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?

In England the mother. In Ireland - well they both have equal rights which in practise means the baby.

it's not against Irish law, or even against Catholic religious belief, to treat a mother for a life-threatening illness, even if that treatment inadvertently causes the death of the foetus

The eighth amendment gives equal right to the foetus and the mother doesn't it?

There are a number of other cases where a woman's medical treatment is changed because she is pregnant.

Abra1d

Don't think it i the same case but at RC school we were told of similar and how wonderful the woman was.

I find the fetishisation of maternal sacrifice that is so often espoused after cases like that really creepy. Fair enough for individuals who say they would put their unborn baby's life above their own if they had the choice - I would do different, but respect their position. However, I don't like the pushing of a narrative that a mother reaches peak maternal saintliness by making the "ultimate sacrifice" for her unborn child. Its an insidious message that (if I were being cynical) seems designed to make those of us who don't reach that standard of self-sacrifice fell like cold hearted bitches.

(No-one on this thread is doing that, btw and I have immense sympathy for the sad stories that have been shared on here.)

Maryz

www.irishtimes.com/news/state-settled-with-cancer-patient-1.555035

I was under the impression that historically, the whole 'mother or baby' choice was actually a kind of code. Mothers who survive a traumatic birth may well end up infertile. In a time with no divorce, that could result in no further children. Margaret Beaufort being a famous example.

Making the 'choice' to 'prioritise' the child was often a bit of a veiled way of saying let her die so I can marry someone else and ensure subsequent children. The modern hangover from this is that when we hear the dilemma mother vs baby people rarely think of a newborn left with no one to look after them and negatively impacted survival chances. Instead we think of a loving dad bringing up baby, surrounded by family support and probably marrying again fairly soon.

I could be totally wrong, not sure where I got that impression from.

Wow squishy
Yes I'm sure all those women are making such difficult decisions just to make you feel bad.

Mother.

This is depessing, Sheila Hodgers and symphysiotomy all in one article

www.irishtimes.com/news/reasons-for-women-not-to-be-cheerful-1.5496

Not those women, Barbarian. I was criticising the people who hold them up as a shining beacon of ultimate womanhood afterwards.

I have absolutely nothing against women who have had to make that very difficult choice. I do have a problem with people using their deaths as propaganda.

sashh those cases you linked to are heart rending and chilling. I sincerely hope the referendum passes. Those poor women - financial compensation is poor recompense to them or their families.

Maryz the article says she was not able to receive treatment because she was pregnant and she was also refused an abortion. It also references case law in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland had breached the human rights of a woman with cancer who had to travel abroad to get an abortion.

I am not sure what point you are trying to argue here. It sounds like you are trying to defend the indefensible - by which I means Ireland's abortion legislation, which is responsible for the deaths of women. It is a massive blot of shame on the nation that I hope will soon change.

Marysz, are we reading the same article? It clearly says that she was refused an abortion and that the hospital refused to continue her cancer treatment. Where does it say she was not refused.

Equally, in the other case, this was malpractice because the hospital staff felt that they could not abort because there was a fetal heartbeat. So the problem was the fact that Irish law recognises fetal rights. There may be doctors who take a common sense view and will treat pregnant women even if that results in the fetus dying. Similarly, before the Abortion Act, there were doctors who would treat pregnant women, even if they knew it would result in the death of the fetus. There are many doctors who will administer pain relief, knowing they are effectively ending the patient's life. However, until the law is changed, that is not enough. There should be a right to abortion and the rights of the unborn should never trump those of the living.

I can remember in primary school being told in a class discussion by a fellow student that her father was asked to decide between her and her mother during her birth because things went wrong. She was upset that he chose her mother (no I can't remember why we were discussing ths at the tender age of 9 nor do I have any clue how she got to know about it). I remember the teacher nodding and saying "that's how it is" (a man). I remember this distinctly because it was the event that taught me the power that men have over women. It utterly shocked me that a man could choose whether I lived or died. I remember saying 'your mother should have chosen' or 'your mother's parents should choose', and 'the baby should die' but there was a reason why these would not work as solutions (I can't remember what). The teacher probably went home to a large, stiff drink because I remember not wanting to leave the conversation alone ...

The point she's making is that even under Irish law she should have been given treatment at that hospital and she would have survived. She didn't die because she was refused an abortion but because of hospital negligence. If it was purely because of Irish law then the hospital can wriggle out of any responsibility for her death.

But of course she should have been allowed to access an abortion, that's not in doubt either.

But mixing up the two things - the legalities of getting an abortion, and the access to medical treatment just fudges the issue

Once again I agree in principle, but isn't there a risk that the issue can already be fudged by healthcare staff with an agenda? A possibly distressed patient seeking an abortion is rarely a legal expert, able to probe for the exact truth - she's more likely to be in some turmoil and perhaps more susceptible as a result

Wouldn't it be better for what's allowed and what's not to be clarified beyond doubt, maybe with something like widespread posters around GP surgeries, clinics and so on? Or is there some kind of resistance going on which would make even this unacceptable?

If it was purely because of Irish law then the hospital can wriggle out of any responsibility for her death.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland had breached her human rights so it looks like it was Irish law that was held responsible - at least by the ECHR.

The SH case - she was ill, she needed treatment, she didn't get it.

Yes, but she probably wouldn't have needed treatment if she'd been given the abortion as soon as it was known the fetus was unviable.

And the law is fundamentally to blame for the fact that this wasn't done.