Do you think that early pregnancy tests have caused more trouble than they've solved?

[BigFluffyHoodie]

It seems to me that these early tests show "chemical pregnancies" that weren't ever going to progress. And for millennia women have just had a heavier period, and known nothing about it. But now it's a thing? Rather than just a natural process that peters out.

But we don't know that. A "chemical pregnancy", that does not progress and is shed, could be a thing that happens to evrerybody.

I am lovely, I think you are coming across as pretty insensitive though, as well as lacking in knowledge about the subject. Google is your friend.

It’s not the olden days any more. Science has moved on. Back then people died of things they didn’t need to. Miscarriage was seen as ‘one of those things’, to be never mentioned.

You clearly aren’t an early pregnancy specialist. Due to modern medicine, these specialists have been able to identify a number of conditions that are linked to ‘chemical pregnancies’ as they prevent the egg implanting properly.

Things like NK cells. Vitamin deficiency (vitamin D and B to be specific). Some of these underlying causes are potentially dangerous to the women - antiphospholipid syndrome (which I have, thankfully identified due to the availability of early pregnancy testing) can prevent the egg implanting securely, and lead to early miscarriage (as well as later miscarriage and issuws throughout pregnancy) but is treatable once diagnosed so more women than not will have a successful pregnancy after diagnosis. it’s also a leading cause of heart attack and stroke in women under 50. Pretty important to get this identified and the main reason this gets identified is because women have recurrent pregnancy loss - often early. ‘Back in the day’ you talk about, this wasn’t a known condition. The pregnancy losses that characterise it were a big factor in identifying this incredible dangerous illness that causes clots, heart attacks or strokes in around 1/3 of the people who have it.

Thyroid problems can also cause early miscarriage. Again, important to identify.

Early pregnancy loss would just have been unexplained infertility back then. You need to know you are getting pregnant in order to investigate why these pregnancies are failing.

3 miscarriages is the magic number to being referred to a clinic for investigations. It doesn’t matter how early these miscarriages are. One miscarriage is often isolated. There’s still a medical cause. 2 is a bit of a warning as a higher number of women who have had 2 miscarriages will go on to have a third. Many countries start investigations after 2. The uk wants 3 because that when they feel there is a pattern. Imagine how many opportunities would be lost without this early testing?

I think it’s amazing that we live in a time where we do understand so much about pregnancy loss. Each little scientific breakthrough might end someone’s misery. That starts with early investigation.

Disagree YABVU - It is helpful to know when you have conceived and that you can manage that bit ok.

Yes, occasional chemicals are ‘normal’ but recurrent ones are not. They can be a sign of something wrong on a systemic level, or that egg and sperm quality is flawed. Things you need to know and as soon as possible, especially if you are ttc later. Knowledge is empowering.

You clearly don’t actually know much of the science about what a chemical pregnancy is OP and how many eggs/embryos will be genetically normal statistically at each age. I recommend reading more into the embryological and chromosomal testing side of things rather than make bold assertions that are not based on any scientific basis. There will be some women reading this in extreme states of despair and it is irresponsible to mislead them or be flippant about something so deeply sensitive.

Agreed @AllThePotatoesAreSinging

My chemical pregnancy led them to discover that there was an issue with my lining that was easily sorted by taking some medication. So my finding out did have an effect on the likelihood of future pregnancy. Also for those undergoing fertility investigations the fact the sperm meets egg is a huge advantage and a great big step on the right direction.

@BigFluffyHoodie have you ever had a chemical/miscarriage?

Why do you care anyway OP? How exactly does it affect you?

@BigFluffyHoodie do you understand the science behind what a chemical pregnancy is?

It's true that in the past women would have experienced chemical pregnancies without ever knowing, just thinking their period had come.

But equally, our understanding of fertility and infertility was so much less. Even now 1/3 of infertility is "unexplained" but we are early in the assisted conception scientific journey.

Knowledge around how many women experience chemical pregnancies and what the causes might be will help us build greater knowledge, and allow more people to overcome heartbreaking infertility issues.

I have no idea if I've had a "chemical pregnancy".

