AIBU to wonder if earlier generations really viewed early miscarriages differently?

[KitKat1985]

Just interested in garnering opinions on this really. I have debated whether to post this at all as I'm aware the subject matter is a sensitive one for a lot of people, so I've tried to really clear in the title that it's a thread about early miscarriages so those who don't want to read the whole post don't have to. But it's a conversation that really got me wondering recently so wanted to hear some views on it. I had a conversation recently with some women who were from a previous generation (think late 50's onwards). They basically said that back when they were having babies you weren't even really considered to be pregnant until you had missed two periods (so I guess would be about 8 weeks). They said they may have had occasions whereby they were late etc, but if they bled before the '2 missed period' mark they said they just put it down as 'one of those things', and were a bit dismissive about people in this generation who would report being really upset because they were having a miscarriage when it was very early on in their pregnancy. They also said that these days because of early sensitivity tests etc, people often consider themselves to be pregnant sometimes before their period is even late, which in their opinion was wrong and just led to a lot more heartbreak if things then didn't progress well. I'm wondering if they're telling the whole truth or not about how previous generations viewed early miscarriages. I can't completely believe that in a previous generation women didn't also feel a bit devastated if they started bleeding after they were late, and therefore must have probably also worked out that they were having an early pregnancy loss. I can to some extent sympathise with their theory though that testing really early can lead to more heartache. Do you think early miscarriages really were viewed differently a generation ago? Or do you think it was just more a taboo subject and if women were very upset about early losses they were just under societal pressure not to say it?

I had my children in the mid 80’s, you had to get a pregnancy test at the doctors and had to have missed at least 2 periods. I had this convo will a colleague who is same age as me who was in bits when her DD miscarried when she was about 20 days. Some people do a test when they are only a week pregnant and tell everyone. I agree with the not telling others until 4 months or even later if you are not showing

I think it's one of those things that perhaps polarises emotional response (ie. it either devastates you or you mostly shrug it off).

This probably depends on many factors, but I reckon the most important thing is to allow individuals their own response without comparing it to our own (or what we imagine our own would be). There is no "should" when it comes to the feelings of the person having one.

I had an early miscarriage (wanted) and I felt a bit sad, but never cried over it for example. I already had a child and went on to have more.

However, the one and only time I ever saw my mother cry was over an early miscarriage (full weeping for days). She also already had multiple children and went on to have several more.

From my "n=2" study, I can only conclude that it depends on the individual.

I think it's one of those things that perhaps polarises emotional response (ie. it either devastates you or you mostly shrug it off).

I think you're completely right that it's individual, but I think it's more of a spectrum. I found this even across my own - the first I felt sad but not devastated (I don't think I cried), and I did have some relief that I could get pregnant. The second I was much more upset, but still fairly 'well, this is a bit shit but just have to keep on trucking on'. The third I was devastated, spent a while crying every day in fear that we'd never had children, and eventually had a relapse of (admittedly already known) anxiety that affected my whole life, including my work, for a couple of months.

BertieBotts. I thought your post was very thoughtful and well written. It's how I feel too. I hope everything goes well with your pregnancy 💐

I completely agree with Bertie's very thoughtful and considered post too. For what it's worth I don't consider any of my lost pregnancies to have been babies, and when my counsellor referred to them as lost babies I corrected her to lost pregnancies. I also think that's why I got so much sadder as they went on - it was about fear for what it meant for the future (will I never have a baby?) rather than about sadness for that particular pregnancy. I don't know if that really helped me, though - as noted, I had a pretty extreme reaction to the third one despite spending every day of the pregnancy convinced I'd lose it and so 'not getting attached'. I found that extended the pain, rather than lessening it.

I'm now 11.5 weeks pregnant and after the last couple of scans (I got NHS early ones due to my history, and also freaked out and had a private one), which have shown distinct baby shapes with waving limbs, we are starting to think of this as 'baby' - and like Bertie, that terrifies me. I guess there's a case that the scans will make a loss harder to take and so, just like pregnancy tests, more knowledge could be a bad thing - but there's also lots of evidence that the more reassured I feel the better.

Not quite your Mum's generation. Yes, early miscarriage was "Just one of those things". People didn't put so much emphasis on miscarriage before 12 weeks. Considered to be 'natures way' of dealing with embryo/ foetus that was probably not secure or normal. Mankind has moved a long way in interfering with what nature intended in all aspects to do with The human body. We all expect everything to be either perfect or fixable and when it isn't we can't seem to accept this nowadays.

