To hate the term - ‘chemical pregnancy’

[Salss45]

Why on earth do people use the term ‘chemical pregnancy’ it was a conception which implanted but just didn’t make it for very long for whatever reason, but if you know much about embryonic development then it actually did a lot to get to even that stage. There was maybe a a few days or even longer of excitement, working out due dates, making plans etc. Why refer to these short pregnancies with such a horrible name.

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s similar to miscarrying at a later stage but it was a developing baby or else it would of got to the stage to produce a positive pregnancy test as that requires a baby to develop to the stage it can implant and to have continued to have developed for several more days.

No one is saying every miscarriage is the same, by your logic why would you find it acceptable to call a 6 week pregnancy loss a miscarriage when it’s unlikely to be as devastating as a 23 week miscarriage? We do count any prior pregnancies within our records, however early and always have done, with further highlighting if the loss was after 14 weeks

Random thought on this.

People talk about early testing/testing even periods is due as if only the test includes pregnancy, and it only shows up via chemicals on a test, hence chemical pregnancy.

With my second I knew I was pregnant the day my period was due to nausea and my SPD (severe, from first trimester in first pregnancy) had returned before I'd even missed my period.

Would that happen been a chemical if I'd lost it within a week? Same gestation, but physical symptoms?

I hate the term personally, I feel like it minimises the loss and makes it sound as if it just some fluke chemicals giving an error on a test, rather than the loss of an early pregnancy.

I had my DCs and a few MCs in the US in the 1990s and don't recall the term ever being used back then.

I had my DCs and a few MCs in the US in the 1990s and don't recall the term ever being used back then.

I don't like it either. It doesn't even make sense.

My 2nd pregnancy was somewhere between 5-7 weeks when I lost it (due to irregular periods I don't know for sure, even though it was a very much wanted pregnancy). 3 days after testing positive I started to miscarry. I am very glad to have never experienced a later miscarriage, but to me it was still a significant loss of a very much wanted pregnancy, and I agree that the term "chemical pregnancy" makes it sound like it was all just in my head.

But it was a real pregnancy.

Chemical pregnancy to me is like ectopic pregnancy or molar pregnancy - just as adjective to describe the type of pregnancy that meant it did not progress.

i loathe the word miscarriage. The pregnancy was “mis-carried” as in carried wrong?? Way to blame women’s bodies. Think of miscarriage of justice - someone’s done something wrong.

‘Chemical’ doesn’t reflect anything about the actual pregnancy though? It’s just an embryo whose development stopped before a certain stage, as other posters have pointed out from their own journey, we can’t even assume that these embryos weren’t perfectly healthy and from my own experience where my dates were brought forward at my first scan, we do my even know a woman is 6 weeks, not 4 weeks. I once watched a programme which showed the incredible journey and odds beaten for the embryo to just get to that stage. No woman is claiming her 5 week miscarriage is as bad as a 8 week miscarriage, a 14 week one or a 22 week one, why try and say it’s justifiable to give the pregnancy a name which denied what it was. Ectopic pregnancy was still a developing person that implanted in an unviable location, molar pregnancy is completely different and there was never an embryo to start with but an abnormal fusion of the egg and sperm creating a tumour

This thread feels abit antsy, everytime someone explains their view or understanding OP seems to jump down their throat if their thinking doesn’t align. I think your points been made and as an early PP said, it’s your prerogative to call it what you want. Chemical, miscarriage - tbh both are crap words. I prefer pregnancy loss, just go with what your most comfortable with and try not to bash others for their language use - after all, most people just go with the terms medical professionals use and are probably commenting as they’ve had experience of loss.

I don’t mind the term and although I think of my losses as 4 miscarriages (all first trimester thankfully), one was just before 6 weeks so I think counts as a CP. I don’t mind in a medical setting it being called a CP.

the term I hate is ‘retained products’ when dealing with making sure a miscarriage is complete. It seems to be repeated often. I get that’s the medical term but I think to the woman it should be referred to as ‘retained pregnancy’ or something, that isn’t so erm unfeeling. I’m not expressing myself well but hopefully I make sense.

Sorry for your losses x
Definitely think something more sensitive should be thought of if women are feeling this way about the term ‘retained product’ although as a health professional I understand the term retained products as used to encompass all the remaining ‘products’ i.e. not necessarily ‘the baby’ from conception and can see how retained pregnancy might be professionally confusing, indicating the pregnancy (presence of the live embryo) is ongoing in some way

@Salss45 that’s fair. I don’t know what the answer is but the ‘products’ part come across as dismissive to the fact there was an embryo or foetus / potential actual human being in the making. I’ve never been annoyed at any of the medical professionals for using the term btw, it’s always just sort of stung a bit at the time, but no lasting hurt.

