To wonder who's life would be prioritised, mother or baby?

[splendidisolation]

Just one of those random train of thought questions that popped up in my head.

Imagine this theoretical scenario, a mother is giving birth and the doctor's have to decide whether to save her life or the newborn on its way out.
Ethically, which would they be forced to choose and why?

Imagine the mother's partner or a family member is present. Obviously horrific, but would they be asked to decide? Who makes that decision?

Would you still feel the same if that baby was a week old and his life wasn't as established as yours?

Stupid question. Why would it be a case of mother or infant if the child was 1 week old and living independent of the mother?

I'm shocked at how few people realise that it really wasn't that long ago that fathers-to-be were asked by the doctor doing the delivery "mother or baby?". Childbirth is the most risky activity that many women will ever participate in, but we are mostly protected from those risks in the West

Have no idea but I would want them to save my baby should anything go wrong. I would want DH to bring up both our children in a loving home, it's sad to think of not being part of that though..

Not the best thread to read at 34 weeks pregnant!

I distinctly recall being told during my obstetric placement, that if I ever had to deliver a baby by myself and both the mother and child needed resuscitation, that I should resuscitate the mother first, for the reasons mentioned by Nursy1 - the mother can have more children but the child is disadvantaged by having no mother.

It's interesting that of the people who say they would want their baby saved at their own expense they all have husbands.

As a single parent my children would be left parentless if I died. Sure as shitting given a choice between me or a yet to be born baby I'm not leaving my existing children at the mercy of this world without me in their corner. No way. Is that really an odd choice?? Really? To prioritise my children who would be left alone in the world should I die? What comfort would a newborn (also parentless) baby be to them? What life would be ahead of that baby?

It's to do with the (now supersedes by papal degree) doctrine of limbo. An unbaptised child, whether born or not - Catholic Church makes no distinction - was not considered able to get to Heaven, so would be sent instead to 'limbo', a sort of nothing state. As a Catholic woman has obviously been baptised, her continued life is considered less important, as she is eligible to go to Heaven.

Tha was my understanding of the situation a number of years ago

Backie the OP asked what you would do, not what you think all women should do! It's just what I feel in this very hypothetical situation in my own circumstances based on my own thought processes and emotions. Not an indication of what I think is most moral or a judgement on those who think differently.

I suppose - that this debate is a good recommendation for Hospital birth just in case it all goes pear shaped;!

I'm curious what the situation would be in Saudi Arabia.

Would a male baby get priority over its mother?

Backie the OP asked what you would do, not what you think all women should do!

Yeah and then some prick started calling the choice of another poster an odd one!

Oooh sorry I haven't RTFT, that's my bad

My dm was a midwife until she retired a couple of years ago. Mother always the priority. Maternal death is very rare these days.
.She told me recently of the only patient she had ever known to refuse a CS. Sadly the baby died Many of dms colleagues thought she should have been forced to have the CS. My DM felt even with the terrible outcome it was the woman's body & she had autonomy over it. No idea what the womans reasoning was

....and assumed it was aimed at me due to the husband thing

I'm curious what the situation would be in Saudi Arabia.

Well things are a changing there King Salman ?, has just decreed that women can drive by themselves so things are looking up!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41408195

Another poster saying it's "real love" to save your baby before yourself.

In Ireland the baby would be prioritized and they would both be allowed to die.

Sorry cherries, not aimed at you. I hadn't even a particular poster in mind. I had just noted that each post that said they would save baby mentioned a husband. Was putting the perspective of no husband to the poster who thought it an odd choice to save yourself. And actually, you're still perfectly entitled to save yourself even if you have a husband and ten nannies at home to care for your children. You are a valid human being!

I remember a court case in America years ago along these lines. Mother was in a coma after car crash (or something) in the early stages of pregnancy. Doctors advised family that a termination would increase mothers chances, allow them to give a wider range of drugs/treatment etc. Husband and family agreed go ahead, do what you can to save the mother. Then some Christian anti abortion group with no connection to the mother, heard about the case and challenged the decision in court, dragging the family through appeal after appeal.

Unfortunately I can't remember what the final outcome was so sorry, I can't tell you how the story ended.

whose

doctors (plural of doctor)

@fakenamefornow I think I read about that aswell, if it's the same one two activists tried to get guardianship of the fetus" to prevent the procedure, as far as I read she survived with slight brain damage!

@MyDcAreMarvel You're wrong I'm afraid - legally and philosophically, the unborn baby is not a person.

Have a read about personhood - it's fascinating stuff.