The Census.

[Phteven]

I started doing the census for our household this morning.
I noticed that one of the questions is really very insensitive and probably hurtful for women who have birthed sleeping babies. It seems that the ABS only counts live births as births.
I just wanted to warn people so the question doesn't come as too much of a surprise because I imagine it would feel like a punch in the stomach.
Maybe if you're feeling fragile it would be best if you put off your census or ask your partner to shoulder the burden

[toomanyshoes]

Disgusting isn't it?

[Amity]

I think it's awful. I feel sick.

[LysnDan]

Absolutely disgusted.

Thanks for the warning.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk

[LionsandBears]

Yeah. Already aware of it. It's frigging disgusting. DH was so not impressed when I told him. Another casual way to hurt grieving families.

For us, DS1 is counted but DS2 isn't. Frigging nice. They're both still dead.

All the idiots needed to do was include 2 questions. 1) how many births has a woman had? 2) how many children are alive? It's what they used to ask in the old UK census, back when baby death was more common and not a taboo topic. Don't get me started on the flawed reasoning behind the ABS' logic about this either. Bloody idiots.

Thanks for putting the warning up.

[diannescruffy]

Had no idea, thanks for the warning. It is just so wrong, why is it then that a birth certificate is issued when a baby is born sleeping?

Regards,
Dianne

[~ Zarava Flutterby ~]

I saw this too and thought it was rediculous, they are saying they compile the data to provide better services, how is this providing a better service?

If they want to look at providing services and how much they need in the way of say funding for pregnancy etc then their question WILL NOT provide accurate answers as there are plenty of women out there who have been PG but unfortunately do not get to take home their baby.

I think it's wrong, it's hurtful and it's stupid.

[Glamourcide]

I am another one here who thinks the question is stupid, and pointless, and really hurtful for mums who have lost their babies. How on earth are they meant to provide adequate funding and resources to ALL of us if our 'fertility rate' is essentially a lie as there are so many babies born who won't be counted due to this stupid 'oversight'?
All babies that are LEGALLY considered to be 'birthed' (ie, past 20 weeks) should be counted, and the question revised to make sure we get an accurate count of all the babies born, regardless of whether they were born alive or not. These babies born sleeping... they're real. I've seen pictures of them. They have had funeral services and birth certificates issued. They were here and they need to be recognised.

Huge hugs for all the angel mamas, especially those who are struggling to grasp the callousness of this stupid census question. There is a Facebook page campaigning to highlight how inadequate this question is, and, I believe, seeking to have it amended next Census. I'll be joining it and putting in my thoughts in support of all of you. xx

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

I saw this a couple of days ago, but I haven't actually seen the reasoning behind it - can someone educate me?

I think it's disgusting, it skews the results

[Teeki]

I just started this morning and saw that - cannot believe they could be so insensitive. Good idea to put up the warning.

[Pandora]

There was a 2 page write up in our local paper about this that specifically mentioned the census.

For anyone interested there is a FB page 'Stillbirth Isabelles Law' regarding law reform concerning stillbirth.

I haven't liked it yet, I'm stuck on them pushing for mandatory 36wk scans, but the general idea of the page seems positive

[TeniBear]

There was a 2 page write up in our local paper about this that specifically mentioned the census.

For anyone interested there is a FB page 'Stillbirth Isabelles Law' regarding law reform concerning stillbirth.

I haven't liked it yet, I'm stuck on them pushing for mandatory 36wk scans, but the general idea of the page seems positive

There's also a specific page/event pushing to change the census question. Apparently it was going to be reviewed after the last census, but with the changes in government it was put aside and never done

I think it's a stupid question, especially since they claim it's to collect data about fertility! Wouldn't it be more helpful to ask how many pregnancies/live births/stillbirths/miscarriages a woman has had?

I'd be tempted to include Ianto, but it wouldn't change anything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[toomanyshoes]

There's also a specific page/event pushing to change the census question. Apparently it was going to be reviewed after the last census, but with the changes in government it was put aside and never done

I think it's a stupid question, especially since they claim it's to collect data about fertility! Wouldn't it be more helpful to ask how many pregnancies/live births/stillbirths/miscarriages a woman has had?

I'd be tempted to include Ianto, but it wouldn't change anything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree completely, if it really was about fertility those other questions would be asked.

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

Maybe we should write it in there anyway, next to the particular question.

[Lisa]

I did my census yesterday and I admit, I was really thrown off by this question. I kept thinking they would ask me further along if there were any stillbirths or miscarriages but there was nothing. It felt strange and sad to not include Noah's birth along with the birth of my other children

[Diamond Girl]

Thanks for posting this. To any parent who's had a stillbirth, answering this question would be extremely upsetting.

Big hugs to anyone who has become distressed because of this question.

[Phteven]

There is a feedback option at the end of the online one. I used it

[Floweryfields]

Maybe we should write it in there anyway, next to the particular question.

Writing anything on the form oustide of the allowed spaces is pointless as it is all done automatically, not by a person (well supposedly anyway).