I’ve been trying to think of a better term, perhaps just baby if they know the embryo/foetus is still present but if perhaps has passed, the ‘remaining tissue from the pregnancy’?

You’re extremely dramatic in your replies. Firstly asking why women would be taking pregnancy tests before missed periods because they “know their bodies” and therefore knew they were pregnant is not always the case nor credible. There are many women who are trying to get pregnant and each month convince their self that everything is a sign or symptom, myself included at the time I was trying to conceive, I would notice feeling more tired than usual, being bloated, cramps, nausea and any other normal feeling that simply had nothing to do with being pregnant in the first place. Secondly and this may offend a lot of people but judging by the amount of women on this site alone that conclude they are/ were pregnant because they had a faint line and believe it to be 100% pregnancy, the rates of chemical pregnancies is not even accurate because a lot of these women weren’t actually pregnant to begin with, they simply had evaps/ false positives whatever you wana call it. This is coming from someone who had 6 torturous months of this believing i was pregnant because some tests threw out the odd dodgy faint line, even I had believed I had chemical pregnancies 3 months in a row. Your mind will make you believe anything you want also so there’s that to add to the mix. I could post tests from every month over 6 months and there will be false positives and they weren’t just grey shadow lines, many were very pink lines that showed immediately and guess what I was never pregnant and never had a chemical pregnancy. It happens and happens more often than people think with pregnancy tests regardless of price.

I remember my Mum saying when I was born in the 60s anything under about 8 weeks was just considered a late period. She felt us being able to find out after about a week or two of a missed period date in the 90s wasn't conductive for good mental health as so many unviable conceptions became "miscarriages" and gave it an emotional and negative angle instead of we should be pleased what wasn't healthy and viable, didn't take.

We are now at the stage you can almost find out immediately that you've conceived so this problem must be even more common. It's a weird definition but I think my late Mum would be pleased there is one!

Don't be getting angry with others just because you don't know how to use a pregnancy test accurately.

Half the women on MN don’t know how to use/read a test properly with multiple…line eyes, evap or positive….posts a day.

Let's stop please this is offensive. The women replying with their stories of multiple miscarriages (myself included) did not mis read their pregnancy tests.
Talk about piling on with a dramatic generalisation.

There are loads of posts where women test too early and ask is this positive or not. It is a definition, when I was ttc I think I may have had a couple ( period felt different) but I didn't ever test until a few days after missed period at the earliest. And it was then a clear yes or no on the test. Catholics believe it's a baby from the time the sperm reaches the egg I think?
What I was shocked to find was just how common miscarriages are. I don't think I know a woman who hasn't had at least one.

Tell me why this is relevant? You might have been unaware, but it is not a bad thing to know. I my case it got me my daughter as I had pioneering treatment. If I'd listened to the crap about how early miscarriages don't count then I would not have got the right help.
Let's stop talking about how 50 years ago women didn't know.
Medicine has rightfully moved on and that is not a bad thing.
This thread has degraded into the reason I felt so invalidated during my journey.
Out.

Tell me why this is relevant? You might have been unaware, but it is not a bad thing to know. I my case it got me my daughter as I had pioneering treatment. If I'd listened to the crap about how early miscarriages don't count then I would not have got the right help.
Let's stop talking about how 50 years ago women didn't know.
Medicine has rightfully moved on and that is not a bad thing.
This thread has degraded into the reason I felt so invalidated during my journey.
Out.

I don't think it is a real pregnancy. I don't know why people refer to it as a miscarriage, as if it's the same as a late miscarriage.
I've had several after 12 weeks, a chemical pregnancy is nothing comparable.

Embryos don't even become fetuses until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.

They are clumps of cells which have the potential to become a fetus - which is when you might call it a 'developing baby'.

Embryos are not 'developing babies' and I would be hesitant to use the word baby - it is a clump of cells at this stage. A very important clump of cells with potential, yes, but not anything like a baby. The cells cause hormones to release which creates the positive pregnancy test - that does not mean it's a baby - that's just a chemical process which occurs in your body.

Just to say also, I've been through 5 years of fertility treatment myself so I'm absolutely not commenting on this without experience of how devastating and difficult this can be.

I have simply never had a problem with the term because the way I have always seen it is that a chemical pregnancy was never viable, and it was never a baby.

👆 the voice of reason. Great post.