Kate Lawler, 45, reveals battle with secret health condition that left her 'in the worst pain of her life' before being rushed to hospital in Greece
Kate Lawler has revealed her battle with a secret health condition that left in 'the worst pain of her life.'
The Big Brother star, 45, has shared in a new interview how she battled debilitating stomach pain, and was eventually rushed to hospital in Greece, before being reassured by doctors that 'everything was fine.'
Kate told The Sun On Sunday that it took rounds of tests and several misdiagnoses back in the UK before doctors finally discovered she had pelvic congestion syndrome, a little-known condition caused by hidden varicose veins around the ovaries and womb.
She revealed: 'It was a sharp, stabbing pain that would last from 10 seconds to several hours.
'Then we were on holiday in 2018 and I thought I had a serious hernia or something was wrong with me, to the point that I went to hospital.
'But doctors thought I was just going mad. They just said, 'You're fine,' and left it at that. I was made to believe it was simply caused by my hormones, or ovulation.'
Kate, who shares daughter Noa, four, with husband Martin Bojtos, added that she visited her GP twice, and was instead told it could be a hernia or endometriosis, and even a visit to a private gynaecologist failed to provide answers.
She went onto reveal that it was during a chance conversation at a routine appointment for her varicose veins in August 2022 that she discovered she had PCS.
The condition is most common in women aged 20 to 45 who have given birth more than once, as well as those with varicose veins, a family history of them, or polycystic ovary syndrome.
Patients can experience dull or heavy pain in their pelvis, and it can feel worse at worse at the end of the day, before or during your period, or during or after sex.
While many Brits have never heard of PCS, it affects around 1.5million people in the UK, and Kate said that a visit to The Whiteley Clinic helped her get tested for the condition.
The reality star added that varicose veins have run in her family, and they and PCS are 'often interlinked.'
Treatment for PCS is typically pelvic vein embolisation - a procedure which involves placing tiny coils inside the damaged veins under X-ray guidance, and Kate said the procedure has changed her life.
The star said the procedure was 'uncomfortable but not painful,' and called for doctors to have more awareness of PCS.
WHAT IS PELVIC CONGESTION SYNDROME?
Pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) leads to chronic pain in the pelvis, which is thought to be caused by problems with the veins in that area.
Such vein problems may cause blood to build up, making them enlarge and change shape, like varicose veins.
Pregnancy and childbirth may trigger PCS, however, its exact cause is unclear.
PCS' patients' pain may be worse during sex, after standing for a long time and when walking.
Other symptoms may include discomfort during periods, a sudden need to urinate and enlarged veins on the buttocks, genitals or thighs.
Treatment may involve drugs to relieve pain or block ovarian function.
Surgery can removed damaged veins. A hysterectomy may also be required.
It comes after Kate revealed she has 'broken the law' as she ended up locked in a dispute with her neighbour.
The Big Brother winner took to Instagram to share that she had got herself into 'trouble' with her neighbour after painting the back of their shed.
Kate revealed that her gardener had painted it because because she didn't like the colour of it, but her neighbour was furious she had done so without permission and the TV personality later discovered it was in fact illegal, and considered trespassing.
She quickly took to social media to explain her predicament and sparked a nationwide debate as some agreed with her that they wouldn't care, while others were horrified that she had painted someone else's property.
'Why do I always get myself in these situations?' Kate wrote. 'I'm in trouble with my neighbour for painting the back of their shed a different colour. Won't be doing it again as in hindsight I know I should have asked first, but I didn't think it would be a big deal given that they can't see it?
'It has made me wonder though… Would you be annoyed if you discovered the back of your shed (which you couldn't see) had been painted by the neighbour whose garden backed on to yours?
'Have you had a similar fall out with your neighbour? Basically, am I an a***hole and should I buy them flowers and a box of milk tray to apologise?'
The next day Kate again took to social media to reveal she had since discovered it was illegal.
'I've just found out I've broken the law,' she began. 'Um... I found out that me painting someone's shed is actually illegal. I can't believe I didn't know this. Genuinely I did not know that me leaning over the end of my garden, sorry not me my gardener, that him leaning over the end of our garden and into somebody's else's garden and painting the back of their shed is trespassing.
'Um... so I'm sorry if that offends you and I'm sorry to my neighbour because I didn't know that what I was doing was illegal and I also, genuinely, I just didn't think someone would mind me painting the back of their shed which they couldn't see and I know that a lot of you would.
