Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

625 replies

splendidisolation · 26/09/2017 18:05

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?

OP posts:
DixieNormas · 27/09/2017 00:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

confused123456 · 27/09/2017 01:09

I'd say professionals would always save the mum first.
Though personally, I said to my husband that if worst came to worst and it was a choice between me or the baby, to save our baby no question (1st baby, so no other children), because I knew he would be a fantastic dad, and our baby would be loved and cared for even without me around. So in that situation I'd want my baby saved over me every time.
(Not life or death, but our little one wasn't well after being born and had to go to NICU, I insisted my husband went with him, I was having stitches done at the time. My husband hated leaving me, but our son needed him so much more. I didn't want him alone).
I think if you already have children, it's different because you'd have to prioritise the child or children you already have, over the unborn child. So in that situation it may be different. That said I know my husband would be a great dad. But I don't think I could let my living children lose their mum and have to go through that, and as an adult, I'd grieve for my other child, so my children didn't have to grieve for me.
If it was between my child or children and my husband, my child every time.

RazWaz · 27/09/2017 02:24

The one that has the highest chance of survival.

AccrualIntentions · 27/09/2017 06:15

I don't have other children and I have a husband who is going to be a wonderful dad. I still would want them to prioritise my life over my baby. I don't think this demonstrates I'm lacking "real love" as posters on this thread seem to suggest. We haven't met him/her yet, whereas I have known and loved my husband deeply for years and years. It's not a decision either of us would struggle with while the child isn't yet born.

wait4thesale · 27/09/2017 06:39

From experience and working at a hospital, the life of the mother is almost always priority.

Witsender · 27/09/2017 08:14

As selfish as it is, I would hope to be prioritised.

Youshallnotpass · 27/09/2017 08:19

My wife was in a serious situation with the birth of our little one, emergency C-section in the end. There was a single Paediatrician in the room who's sole responsibility was the baby. Every other doctor was there to ensure nothing happened to my wife, the mother should always come first.

BarbarianMum · 27/09/2017 08:23

They should prioritise the mother. If it were me I'd want them to save the baby.

Bicyclethief · 27/09/2017 08:39

Raised Catholic and it's the mother.

Bicyclethief · 27/09/2017 08:41

If I had other children I would chose me stead of baby. I know what it's like to suffer a loss of parent at young age and I wouldn't want my child to go through that. If I had no children, I would chose the baby to be saved.

Mittens1969 · 27/09/2017 09:24

Of course a lot of women would say 'save the baby', the prospect of losing a longed-for child would be a horrible thing to face. I'm sure my DSis would have said that, she'd been through a horrible pregnancy experience for the sake of the baby and she'd always wanted kids. Thankfully they both survived, but it was a very scary experience for all of us.

That doesn't mean that the hospice won't put the mother first; the whole point of the emergency c section in cases of pre-Enclampsia is to safeguard the life of the mother.

Mittens1969 · 27/09/2017 09:24

Sorry, I mean 'hospital', I hate this predictive text!!

LaurieMarlow · 27/09/2017 09:31

Fresh, the Savita Halappanavar case was an absolute tragedy. She was denied an abortion but that wasn't an attempt to save the baby, it was a massive illegal error on the part of the hospital staff who failed to monitor her properly and thus failed to diagnose or treat sepsis. It was appalling, but it wasn't an attempt to save the baby over the mother

That's hugely underplaying it to say that it was an 'error'.

It was the refusal to abort an nonviable baby, thus putting the mother's life at risk.

Savita requested a termination when it was clear that her baby had no chance. She was told by the managing midwife that termination couldn't be carried out because "Ireland is a catholic country". She was then told by the doctor that "the law in Ireland does not permit termination even if there is no prospect of viability".

GummyGoddess · 27/09/2017 09:35

Atsea1979 I cannot imagine a single scenario where I would have to choose between my life and a one week old. I am never going to tell doctors to save an unborn baby over me when I already have a child. My child needs me, my husband needs me, my mother and my siblings need me.

