The Child Health team has discussed the issues that have been submitted in the ballot of the IG ICBM , such as FHIR-422449, FHIR-42526 ,. These issues were in a general a proposition to replace born-status with the word delivery-status. We have discussed this intensively in our calls and would like hear from you whether the following solution would be acceptable before we really go into resolution mode.   In the discussion within our team we considered the various pro's and contra's arguments for the change from born-status to delivery-status: Pro's Consistency with the terms used in public health for the vital statistics and death reporting.  It would include also ceasarean, while birth would be related to the natural process of birth. Also in case of demise, there is not necessarily a birth taking place. Contra's Various care providers associate delivery with a logistical or supply act. Australian and UK care providers are not in favor to the use of the term delivery. Maternal versus fetal perspective: delivery would be from the standpoint of the mother. Birth would be the viewpoint from the standpoint of the fetus.   However our target in our project is to express that the subject ( Patient with extension) is not a real patient (yet). This is from the viewpoint of the fetus. Therefore we come with an alternative solution and that is not to get lost in an never ending discussion to use either delivery or birth, but to come forward with the actual intention of the attribute and that is state of the fetus.   The motion is then to name the extension Fetal status , because in fact the status is about the fetus itself, not about the birth or delivery. Both the terms birth and delivery don’t feel completely right in this context.