I wasn’t fast enough on the edit, and this next bit is me having a general complain about the use of the phrase rather than being aimed at you.
Having been through 4 pregnancies under the recurrent miscarriage clinic I am acutely aware that the heartbeat can often be seen before 6 weeks, and that by 5 weeks you can see the baby taking shape. A 6 week foetus even more so. There is nothing chemical about that.
People use the term incorrectly, and often it is used to minimise, whether to make themselves feel better (I get why people would want to do this!) or to try to tell others they shouldn’t be upset because it was ‘just a chemical pregnancy’. No, it was a miscarriage, and I wish people would examine their motives for telling a woman who just suffered pregnancy loss that her loss doesn’t count because it was too early. It’s a very antiquated attitude that has no place in 2025. We are not in the dark ages where you weren't pregnant until you missed 3 periods, and you went back to work 6 weeks after having your baby. We’ve come so far medically and socially in the last 40 years.
The phrase chemical pregnancy really only applies to miscarriages that happen pretty much immediately after implantation. Unless you know that this is the exact point your miscarriage happened then using chemical pregnancy to describe it is incorrect.
In maternity terms, and in terms of any treatment or consultants I’ve had relating to recurrent miscarriage, I’ve never heard this phrase used. It’s always referred to as a miscarriage, whatever early stage the loss took place.
The use of the term chemical pregnancy, often applied incorrectly because not all very early losses are chemical pregnancies, stops women getting the help they need to identify underlying conditions. They should also be included in the 3 losses required before investigations take place (they are actually included but people don’t realise because simple language isn’t used), which is another reason I caution people not to use it as a term to minimise what happened - whether applying it to themself or others, that’s why it’s important to call them what they are - miscarriages. There are some medical conditions that can cause a pregnancy to fail right after implantation (I have one!) and these are not chemical pregnancies, these should be attributed to the medical conditions and treated, which won’t happen if women are told or tell themself ‘it’s just a chemical pregnancy’.
If you have repeated very early miscarriages then that’s indicative of a problem that needs investigating. It’s important to make sure your GP records it as a pregnancy loss.
I am now stepping down from my soapbox but I hope this comment is read by someone who needs to read it to realise their early losses also need investigation.