When is then?

I have a fair resource of family documents relating to a relative who was a midwife. I'd say the PP comments certainly rang true from 1875 to the early 20th century

DH's stepmum (so must have been born about 1945) had a m/c, plus a full-term baby that was born with severe deformities and died a few days later. She told me this calmly, when I hardly knew her, in context of why she only had 2 living children with 5 yr gap. She talked about the short-lived child and it's terrible problems in terms of "It was best that poor child didn't long."

I guess that's how she came to terms with that experience. Something that stayed in her mind but the child living would not have been preferable.

I'm a bit puzzled by the antipathy of some posters to taking an early pregnancy test. Does this apply only if you are trying to get pregnant and don't want to get your hopes up?

I can't imagine if my period were late, whether this was brilliant or a disaster, not wanting to know as soon as possible if I needed to take steps to ensure the pregnancy had the best opportunity to continue or be terminated, as appropriate.

Not particularly pertinent to this thread but I also don't understand posters who say they didn't realise they were pregnant because their periods were irregular. If my periods were irregular there would still have been a point, probably no more than 6 weeks from the last one, where I would have wanted to know what might be happening.

Some of us feel more comfortable acknowledging we're not really that in control, Lass.

DH's stepmum (so must have been born about 1945) had a m/c, plus a full-term baby that was born with severe deformities and died a few days later. She told me this calmly, when I hardly knew her, in context of why she only had 2 living children with 5 yr gap. She talked about the short-lived child and it's terrible problems in terms of "It was best that poor child didn't long."

I'm not saying that 'time heals all', but I also think that you might need to take into account the effect of distance, a repeated comforting mantra ('it's best the baby didn't live long'), and, it sounds like, going on to have another child(?) here. My MIL and I were talking recently about the termination for medical reasons she had at 24 weeks in her first pregnancy. She was pretty matter of fact about it, and said 'but of course I wouldn't have had [DH] if I'd had that baby'. She also told me, again quite matter of factly, that she'd been suicidal when it happened. Of course some women still can't talk about it without crying 30 years on - and that's normal, too - but for others heightened emotions will diminish, and the whole thing will be seen more pragmatically. That doesn't necessarily tell you that much about how they felt when it happened.

tbh (sorry don't read on unless you're feeling tough)... I'm flashing back to how Alison Lapper's mother was encouraged to abandon her. Or how Tatiana McFadden was fed but otherwise left to die with no attempt made to surgically correct her open spine for the first weeks of her life.

@LassWiTheDelicateAir My periods used to be so irregular that there's no way I could have tested every time I was less a month late, I'd have been broke! Sometimes I'd have nothing for 3 months, sometimes I'd bleed for 6 months etc. I did take the occasional test if it had been a really long time (usually if I'd missed more than two periods) but ultimately I was so used to it, plus I trusted in my contraceptive methods. But then with such irregular periods I assumed I would have a lot of trouble conceiving.

Eventually my periods settled down (for various reasons) and I started actively trying to get pregnant. Then I tested if my period was late.

I think when a dm/dgm/mil/work colleague talks about having had a mc in the past, you can’t assume how they talk to you reflects how they feel inside. I speak very matter-of-fairly when asked about my mum’s cancer, doesn’t mean that’s how I’m feeling.

I think my views are not typical of many women but i think early testing has caused more problems than it has helped. There is an obsession with chemical pregnancy where the one which didnt sick is grieved. That isnt even a foetus the loss is of a dream rather than something 'real'.
Similarly with early miscarriage when women rush to hospital with bleeding. Nothing can be done at that stage and i dont understand the terrible grief women do feel.
I never bonded with my baby until birth though so i sympathise with tjose who are devastated i just dont feel it myself.

I dont think things like miscarroage and imfant death were talked about much. My mum is late 60s and had a miscarriage they think in the early 80s. They think she was carrying twins and miscarried one. She was very matter of fact about it. "It wasn't meant to be" attitude. My aunt is in her 70s and lost a baby. She never talked about it. All we know is his name, that she never held him and didnt bring him home. Women also had several children expecting some to die in childhood (pre 20th century). My great gran openly told us that she had 11 and she hadn't expected as many as 8 to survive. I didn't know I was pregnant until 14 weeks. To miss a period is not unusual for me so I didn't even think about being pregnant until I'd missed 2. 25 years on and there are tests that tell you when you are days pregnant and apps to tell you when your late so women know they are pregnant earlier. So I don't think more women are miscarrying, I think more women are aware they've miscarried and it isn't such a taboo subject.

