NHS registers babies as theybies: why it’s happening

Show summary Hide summary

• What the new patient record prompts clinicians to enter
  • Where this has been reported and how trusts reacted
• Changes to maternity language and how services frame parenthood
• Training from activist-affiliated groups and controversies in the classroom
• Patient safety, staffing pressures and whistleblower accounts
  • Legal actions and individual cases
• Questions about accountability and NHS spending priorities
• Clinical implications of mixing identity fields with neonatal records

A newborn’s first registration at some NHS trusts is now including fields previously reserved for adults: prompts for gender identity, pronouns and even sexual orientation. The change has unsettled clinicians and families alike, raising questions about clinical relevance, record accuracy and who set these defaults.

At the center of the debate is a widely rolled-out electronic patient-record system developed by Epic, part of a multibillion-pound modernization program. Staff training sessions and whistleblower accounts suggest the software’s default configuration encourages recording identity details for infants that many medical professionals say cannot meaningfully apply to minutes-old babies.

What the new patient record prompts clinicians to enter

Clinicians who have used the Epic setup report a registration workflow that asks for several identity-related fields immediately after birth. According to internal accounts from some NHS trusts, the form can require entries such as:

• Sex assigned at birth
• Gender identity and preferred pronouns
• Sexual orientation
• An organ inventory — noting organs present at birth and any that have been surgically or hormonally altered

Staff at a number of trusts say the system will not complete a newborn’s registration unless those identity fields are addressed. That has prompted alarm among midwives who argue that certain categories are not relevant to neonates and could undermine the accuracy of clinical records.

Where this has been reported and how trusts reacted

A whistleblower at Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust spoke to national press after a training session left staff surprised at the default questions. NHS leaders previously indicated the Epic implementation would emphasize biological sex in record-keeping, but clinicians say the installed configuration still includes the broader identity fields in practice. The software is believed to be active in multiple NHS trusts, raising concerns about consistency across maternity services.

Changes to maternity language and how services frame parenthood

Alongside software concerns, national organizations and charity guidance have shifted terminology in documents and training. Reports and toolkits produced for maternity services increasingly use gender-neutral wording such as “birthing person” instead of “mother.” For example, a recent 34-page report on pregnancy and newborn care reportedly mentions the word “mother” only once while favoring alternative phrases elsewhere.

Supporters say language updates aim to be inclusive of transgender and nonbinary people. Critics argue that erasing commonly understood terms can confuse communication in clinical settings and make it harder for women to access services designed specifically for them.

Training from activist-affiliated groups and controversies in the classroom

Several whistleblowers and staff accounts allege that some midwifery training includes sessions run by organizations centered on LGBTQ+ perspectives. These programs sometimes cover nontraditional topics — for instance, guidance suggesting that lactation and chestfeeding are not exclusively female experiences.

• Groups such as the Queer Birth Club have been named in training contexts that present “LGBTQ+ competency” alongside lactation education.
• Some courses reportedly also address broader social issues — for example, the impact of fatphobia in perinatal care — as part of cultural competence training.

Clinicians who oppose aspects of this training have said they feel pressured to adopt language and practices they view as clinically irrelevant or ideologically driven.

Patient safety, staffing pressures and whistleblower accounts

Concerns about record-keeping and language convergence come as maternity services face documented strains. An independent review into maternity care has highlighted severe problems in parts of the service, including reports of inadequate nourishment for patients, instances where bereaved families felt blamed, and extreme cases of delayed care.

Frontline staff say system priorities sometimes place cultural or policy goals ahead of practical needs — such as beds, staffing levels and timely clinical care. Whistleblowers who raise objections report facing internal discipline or professional consequences in some cases, which critics say can deter staff from speaking out about safety risks.

Legal actions and individual cases

Some clinicians have pursued legal challenges and public complaints over workplace treatment related to these disputes. A handful of nurses and midwives have won individual cases when they contested managerial decisions in court, but activists and critics note that these victories have not always led to broad policy reversals or systemic change.

Questions about accountability and NHS spending priorities

The emergence of identity-focused fields in newborn records has prompted sharper questions about who authorized the current Epic configurations and how procurement decisions were made. Observers are asking which boards and decision-makers prioritized this software rollout and related consultancy work over other urgent needs.

• How were configuration defaults set, and who approved them?
• What oversight exists to ensure clinical record templates reflect evidence-based practice?
• Are funds for IT implementation and inclusivity consultancy diverting resources from staffing and physical capacity?

Pressure is growing for clearer lines of responsibility and for senior leaders to explain why certain choices were made amid stretched maternity budgets and service pressures.

Clinical implications of mixing identity fields with neonatal records

Medical records are the backbone of safe care: accurate details about sex, health history and anatomy inform diagnostics, medication dosing and specialist referrals. Introducing identity categories that do not have clinical relevance to newborns risks confusing handovers and diluting essential information.

• Potential for mismatches between recorded identity fields and biological markers important for pediatric care.
• Risk that organ inventories and non-medical descriptors clutter vital health summaries.
• Challenges for future care continuity if initial records prioritize social categories over medical facts.

Many clinicians argue that patient safety would be better served by keeping newborn records focused on verifiable medical data while offering family-centered support that respects diverse identities without conflating them with neonatal clinical entries.

You might also like:

• NHS women’s health crisis puts patient care at risk
• NHS gender policy linked to sexual assault
• Pitt season 2 exposes mistreatment of women patients in ERs
• Letbyism: growing threat as Lucy Letby supporters spread denial and influence
• NHS faces backlash over woke policies affecting patient care