'And that's what's so interesting about this debate because it has sparked a nationwide debate.'
She continued; 'Half the people in the comments of my last video wouldn't care either. I genuinely wouldn't care if somebody paint. In fact if you want to paint the back of my shed go for it, it just wouldn't bother me.
'We're all different, we're all human beings, none of us are the same. Some of you would care, some of you wouldn't. That was the question I was asking more. I'm not asking if what I did was wrong. I know what I've done was wrong, I know it was illegal, now, I didn't know it at the time otherwise I wouldn't have done it but I'll never do it again.
'So don't be like me. Don't paint the back of somebody's shed without asking first because it is illegal, it is trespassing. And what a debate! It is quite fascinating. Anyway... I'll leave it there.'
Kate also captioned her video: 'WARNING! Do not lean into your neighbours garden and paint the back of their shed / fence or anything as it's actually illegal. It's considered trespassing or vandalism, which I genuinely didn't realise I at the time.
'So like I suggested in my previous video, I'm going to buy them a sorry present and apologise. Sorry if I offended you in my actions too.
'Just remember what Albert Einstein once said…. The man who never made any mistakes never made anything x.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
24 minutes ago
- Times
Students ‘will spend 25 years on their mobiles'
Students are set to spend 25 years of their life glued to smartphones, a survey of phone use in education predicts. The average person in school, college or university spends five hours and 30 minutes a day on their mobile — and could clock up 25 years of screen time if their habits don't change. For the 4 per cent of students who spend nine hours or more on the phone every day, that rises to 41 years on the device. The research was conducted over the first five months of this year by Fluid Focus, which aims to help people manage their screen time. Its figures are based on a waking day of 16 hours and 72 years of smartphone use from age 11 to 83.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed
I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Martine Croxall has just struck a dazzling blow for common sense
A rebellion can take many forms. Sometimes it's an uprising in the streets. Sometimes it's a ballot-box revolt against the status quo. And sometimes – as BBC newsreader Martine Croxall has brilliantly shown – it's just a droll, one-word aside. Croxall struck a dazzling blow for common sense this week by daring to say the unsayable, by giving voice to a word that's become bizarrely verboten in certain circles. What blasphemous term did she utter? Women. It was during an item on the heatwave. Croxall was talking about new research on the number of heat-related deaths Britain might see as the temperature rises. She read the following from her autocue: 'Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, said the aged, pregnant people…'. Then she stopped. Pregnant people? What in the politically correct hell is this? She mutinied against her teleprompter and told the truth. 'WOMEN', she said, with excellent exasperation. Then she carried on. The elderly, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions 'need to take precautions' in the heat, she said. Post-truth baloney put in its place by a woman who's clearly had enough – you love to see it. 'Pregnant people' is one of those Newspeak phrases that is said to be 'trans-inclusive' but which in truth just erases women. The idea is that if we say 'pregnant people', we won't offend that infinitesimally small chunk of womankind that identifies as male. That 'pregnant people' is offensive to many women – not to mention to science and reason – seems not to matter. Let's be honest – 'pregnant people' is a lunatic term. Every single human being who has ever fallen pregnant has been a woman. They can call themselves Tom, Dick or Harry if they like and ask their woke pals to refer to them as 'he'. But they're women, and it isn't offensive to say so. Other 'trans-inclusive' terms include 'chest-feeding' (what we used to call breastfeeding) and 'birthing bodies' – or 'WOMEN!', as Croxall might say, with that righteous irritation shared by many of us. The memory-holing of the word 'woman' to appease the trans lobby is an outrage. It adds up to a sexist scrubbing from the public record of half of humankind. This is why Croxall's quiet vexation and gentle eye-roll as she said the W-word has chimed with so many: because we are sick of seeing the rights of women and the very language of womanhood be sacrificed at the altar of a dumb and dangerous fad. 'I have a new favourite BBC presenter', said JK Rowling. Same, Joanne. Croxall's rage against the autocue, her one-woman, one-word insurrection against correct-think, was as refreshing as a breeze in this heatwave. Some are now worried the BBC might haul her in for a telling-off. They wouldn't dare. Millions of decent folk will seethe if the public broadcaster even thinks about rapping a woman's knuckles for telling the truth.
