Sierra Leone Birth/Death registrations [Part C] Batch - M36H-Y6L
This batch appears to be birth records (note the column of 'when registered' male/female ...)? It appears maybe the mother and address is listed in that second column (note the ages)? The columns appear to be mixed up - not recorded in proper columns.
I would recommend checking the nearby Reference Images (bottom icon in vertical toolbar in image area) for previous/following images to see if they are also out of order(if those images are available). The Reference Images are not available in Shared Batch so I cannot view them.
You may want to hold onto this batch and wait for a more official response from FamilySearch (I am a Community member).
I did that. They all look the same. Some people Index those. I always erase them.
The last 3 images are normal Birth records. They are the mothers - I think. The other images show Birth weight near the end. I usually index any parent name when the child's name is not visible on other images.
I personally wouldn't index or review this image because in my opinion there is too much medical information for public knowledge. (But, I am trained in the ways of the health information patient protection act (HIPPA) of the US.) I couldn't, in good faith, index this much personal health information for public dissemination of records where the mothers are most likely alive. But, they are birth records, so based on the instructions, I assume FS wants them indexed. For me, it would be a Reindex Batch deleting the data, or an NED, hoping that FS would have a look at the 10 pages (images 814-824) and others, and make a decision based on the laws of Sierra Leone. (Perhaps they don't have any medical information privacy protections).
The reason I would send it back for reindexing and delete the data: the indexer didn't realize that the name was the mothers and entered it as the child's. The date cannot be listed as 1976 since these records span 1858-2016. It could just have easily been 1876 based on what we see on the image. You would be reindexing most of the data. (registration no, deleted; child's names deleted, mother's name entered, year is blank because you can't determine the first two digits).
The reason I would mark it NED - it has personal health information, i.e., the number of pregnancies/live births, (ANC means Antenatal Care), probably the placental weight, and then the outcome of the perineum. Yeah, TMI (too much information).
I will N,N-E-D it. They are NOT birth records and too uncertain what to do.
The owners of the documents chose how they want the information in their documents to be indexed. They also decide whether the records will be made public or if only certain information will be public. When there is information that is legally deemed private it is very unlikely that the complete record will be made public.
The records marked No extractable data will be reviewed to determine if they should have been indexed.
Of course indexers are always free to return batches they feel uncomfortable indexing for whatever reason. Not a problem at all in fact it is encouraged that we index records we feel comfortable indexing.
As always we appreciate the work you do and that you want to do it correctly!
I mostly Review. I have been returning batches when I think someone else might be able to discern a name or a letter that I cannot. I am amazed that 1 Sierra Leone example has at least 2 names written incorrectly. I have much experience discerning the handwriting of S L and know they were spelled wrong.
That is nice to think that they will remove the images or mark them private. But when there are a few thousand records, somehow I think those might slip through the cracks.
@Harmon, James Bartlett You should post the correct information so the moderators can let the project managers know their are mistakes on the examples.