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?

Happened to me giving birth to DD1. DH was told they would try to save my life and if the baby survived that would be a bonus. Luckily we were both fine in the end.

Wasn't the religion the cause of the malpractice though? Or a contributing factor, as a misunderstanding of religion and how it affects abortion/pregnancy/miscarriage was involved. Hence the comment about it being a Catholic country from the one of the nurses involved.

Mittens Yes agreed, because I suspect if things have got to that risky a stage, the baby will probably be affected anyway in uteri. The body actually prioritises the living of the mother, over the unborn baby. Because in nature, a baby without a mother would probably die anyway, and a woman can always have more babies. (I don't say this unfeelingly, but nature is harsh).

Wasn't the religion the cause of the malpractice though?

Yes, the nutjob religious views are why abortion is illegal in Ireland and why this was even an issue. It was not just pure malpractice, it was the fact that she requested an abortion.

As to the Savita Hallappanavar case, her treatment, or lack of it, was appalling. But that wasn't due to Irish law.

But in any other country the baby would have been aborted much sooner. There would have been none of this waiting around until the heartbeat stopped - and in that intervening period she deteriorated rapidly.

The consultant in charge of the case was clear in her mind that she was acting in accordance with Irish law in not performing an abortion sooner.

But has anyone said why it was decided not to give the correct treatment? Are you saying it was just a mistake, someone not knowing what the correct treatment should be and everyone else going along with it?

Of course religion/law is no defence, hence me saying that the people involved here were mistaken. I'm interested in why they were mistaken.

@Maryz, yes I do see where you're coming from actually. It allows the hospital to wriggle out of any responsibility for what happened to her, because they can say that they were only doing what the law required them to do.

Horrible case, absolutely.

Just to add, yes there was obviously medical malpractice in addition to religious issues.

However, this case wouldn't have had such a tragic ending if the abortion in normal circs was legal and there wasn't a grey area (open to interpretation) as to when it was okay to abort to save the mother's life. And these issues come back directly to the constitution.

With my DD, I would have rather died and let her survive.

If that happened now with any subsequent children, I would choose myself, because I don't think I could leave my DD like that.

But, I certaintly wouldn't be thinking "how can I leave my daughter for a fetus?" Hate that word, it's so dehumanizing. The baby I'm giving birth to is a baby, a human, a developed life, not just a fetus.

Great posts maryz

Maryz No, my comment about "downplaying happening here" wasn't intended as an attack on you or anyone other individual. By "here" I meant within our (supposedly) modern society; I should probably have said "all around us" but that might not have been any better!!

Apologies for not making myself clearer though ...

I agree with Maryz. So much misinformation about what the Catholic Church teaches. It doesn't say prioritize the child over the mother. And doesn't forbid life saving treatment to a Mother even if it affects the child in the womb. And it is wrong that this hospital is hiding behind this as an excuse for their incompetence and malpractice.

Its the mother every time

So the hospital was likely to do the same to other patients, not do obs and not follow protocol. She was unlucky in that this had lethal consequences whereas other patients may have just experienced poor care but not be affected long term.

@ZuriWanders, I agree, I don't like the way the word fetus is used these days. Curiously, the word was originally the Latin word for 'offspring'.

I also think this is not the same argument as the pro-choice/pro-life dabate anyway. Most people who argue against abortion in most circumstances accept that it's necessary in a situation where the mother's life is in danger.

It obviously hasn't always been so, and it sounds like the so-called pro-life lobby nutcases in the US haven't changed in that respect though sadly.

When I was still a practising catholic there was a story on the weekly newsletter about a Polish woman who was being praised because she had turned down cancer treatment as it would have killed her foetus. She went on to give birth and died at some point afterwards of cancer.

She was lauded for her sacrifice.

Thing is, she had other children at home. I wonder how they felt about their mother deciding to give up her life for this unborn sibling?

In 1967 my mother had pre eclampsia and had a 'fit'. She was 7 months pregnant and aged 21. Doctors gave Dad the impossible choice of saving mother or child. He was forced to choose mom.

I shudder to think of it now. My brother was buried in a mass grave and my parents had no idea where. I found out for them a couple of years ago and now we have somewhere to visit - it's provided some closure but its a sad tale.

Abra1d, yes there is a similar story I read where a woman (with existing children) found out she had aggressive cancer early on in the pregnancy, was advised to terminate, but refused. In the end, baby had to be born prematurely because time really was running out to be able to cure the mum. Very sadly, the baby died. Even sadder, the mum's cancer has spread and is terminal. It's a horrific moral dilemma, but I think for me the needs of the existing children (including the need for a parent) would come first, especially if the termination would happen relatively early on. In this case, the kids will be left without a mum. I guess the flipside is that the cancer could have spread even if she did have a termination, but I think she would have given herself at least a fighting chance. Impossible to judge someone else's decision though.

I guess I'm a selfish cow, as even with my PFB, I'd have preferred to be saved over him. I can imagine running into a house fire to save my DC now they are children, but being allowed to bleed out or whatever for a newborn with slim chances seems different somehow. I guess my kids weren't real to me until they were out and in my arms.