Women labelled ‘patients of childbearing potential’ on private London hospital form

[AngeloMysterioso]

Telegraph article about the Cromwell Hospital in London and their utterly ridiculous “de-gendered” patient info forms which refer to women as “patients of childbearing potential”.

Which rules out infertile women and post-menopausal women- who are all still women.

I suppose we should be grateful the form still refers to nursing mother and doesn’t say something equally ridiculous like feeding parent…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/women-labelled-childbearing-potential-cromwell-hospital/

Or wankers.

Absolutely agree with the language matters points here. In the census the focus on language acceptable to TRAs resulted in many non-native speakers appearing in the trans/NB/whatever boxes. In medicine such misunderstandings have serious consequences. Received wisdom is that, to be inclusive, these questions need to be clear to and understood by the 8 year old who is translating for their mum. This doesn't pass that test.

Infertile women usually still get periods.

But I wouldnt know as an infertile woman how to answer that section.

There are absolutely some conditons where infertility is complete ie hysterectomy, ovary removal, having had chemotherapy etc

But for a lot of us infertility is a grey area. Technically Ive had unprotected sex for over a decade and multiple rounds of IVF and so I accept I'm not having children.

But everyone is always telling you when you are infertile about their neighbours cousins twin who got pregnant at 44 after years of trying

And in fact women with PCOS can briefly become more fertile during perimenopause as the hormone fluctions can make their hormones more "normal" which accounts for those "women unexpectedly pregnant at 40+" stories

So am I a person of childbearing potential or not?

Honestly it would be easier to just tick the questions routinely as a woman on a form than go through a flipping existential crisis of whether I have childbearing potential or not. That's actually more upsetting when put that way

Women struggling with infertility are known to sometimes spontaneously get pregnant.

It's extremely rare but even women who have had their tubes tied can get pregnant.

Women who haven't had a period for a year or more and believe themselves in menopause can get pregnant.

And yes it's even rarer but even a women who has had a hysterectomy can get pregnant. It would be an ectopic pregnancy and always non viable but it can happen.

These are all rare but my Godmother experienced a pregnancy after official menopause.

Better to just use woman and check these things than risk causing harm by ambiguous language

Oh ffs.

'Say biological woman in a way that less than 1% of the population won't kick off about'

If anyone tries that on me, the wanker in charge is not going to like the conversation that follows, because I know a hell of a lot more about actual equality and diversity than he apparently does.

I reject the term 'ejaculator' as this obviously will offend and discriminate against those with an external appendage able to ejaculate, and have chosen a more 'inclusive' term. Personally I find it rude and dehumanising, but apparently that's all the rage.

I think when it comes to medical forms we need to concentrate on sex and not gender.

I know there is a tiny tiny minority of babies born where it isn’t quite as clear what sex they are but that can be explained by the parents when handing the form back.
Otherwise I see huge issues in the future where trans women don’t get their prostate checked and trans men don’t get breast cancer screenings or smear tests

Just because someone decides they want to identify as the opposite sex doesn’t mean they can escape the biology of their own bodies

Well I can throw a spanner in the works... definitely could not be pregnant but breastfeeding (still!)

patients of childbearing potential

Horrible. That's all we are. We're not even allowed to have a name.

I wonder if they've changed the forms in the 6 months since this thread was started? 🧐
Their response makes it seem unlikely.
Not sure it was worth a resurrection though?

<merail>Whenever people make remarks about women leaking or exuding body fluids, I always wonder why chaps' regular leaking and emissions don't seem to count. Ejaculator in Chief is punchy but I should think, "Noxious Emission in Chief" is nearer to my feelings about the usual utterance and ideas.</merail>

That's where you fill the LMP and 'no' to 'Could you be pregnant?'.

Out of all the things that bother me about centring the T, this is the least of them. If it said women, that would potentially exclude (or cause offence) to parents of girls, as some would ignore it because that would be a question for adults.

I think it's not so much targeted at the patient as it is a descriptor for the box. Anybody of childbearing potential - women, girls, those who do not identify as either - are included in it and it's a pretty important question that needs answering.

On reading my patient notes last year, I saw the statement that I was pregnant. I’m 72. So, not a woman with child bearing potential.

What did your father answer?

Asking an infertile woman her last period has a lot of point. The date of your last period is not only used as an indicator of whether you might be pregnant. Various hormones fluctuate during the menstrual cycle, so for some endocrine issues, it's useful to know which phase of the menstrual cycle the patient is in.

Exactly. The current wording is like "people who menstruate". It includes patients who cannot menstruate or have children ie men. It erases women.