I don’t know if I don’t understand what you’re saying, you don’t understand what I’m saying or you’re being contrarian… Obviously many fertile women who successfully conceive will also have had chemical pregnancies. Women with fertility issues affecting ovulation, or with partners whose sperm is affected, will not experience chemical pregnancies and may need interventions that stimulate ovulation or even IVF. Women with fertility issues that are more to do with sustaining an early pregnancy may experience many chemical pregnancies, but need intervention to continue past that point. So it is extremely useful information for a woman who is taking longer than expected to conceive, or who is worried about age/time pressures.

It likely does happen to every woman and doesn't indicate anything particularly wrong, it's just an evolutionary mechanism to prevent a faulty embryo developing.
When I was trying to conceive, it was the late 80s/early 90s. I could only test after a missed period, and in all honesty I'm glad because I would definitely have been like some of the women on here, testing very soon after ovulation. So many threads asking for line eyes and I think just wait until a missed period.

I've never had regular periods except on the pill. I conceived my first child quickly but something like 60 days after my previous period. I just had absolutely no idea when I was ovulating. I've always conceived very quickly so it doesn't actually appear to be an issue but my cycles are clearly unusual. I really had no idea how far along I was when I found out.

So … an issue with the embryo would be a medical reason for pregnancy loss - and surely something that needs to be identified to see if it’s likely to be repeated?

What issues with an embryo that meant it failed to develop would you class as ‘not particularly anything wrong’? It’s sort of the ultimate in something being wrong ….

I agree. A midwife once said the same thing. Most of the time you would just think you were having a heavy period 'in the old days' My grandma told me that a dr wouldn't even look at you until you'd missed 3 periods! I get why women want to know though. If you've been trying for a longed for baby you want to know right?

Then perhaps you should stay in your lane.

Apparently, it's very common and it happens so frequently that it's not an indicator that future pregnancies can't be successful.
However, if a woman wants to do the early testing, it's her choice. If it happens repeatedly she can get it investigated.
Or if she doesn't want to be pregnant, she can organise her termination promptly.

Why put chemical pregnancy in inverted commas, unless of course you simply started this thread to be sneery and unkind? Yet again, how does any of this affect you in any way?

Remember how the plague used to just be a thing? And now it’s not? Same thing really. The science has got better.

To second this.

I have hypothyroidism, it was only diagnosed because I kept having “Chemical” pregnancies.

Hypothyroidism prevents the foetus from developing properly. It also prevents milk production - if you get that far!

I thought as much when I had a chemical, I didn't even know what a chemical was and felt incredibly disappointed

Not sure where you’ve heard that. Recurrent miscarriage clinics disagree with you, and that’s why they are just called what they are - miscarriages- when it comes to meeting criteria for investigations.

What do they know, though?

There are plenty of medical things we didn’t know about years ago. Are you honesty trying to suggest medical advances haven’t been beneficial?

From the perspective of someone who never had a chemical or a miscarriage, I agree - I tied myself in knots in the year it took to conceive DD, and I wish it hadn’t been so easy for me to do that.

But then I think of my sister, who had multiple chemicals when it turned out the issue wasn’t the egg meeting the sperm, but just an implantation issue that was easily sorted - and I think maybe that knowledge helped her get pregnant more easily.

I’d also say that infertility is on the rise. And we need to know why. So I’m very tentatively going down on YABU, because knowledge is power. Maybe 50 (or even 30) years ago it would have been useless knowledge, but we have more science now, and I think that alone makes early PG test worthwhile.

My sister who works as a clinical researcher in the field.
Anyway, it's to reassure people on here that even if it's happened a few times, it doesn't automatically mean there's not going to be a successful pregnancy without intervention.
A woman's choice, to test whenever, of course though.

I think it'

Whoops posted too soon.
Was going to say I think it's worth noting that the NHS policy of waiting for 3 miscarriages is going to be partly based on cost control NOT on what is best for women. Medically why would we not want to know what is going on with our bodies- especially if there's something that needs to be treated?

Most women have their missed period before being five weeks pregnant though so how does your logic there work?