Miscarriage bereavement leave -a sensitive well thought proposal or would there be unintended consequences

[mids2019]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9k12w5j54o

This is extremely sensitive but I wonder if this well meaning proposal would become a reality in the workplace. I think in terms of employment the application of the rules may result in a scrutiny that would be potentially intrusive.

For example how would you prove to your employer you were pregnant?

Would the period of gestation count towards the leave given?

Would a father of the unborn child be entitled to similar leave to grieve and support their partner?

I think in the whole this is compassionate and a good stride forward but I do wonder about its practical uptake.

I don't know maybe the current system works and employer discretion and indeed relationship with the employee is the main thing not primary legislation which could end up very messy to implement.

Cynically maybe this is a diversion tactic from the governments current woes.

I agree with you. This needs to be thought through. Just because it sounds like gov are centering women (for once - suspicious isn't it?) doesn't mean it really is. I am VERY cynical about this.

Unintended consequences: legal rights for a foetus over a woman. Women treated like glass vases that need to be kept at home. Employers not wanting to employ women. Mental health of women declining because they're at home instead of being forced to get on with work (a possibility - as sometimes work and not given the option to not work - CAN help - research needed?)

It already is disproportionate. If you have a stillbirth you can take the 2 weeks and then go on maternity leave for months and months. If you lose a child, you get the 2 weeks then have to go on sick leave if you need any more time which surely most people do.

My workplace already gives this as sick leave but it doesn't count towards absence targets because on our system it's recorded as pregnancy other and anything pregnancy related doesn't count. There's also no fixed time limit at there isn't with any absence. I've just had someone off for 3 months after an ectopic following a miscarriage six months earlier. You can imagine the impact on her mental as well as physical health.

@user101101 this proposal covers partners too not just the woman who was pregnant.

New Zealand has miscarriage bereavement leave and legalises abortion

Partners can get sick leave too.

New Zealand doesn't even know what a woman is.

@user101101 but does that count as pregnancy related sick leave, which is treated differently to other sick leave?

No, in the UK they are investigated after 3 because the NHS is critically underfunded, there isn’t enough money, and waiting lists are long. Don’t translate this to mean that it’s because it’s common it’s not important, or expected. It’s because the NHS doesn’t have any money.

Most other countries investigate after 2 because they recognise that while miscarriage is common, it’s a medical event that needs investigating if there’s any pattern. It doesn’t mean that they don’t see the first miscarriage as having a medical reason though. It’s still not just bad luck.

I think most people would define “early” as a miscarriage before 12 weeks.

So you're 11+5 and you have to crack on but 12+2 and you're legitimately allowed to grieve.

Pregnancy dating is all over the place anyway. Who would be able to check.

Also, would you define it by how many weeks pregnant or how old the foetus was? Many miscarriages at 12 weeks are missed miscarriages that happened at 6 to 8 weeks.

You can't say early miscarriages don't count but magically over 12 weeks they do.

So you think other women should have less access to time off after a miscarriage because you took more time off than you needed?

I think there’s a grey area, before 24 but after 12 weeks

most women will tell their employers at around 12 weeks or maybe after first scan confirmed all is ok

so, manager and HR will know, then usually by default most of her colleagues as she’s likely to have told those she works closely with at same time,

at that point I think it’s a blimmin good thing to extend bereavement leave …I had two women in my working life loose babies at around 20 weeks and our company gave them compassionate leave . Imagine the pain of telling colleagues for starters ! Bereavement leave, with womens permission, is a good way to let all colleagues know her baby has died without her having to say it over and over.

but I sort of agree for under 12 weeks it’s actually not appropriate . So many pregnancy spontaneously abort at that period (20%) , you’d have multiple women off during any year in a reasonable size company. And we run a risk of medicalising a sadly natural fact of life and why we should try not to get too emotionally attached to pregnancy before that 12 week point. I think this was norm when I had my kids, but it seems a lot of women these days start announcing and buying stuff and planning long before 12 week point.

if women is struggling to deal with it before 12 weeks, then there is sick leave , she could self certify for 5 days stating “abdominal pain” , and if needed longer then go to GP.

I say this as someone who lost two pregnancies at 8 and 6 weeks.

I’d say 12+3

You know you are just being silly now!

People can take time off for any number of reasons where there is full pay, but in my experience, a well run company with a motivated workforce, this is not the norm.

Deal with the bad employers and of course employees who take the piss.

Miscarriage can be extremely traumatic, allowing a period of leave is a good thing to do & no it shouldn't be extended to men.

Aren't grey areas areas where we shouldn't legislate as legislation by it's very nature is quite binary and absolute.

Seems to be you are going to be introducing arbitary dates for a very individual problem and does that help?

I don't think I am. Everyone experiences grief differently and all miscarriages are different. Putting an arbitrary number of weeks on it is silly.

Just because it's common and expected doesn't mean it's also not traumatic for some people.
We all expect our parents to die one day, it doesn't mean it's not devastating when it happens.

It’s not an arbitrary number. The risk of miscarriage reduce significantly post 12 weeks and this is why this date is also set for the first scan. Before 12 weeks, it’s normal to miscarry. If you need more time off and support than the week you can self certify, then see your GP.

12 weeks is the "danger period", and after that not as much. So it's not that arbitrary.

I've had both 10 weeks and 18 weeks, the risk of physical injury as well as grief/PTSD is greater the longer it's carried.

The risk of miscarriage goes down significantly at 9 weeks if you see a heartbeat.
12 weeks is used for the scan because that's when dating and screening is most accurate.

If we frame this as bereavement leave then for a loving couple, yes, a man should be able to take time as he also feels grief for a lost child if we take bereavement at face value.

Sounds like this is a distraction and the 'details to sort' could be a nightmare to frame into practical legislation.

So how would you classify missed miscarriages? You find out after 12 weeks but physically it's a 6 week foetus.

I find the idea of gatekeeping grief to be completely ridiculous. Bereavement leave for a parent is the same whether it's a shock loss at age 45 or your 99 year old estranged mother after an expected illness.

Well obviously to you it will be 12 weeks. I think the point is moot either way, as I just think this is all distraction by government for us all to argue about something that won't make much difference/or worse, have unintended undesirable consequences for all of us.

As with any change in employment laws/rules, it’s fairly easy for the government to implement, then they just pass it over to the employer to deal with. The government says “we have given workers X”. No, the employer has to give employees X. On the specific point of miscarriage I think it should just come under normal sickness due to any physical or mental impact on the female.

Well yes. This is already done.

(this could be distressing)

I was induced on labour ward and gave birth to little babies who weren’t alive, I gave them names, they had a post mortem to find the cause of death.

But they didn’t exist, they had no birth certificate, no death certificate, they were medical waste and not babies (ie I wasn’t given an option to hold them, no mementos like footprints photos or hair were taken, they were put in bedpans and into a fridge for storage). They didn’t get funerals or memorials. I didn’t get maternity pay or leave and my partner didn’t get paternity leave because they never had a chance of living. I still had to physically recover from giving birth and calm down my milk etc. But because it was before 24 weeks and they never took a breath they weren’t babies and didn’t exist. We tell families that it’s not a real loss and not as worthy of mourning because of number of weeks every single day because there is a line in the sand. This is why people are worried (rightly) about what this could do to abortion rights.

But you can do some of those things now @SheSpeaks. I know 3 people who had losses before 24 weeks and they had funerals/cremations and had ashes returned. You can now get a loss certificate.