IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v392y2026ics0277953625011888.html

From Clinic to Grave: Women's experiences of ‘pregnancy remains’ disposal following an early miscarriage in England, UK

Author

Listed:
  • Kilshaw, Susie

Abstract

National guidance, particularly that issued by the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) informs UK clinical practices around managing pregnancy remains prior to 24 weeks gestation. This guidance stipulates that women should be offered options for disposal: cremation, burial, or incineration. Based on 20 months of ethnographic fieldwork between April 2020–September 2022 in one National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England, including participant observation, observing clinical consultations about pregnancy remains disposal (n28) and interviews with women (n27), this paper argues that current clinical practices appear discordant with the views of some women experiencing miscarriage and therefore are not conducive to inclusive care. Most women had not considered what would happen to the pregnancy remains prior to the formal discussion around disposal in the hospital and found the discussion unexpected. Many participants expressed disbelief about disposal pathways offered with most suggesting they were inappropriate, particularly given the early stage of their pregnancy (≤12-week gestation). Some women expected the pregnancy remains to be treated as clinical waste and were surprised and, at times, upset to not have this option. The research provides further evidence of the diversity of responses to miscarriage including some women's dissatisfaction with practices around pregnancy remains disposal. It shows that some women would prefer to have a choice that does not include ceremonial disposal. A person-centred approach to pregnancy remains disposal is recommended to accommodate a diverse range of attitudes. This should include incineration as a disposal option to ensure practices do not imply meaning of the pregnancy tissue that conflicts with women's perspectives, including their notions of foetal personhood or its absence. The study can inform and refine local and national practices as well as develop consistency across NHS Trusts.

Suggested Citation

  • Kilshaw, Susie, 2026. "From Clinic to Grave: Women's experiences of ‘pregnancy remains’ disposal following an early miscarriage in England, UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 392(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:392:y:2026:i:c:s0277953625011888
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625011888
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118857?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Layne, Linda L., 2003. "Unhappy endings: a feminist reappraisal of the women's health movement from the vantage of pregnancy loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 1881-1891, May.
    2. Layne, Linda L., 2006. "Pregnancy and infant loss support: A new, feminist, American, patient movement?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 602-613, February.
    3. Pfeffer, Naomi, 2008. "What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: A focus group study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2544-2554, June.
    4. Lovell, Alice, 1983. "Some questions of identity: Late miscarriage, stillbirth and perinatal loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(11), pages 755-761, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nelson, Hyeyoung Oh, 2024. "Experiencing birth trauma: Individualism and isolation in postpartum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    2. Kuchinskaya, Olga & Parker, Lisa S., 2018. "‘Recurrent losers unite’: Online forums, evidence-based activism, and pregnancy loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 74-80.
    3. Samantha Murphy & Hilary Thomas, 2013. "Stillbirth and Loss: Family Practices and Display," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 18(1), pages 27-37, February.
    4. Baggott, Rob & Jones, Kathryn L., 2011. "Prevention better than cure? Health consumer and patients' organisations and public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(4), pages 530-534, August.
    5. van der Sijpt, Erica, 2010. "Marginal matters: Pregnancy loss as a social event," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1773-1779, November.
    6. Deborah Davidson, 2011. "Reflections on Doing Research Grounded in My Experience of Perinatal Loss: From Auto/biography to Autoethnography," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(1), pages 1-8, February.
    7. Layne, Linda L., 2006. "Pregnancy and infant loss support: A new, feminist, American, patient movement?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 602-613, February.
    8. Kent, Julie, 2008. "The fetal tissue economy: From the abortion clinic to the stem cell laboratory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1747-1756, December.
    9. repec:plo:pone00:0159113 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jeffries Hein, Robbin & Le Goff, Anne & Landecker, Hannah L., 2025. "Making and disposing of life's ‘starting materials’: A focus group study of attitudes concerning reproductive scarcity and abundance in in vitro gametogenesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 379(C).
    11. Martin, Lisa A. & Hassinger, Jane A. & Debbink, Michelle & Harris, Lisa H., 2017. "Dangertalk: Voices of abortion providers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 75-83.
    12. Ho, Shirley S. & Looi, Jiemin & Chuah, Agnes S.F. & Leong, Alisius D. & Pang, Natalie, 2018. "“I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 436-447.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:392:y:2026:i:c:s0277953625011888. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.