to think losing a baby at 22 weeks is potentially as hard as losing a baby at full term?

[onemissing]

Not much more to add really....having been through the former, I'm often confronted with comments alluding to an earlier loss being "easier" than a later or full term one.

Wondering what you lot think, really.

Being 24 weeks pregnant I'm not sure I should be reading/contributing to this thread. But FWIW, I have always felt that around the 20-23 week mark must be the absolute worst time to lose a baby (as if there's any less bad time, it's so hard to word these things). But in both pregnancies I have felt a kind of relief at getting to 24 weeks, not only because the baby has a very small chance of survival if anything happened, but also because if the worst happened he/she would be a legally recognised person with a death certificate and a burial, with the very slight comfort that may bring. To not even have your very real baby recognised as any more than a medical condition must make a terrible situation even worse. My sincere sympathies for your loss OP.

I can't imagine that losing a baby at 22 weeks can possibly be any less terrible than at full term.I agree with gaelicsheep and her post above.A baby is a baby is a baby,22 weeks or 42,same baby.I am so sorry for your loss op.

Thank you for your kind words gaelic.

Despite being so tiny, my son was breathing when he was born, so we did at least get a birth (and death) certificate. It's a little known fact that if a baby's born showing "signs of life" at any gestation, then they're entitled to both certificates.

It was a small comfort to have some recognition of his short life.

All the very best for the rest of your pregnancy.

Thankyou Onemissing and worzselmummage, I will email you, if that's OK? Oddly, I was just reading your thread after searching the forum, worzselmummage.

I have been reading the Kanalen PROM site and it's been helpful.

I didn't realise that onemissing, but I'm glad to hear that it's the case. I really can't begin to imagine what you went through.

if you can accept that some of the parents you help have been through more trauma than you and that the women were entitled not only to feel that they have been through worse but were entitled to say it out loud, then i don't see what the problem is though. and i do believe that you have let plenty of posters call those grieving women insensitive and pass them off as foolish and worse, when what they said, that it was 'easier to understand' isn't quite what you framed the OP as.

i'm not about to get into an argument with you, things are emphatically not getting ugly, but if i was you i would look seriously to off load the stresses of the group on someone qualified to advise you properly so that in the longer term you are not harming anyone's recovery, theirs or possibly more importantly your own. it is unfair on you to have to deal with this on your own, imo.

onemissing is right, crazily though often HCPs don't know that! I've heard of a few parents who haven't been able to get one because of the hospital!

Stillbirth certificates are only given over 24 weeks and that will never change until the age of viability (and of course the maximum age for abortion with it) comes down.

Not quite sure why you can't see what the 'problem' is, as I've explained it several times now.

It was (again) just me trying to get my head around my feelings about what had been said, and genuinely wanting to gauge the general perception.

I do accept that I could have made my original post clearer, but I wasn't sure at that point that I wanted to reveal all about being a volunteer.

I did later try to clarify by explaining the scenario in which the comment had arisen,and have also expressed very clearly that I did not (nor would I ever) let my feelings cloud my interaction with anyone at the group.

It is a lot to deal with without support,though, and this is something I'm going to push for.

Anyway I think perhaps you should take your own advice:

only someone who has lost a child (and i'd say at 22 weeks it's a definite child, rather than for me i'd say pregnancy) can really ever understand and people should be very cautious about venturing an opinion

(that wouldn't be you pulling rank on me there, would it now?)

The term stillbirth is classed as over 20 weeks in most other countries though. My loss at 20 weeks was classed as 'late fetal loss' which is 20-24 weeks. Dates are not always accurate either so what if a baby is actually a 25 weeker but the hospital think they are 23 weeker so don't help? The worst thing is going into labour knowing there is no chance at all for your baby even if they are gasping for breath. My doctors made it clear that until 23 weeks they would simply do nothing. I accepted that and knew that was the case the minute I was loosing my baby, but it was horrifying.

onemissing , Have you worked in this role for long ? Do you have any supervision in place ?

It does sound like you could do with some . As would anybody by the way . This is a lot for you to be dealing with on your own .

Can I ask how long after your own loss did you start working there ?

I have often thought about working with bereaved parents but even now over 8 yrs down the line I don't know if I could do it .

jellybeans, I agree with you. I think the age of viability is set too high. If a baby shows signs of life at 22+ weeks depending on the hospital they will be helped. A hospital that can't help a 23 weeker wouldn't be able to help a 25 weeker.

I know someone who went into labour in one city at 24 weeks in one of the only hospitals in the area who could have helped the baby but the hospital was full. They looked to surrounding areas and in the end she had to be sent over 100 miles away to another hospital that could help. Much under 30 weeks is rather specialty, whether baby is 23 or 25 weeks.

Youngest surviving baby was born at 21 weeks.