As cruel as you may think I'm being, the devastation of losing me would be far worse than losing a baby during childbirth. I do not want my existing child to grow up without me, possibly resenting the sibling that led to my death, or for the baby to feel awful knowing that I died instead of them. I don't want my husband to have to cope with a new born and our existing child while being widowed and having to comfort our existing child when they cry for me.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2017 09:35

An "error"??

Jesus Christ.

RavingRoo · 27/09/2017 09:38

@LaurieMarlow - agree, there has always been legal uncertainty around abortion in Ireland. This caused a huge publicity storm against Ireland in India, where abortion isn’t a problem, and many organisations that resource from India into Ireland now recommend that pregnant women return to India as it’s safer.

brasty · 27/09/2017 09:50

Once a baby is born, the decision is never going to be between one or the other. Except in an emergency triage system e.g. explosion, where the protocol is to go to those who most need help, unless there is no chance of survival. So no, children are not prioritised over adults then.

But legally a living human i.e. the mother, always has to be prioritised over a baby still to be born. And it is not selfish for many women to choose that either.

squishysquirmy · 27/09/2017 09:56

Gummy I don't think you're being remotely cruel, I think you are being honest. I feel the same, and even if it was my first child I think I would want them to save me.
Before dd was born, I loved her but not in the same way I do now. It was a completely different kind of love, and nothing like as strong. I didn't know her. I cannot think of any other circumstance in which I would sacrifice my life for the sake of someone I had never met, no matter how much DNA we shared, and childbirth is no exception.

heron98 · 27/09/2017 09:59

I am horrified people are saying the baby!! Surely the mother's life should be prioritised. Who's goign to care for the baby if she's dead? You can't assume there would be someone. She might have other children, will certainly have family and friends and things to live for. Yes, a baby dying is tragic. But it should not be prioritised over the mother.

Backingvocals · 27/09/2017 10:09

Only women are asked to explain why they have more rights than an unborn child. If the baby in utero needed a heart transplant would anyone ask Dad - or indeed any other random adult - to sacrifice their life for the baby? No.

Let's imagine a world where second class citizens are kept alive in order to sustain the life of unborn babies - and to become organ donors at the cost of their own life if an unborn baby needed it. Dystopian horror - unless it's a woman and then it's normal.

Women may choose to give up their own lives for their babies - I wouldn't have done it for my unborn baby and nor for my newborn but I would do it now for my 10 and 8 year olds. But can anyone elect to make this decision on my behalf? No freakin way.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 27/09/2017 10:15

I'm learning a lot here, not least about the urge to downplay what seems to be happening when religion is allowed to dictate so much ... and having read more about Savita Halappanavar's case, I worry that at least some of that dowmplaying is happening right here Hmm

In all honesty why do folk do this? Is the grip of a particular religion on their minds really so overwhelming that even reality has to be denied? As I've said before this isn't intended as some sort of attack; I'm simply trying to understand

NauticalDisaster · 27/09/2017 10:20

I didn't think there was any choice in the UK, that it was the mother every time. All the paperwork we had to sign at the hospital when my dc were born stated that the mother's life would be saved first if it came gown to that, there was no option to say save the baby first.

Papafran · 27/09/2017 10:25

Only women are asked to explain why they have more rights than an unborn child. If the baby in utero needed a heart transplant would anyone ask Dad - or indeed any other random adult - to sacrifice their life for the baby? No

This, pretty much. Particularly depressing that the catholic church prioritises the baby seeing as they also agree with forcing women to be pregnant and give birth even if they want a termination. So according to that, a woman could be asked to sacrifice her own life for a child that she never wanted to have in the first place. Nice. That shows pretty much pure contempt and hatred for women who are just vessels to carry precious babies.

GummyGoddess · 27/09/2017 10:25

As serious as this thread is, I am finding it very amusing that there is an ad for mums life insurance showing whenever I load the thread.

Mittens1969 · 27/09/2017 10:31

What I've noticed from some of the stories talked about on this thread, is that in none of the cases did the baby survive anyway! It was all about dogma, and probably goes back to an age where maternal death in childbirth was common and sadly expected in some cases. It has no place these days whe in nearly all cases (in the Western world anyway), the mother's life can be saved even if the baby's can't.