They didn't know for sure. Home tests came about in 1980s. Mother's hearts have always been hurt; but denial is easy if you do not know for sure.

Another, less palatable notion is that without birth control, not every baby was a blessing in the beginning, so a late period was not always an unhappy thing to come along. Who knows "how regular" periods were?

Off topic, but childbirth is a dangerous and sometimes fatal experience....if you already have children and find yourself pregnant soon after the last one.....

I had my last child in 1974. No tests. No scans. You went to the GP when you'd missed 2 periods. He did an internal and prodded my abdomen. I think, by then, he could feel the fundus above the pelvic bone. (?) There were tests for special cases involving samples being sent to a lab and tested on rabbits. Dating was based on the date of your last period. My first baby was dysmature, weighing only 4lbs 5oz at 39 weeks. No one picked up on this till about 35 weeks.

I was v lucky because I'm RhNeg and Anti-D had only been invented a couple of years previously. My first baby was RhPos and I had the injection. But it was so new that my GP who attended the home birth of my second baby didn't test his blood or give me a shot because he didn't believe in it. We still don't know what his blood group is, but, fortunately, my 3rd baby was RhNeg. We think that was the cause of my grandmother's late miscarriages.

No scans meant no testing for abnormalities. A distant relative lost her first baby at birth through problems with the cord. Her second baby had Down's. She couldn't face looking after him and never took him home. He spent his life in an institution. This was in the early 60s. Attitudes, and circumstances, have changed a lot. I think it made us more fatalistic.

Otoh, post-natal care was miles better than now, which is a disgrace.

The term chemical pregnancy is used a lot online but I don't feel it's very helpful. Some people seem to think it refers to a total non pregnancy, or a fertilised egg which doesn't attach, of which neither is true. The term comes from assisted reproduction e.g. IVF as the patient is asked to take a urine test to check for pregnancy. When a positive result is received, the pregnancy then normally progresses into a clinical pregnancy. When it doesn't, this is known as a chemical pregnancy.

However people commonly use it now for getting a positive test before their period arrives a couple of days late or any miscarriage before medical attention which is much later in the UK than other places. In these cases the pregnancy would have implanted but failed very early on.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, I suppose if someone does find it useful then it has a place.

BTW, it is a good idea to 'rush' to hospital with bleeding in early pregnancy. Not because there is anything to be done, sadly, for an early miscarriage but to check that the mother is alright and not suffering from an ectopic pregnancy.

I always thought a chemical pregnancy was a loss before 8 weeks, miscarriage to mean before 12 weeks, spontaneous abortion before 24 weeks and stillbirth beyond that point. Although miscarriage is now the common term.

It's easy to dismiss a chemical or early loss but couple that with trouble trying to conceive and fertility treatment and they are a brutal roller coaster of emotions.

The moment a couple decide to start a family (or add to their family) they start to think of the child and how that child will enhance their life. When that tiny spark of life is formed and you get that positive test it takes on the dream of the much wanted child.
Then when it is lost and you can't then try the next 3 months because of duty of care to your mental health. Then your told wait another month because it's now too close to Christmas holidays it's hard not to say "if only it had stuck".
While I don't think it compares to a later loss. Nobody should dismiss anybody else's grief.

I think it is worth pointing out that not all early miscarriages are like heavy or odd periods. I have had miscarriages that were like that. I have also had one that nearly killed me.

@LassWiTheDelicateAir
My periods were so irregular that i didnt notice i was pregnant for 7 months
A normal no period length could be 3 to 6 months or i could be spotting monthly, just so happened during that time i had spotting or 'light' periods the whole time.
No way on my budget with such irregular periods would i bother testing even though my cycle was up, down and all around

Your choice although Clearblue tests are around £7.50 for 2 and Tesco own brand are £3.50 for 2. There are even cheaper ones.

If I had not had a proper period for 6-8 weeks that seems a small price to find out if a major readjustment to my life (whether going through with the pregnancy or arranging a termination) is needed. Obviously if the choice is a termination the sooner the better.