delivering her third, shared the story on parenting forum Mumsnet.
‘I’m imminently due with my third baby and have a massive bump,’ she wrote.
She explained that the incident happened after the school run, when she popped into her local grocer and found herself suddenly desperate to go.
‘As I was checking out, was desperate for the loo,’ she said.
She tried to explain to staff that her pelvic floor had suffered from her previous pregnancies and the baby had already dropped, increasing her urgency.
‘I was unlikely to make it the kilometre home in time, but the staff member said no, it was against policy,’ she recalled.
The woman claimed the shop wasn’t busy at the time, and there were no public toilets nearby.
Despite pleading her case, the employee refused to budge—so she left the shop, only to wet herself before reaching the front door.
‘It was completely humiliating to have to walk home like that, and it could have been avoided if a bit of kindness had been shown,’ she said.
She turned to the forum to ask whether she was being unreasonable in expecting the policy to be waived in her case.
‘Am I unreasonable for expecting some flexibility in branch policy?’ she asked.
But while some sympathised, most commenters supported the store’s decision to uphold its rules.
‘Insurance is the answer,’ one wrote. ‘They can’t allow members of the public into staff-restricted areas as insurance wouldn’t cover if you had an accident.’
Another said, ‘Lots of stores have this policy, I'm on water tablets and even have a card to confirm the urgency but I wouldn't expect them to bend the rules to me. Unfortunately, it would be best if you planned better.’
A third echoed, ‘Even if you have a toilet urgency card/disability most shops wouldn't allow you to use the staff toilet for insurance and liability purposes. This is standard everywhere.’
One user pointed out security concerns, writing, ‘Behind the door of the back area there is probably lots of stock, potentially staff personal belongings/bags, cash being counted in the office.’
Others noted that the staff member she spoke to likely didn’t have the authority to make an exception.
‘I’m sorry that happened to you, but remember that the person you asked is not the person who decides policy or has the authority to disregard it. They could have been fired if they'd let you use the loo and something happened,’ one user said.
‘Must have been awful, but I wouldn't criticise the shop for this,’ another added. ‘We should have more public toilets.’
Still, a few people showed empathy, with one mum saying: ‘Aww, that's really horrible, OP. I also feel like the shop staff are caught between two considerations there and could have gone either way, understandably. I think many people would have done the kind thing, and I'm sorry you had to go through that.
‘The world is a hard place these days with little trust for others (for good reason often), sadly the bad apples have spoilt the barrel for others.’
It’s not just toilet access causing discomfort—sometimes, even what’s inside the bathroom can leave people feeling exposed or judged.
From policies that lack compassion to features that unintentionally shame, real-life stories like these show how public facilities can miss the mark.
Here’s another example that’s sparking discussion for all the wrong reasons.
Read more: A public bathroom feature is under fire! Here’s why it could be harming women’s self-esteem!
When rules clash with human need, is there ever room for kindness?
She had begged staff to let her use their toilet—only to be told it was against policy.
Despite explaining her urgent need and visible discomfort, she was turned away.
Now, she’s asking if she was wrong to expect a little compassion.
The woman, who already had two children and was close to delivering her third, shared the story on parenting forum Mumsnet.
‘I’m imminently due with my third baby and have a massive bump,’ she wrote.
Pregnant woman denied toilet use sparks debate. Image source: Pexels/Daniel Reche
Disclaimer: This is a stock image used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual person, item, or event described.
Disclaimer: This is a stock image used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual person, item, or event described.
She explained that the incident happened after the school run, when she popped into her local grocer and found herself suddenly desperate to go.
‘As I was checking out, was desperate for the loo,’ she said.
She tried to explain to staff that her pelvic floor had suffered from her previous pregnancies and the baby had already dropped, increasing her urgency.
‘I was unlikely to make it the kilometre home in time, but the staff member said no, it was against policy,’ she recalled.
The woman claimed the shop wasn’t busy at the time, and there were no public toilets nearby.
Despite pleading her case, the employee refused to budge—so she left the shop, only to wet herself before reaching the front door.
‘It was completely humiliating to have to walk home like that, and it could have been avoided if a bit of kindness had been shown,’ she said.
She turned to the forum to ask whether she was being unreasonable in expecting the policy to be waived in her case.
‘Am I unreasonable for expecting some flexibility in branch policy?’ she asked.
But while some sympathised, most commenters supported the store’s decision to uphold its rules.
‘Insurance is the answer,’ one wrote. ‘They can’t allow members of the public into staff-restricted areas as insurance wouldn’t cover if you had an accident.’
Another said, ‘Lots of stores have this policy, I'm on water tablets and even have a card to confirm the urgency but I wouldn't expect them to bend the rules to me. Unfortunately, it would be best if you planned better.’
A third echoed, ‘Even if you have a toilet urgency card/disability most shops wouldn't allow you to use the staff toilet for insurance and liability purposes. This is standard everywhere.’
One user pointed out security concerns, writing, ‘Behind the door of the back area there is probably lots of stock, potentially staff personal belongings/bags, cash being counted in the office.’
Others noted that the staff member she spoke to likely didn’t have the authority to make an exception.
‘I’m sorry that happened to you, but remember that the person you asked is not the person who decides policy or has the authority to disregard it. They could have been fired if they'd let you use the loo and something happened,’ one user said.
‘Must have been awful, but I wouldn't criticise the shop for this,’ another added. ‘We should have more public toilets.’
Still, a few people showed empathy, with one mum saying: ‘Aww, that's really horrible, OP. I also feel like the shop staff are caught between two considerations there and could have gone either way, understandably. I think many people would have done the kind thing, and I'm sorry you had to go through that.
‘The world is a hard place these days with little trust for others (for good reason often), sadly the bad apples have spoilt the barrel for others.’
It’s not just toilet access causing discomfort—sometimes, even what’s inside the bathroom can leave people feeling exposed or judged.
From policies that lack compassion to features that unintentionally shame, real-life stories like these show how public facilities can miss the mark.
Here’s another example that’s sparking discussion for all the wrong reasons.
Read more: A public bathroom feature is under fire! Here’s why it could be harming women’s self-esteem!
When rules clash with human need, is there ever room for kindness?
