Getting it right

I sat in a lot of doctors' waiting rooms in 2008. And if there is nothing I enjoy more when sitting in said waiting rooms, it is reading trashy magazines. Granted in the crappy waiting room at my hospital I often read the same magazine over and over, but I'd pick it up nonetheless as sitting and waiting without something trashy to read is pretty boring, I think.

I remember reading when I was newly pregnant with Hope, must have about been my first appointment, that Lily Allen was also pregnant. I think we were due around the same time. So it was with much sadness that only a few weeks later, I read she lost her baby. A miscarriage. Funnily enough, I thought of the pop star a lot through my pregnancy with Hope. Maybe as some sort of weird premonition, I wondered what it would be like for her to see babies born around the same time as hers was due. I wondered if that would be something she would find hard. As it would come to pass, I would learn that yes, she probably would have found that hard. I know I still find it hard today. Two year old girls are pretty much a no go zone for me and I make no apologies for that.

So it was with much sadness again today that I read Lily Allen lost another baby. This time, much further in to her pregnancy. Somehow this time around, I missed the news she was expecting again. I guess I don't sit in as many waiting rooms these days.

It was also with much frustration today that I read most media outlets labelled the loss a miscarriage. I know in the UK it is still termed a miscarriage up until 24 weeks, but by my rough calculations, she would have been further along than that so a stillbirth is most certainly the correct word to use, worldwide.

This is where things get a little fuzzy. There are probably two schools of thought here. To disregard what type of loss it was and just support her either way, after all, a baby died and it doesn't matter what age or gestation it was. Or to kick up a bit of a fuss, as I have done here, and air your frustrations about the media getting it wrong. It is true, miscarriage or stillbirth - it is the loss of a precious, much wanted baby. But to call such a late pregnancy loss a miscarriage is insensitive to those who have been through it and quite simply incorrect. If nothing else, it is sloppy journalism.

I am lucky. I have never had a miscarriage and I hope it remains that way. Both pregnancies, I sailed smoothly out of the miscarriage zone. But I did obviously have a stillbirth. Hope, my daughter, was stillborn. My eight pound, fully formed, ready for the world, almost a week overdue daughter. She was not cramping, blood, tissue = no longer pregnant. She was born. There was grunting, pushing, straining, pain and brutal labour. (Though to be fair I do fully understand that with later miscarriages, this process also happens). And I'm sure with Lily today, this is roughly what has happened.

I just think to call her most recent loss a miscarriage totally diminishes what she went through. What I went through. What so many of us went through. I take nothing, absolutely NOTHING away from women who have suffered any type of miscarriage or early loss, but they are not the same. Yes, there is absolutely the same loss of hopes and dreams and in every case, it is a precious baby who is lost - whether it is a full term baby or a tiny embryo, but physically and technically, they are not the same. Or interchangeable. Hope was stillborn. Lily Allen's first baby was miscarried. Her second baby was stillborn. End of story.

Right now I'm sure all of this palaver is probably the last thing on Lily's mind. I'm sure she could care less about which media outlet is saying what. She'll be in a haze. Shocked. Grief stricken. I'm sure she is surrounded by people who love her and right now that is the main thing. I just wonder why it is though, that the media find it easier to call such losses a miscarriage? Is it somehow easier to stomach the idea of a baby lost early in pregnancy than one that was much further along where it is painfully obvious the woman is pregnant? And when it is such a public figure whose face is everywhere? Does it make people that squeamish to think that yes, babies are lost in the so called "safe stage" of pregnancy? That yes, a baby wont always come home with you, even if you have a huge and well-rounded baby bump? And that if you are a young and gorgeous pop star who has spent thousands of pounds on a baby nursery, it doesn't guarantee you that elusive happy ending? Or is it just a case of the media being totally misinformed on pregnancy loss, as so many people out there seem to be? Even medical professionals get it wrong, so I'm not sure why I am expecting so much from a bunch of lazy journos.

There is little wonder in today's baby and pregnancy obsessed world, that we, as grieving parents, are often misunderstood in our grief. Pregnancy loss is rarely talked about, though I am starting to see change in this area and certainly the coverage on Lily's loss today is a great start. But how can we expect anyone to understand us and our pain, if the media can't even get the basic facts right? It might seem like nitpicking, but to me it is not. I can see that this sort of argument could be upsetting to those who have suffered a miscarriage, and if this is the case I am truly very sorry, but seeing Lily's loss written about dozens of times today and labelled incorrectly was also upsetting to me and I am sure I am not alone. Personally, I think it is important the media get this right. The more we talk about our losses and the more we keep putting it out there, the less likely it will be in the future that these sloppy mistakes will be made.

Mostly though, I just want to say how sorry I am that another precious baby boy was lost. Goes to show that no matter who you are, no one is immune from this sort of tragedy. My heart breaks for Lily today and all that she is going through.