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?

Mother. I had a long conversations with the neonatal and obstetric team prior to delivery. It was made absolutely clear to me that I was a priority and my life would take precedence. In the end we both survived. It wouldn't have mattered what my DH thought about it. (Although he concurred, and he's a medic so he knows the law anyway, and we have another child).

I too believe that Maryz is trying, very poorly I might add, to defend the indefensible.

There is also the disgusting case of the brain dead woman kept alive.

www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/clinically-dead-pregnant-woman-being-kept-alive-by-hospital-30845660.html

From the link: 'doctors have been unwilling to do this due to the constitutional amendment which gives the rights of mothers and the unborn equal status.'

The court finally ceded that the whole case was inhuman and the woman's life support was cut off. It was becoming incredibly difficult to keep her body resembling a human because it was starting to deteriorate and decompose. The medics who testified all wished to stop the macabre and unsustainable continuation of the woman's life. It makes for very sober reading and is heartbreaking.

if we want to change things, we have to be very careful not to make statements that aren't factually, absolutely, definitively, true. Because they are taken and used against us

FWIW I agree with Maryz about this. However I can't help wondering, when it comes to the next referendum, whether it will be possible to keep truth at the forefront of things given the emotions the subject stirs up

She had an infection two days before they confirmed the pregnancy was non-viable and three days before she asked for a termination

And had they terminated on the day that the words 'inevitable miscarriage' were recorded on her records, that would have been 48 hours less for the sepsis to take hold and the chances of her being alive today would have been infinitely improved.

Used against you in what way?

And yes, Maryz I do think your agenda is anti abortion. You try to be clever about it, but your bias shines through.

I guess you will be voting no in the forthcoming referendum? You have already in other threads made your position quite clear.

In the past, I don't know when the the Catholic doctrine changed, but it was preached that the life of the baby was given priority over the mother. The church can say as much as it wants that this was never so, but it would be lying.
If they say it loud enough and long enough, they will be believed.

No it wasn't what the Church taught however long and loud you say it. It might be what some mysoginistic priests taught, it might have been what some mad old ladies said and it might be what some fanatical nuns said but it wasn't what the Church taught. The Church is a big organisation and some religious put their own spin on it. So by all means it is reasonable to say you were told that by a priest or a nun or a religious nut but it wasn't what the Church taught.

I think saying you won't sacrifice the baby to save the mother is taken by some as meaning the baby is more important but it isn't it is saying they are equal. You might not agree with that, I might not agree with that but it doesn't mean it is OK to twist it to mean something else.

This is a balanced report on the Savita Halappanavar's death.

Her death was as a direct result of 8th amendment. It's a disgraceful, shocking, horrific and tragic reminder of the way in Ireland sees women.

Link:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

I my opinion it SHOULD be the mother but I live in Ireland and it's such a grey area that some doctors aren't 100% sure what they can do. I know of one case where the doctors were actually willing nature to take it's course before they had to make the decision. The Master of the National Maternity Hospital was on the radio talking about the dilemma that doctors faced and the consequences they could face.
Completely insane!!!!!!!

@Elendon Are you reading the same posts from Maryz as I am? At no point is she defending Ireland's abortion laws.

Savita was herself a medic, trained in dentistry, she understood, much better than Maryz what was happening to her body.

I must have missed the post by Maryz where she said that too..:

Yes I am reading the same posts. Have you just based your assumptions on Maryz on this thread alone?

The Church is a big organisation and some religious put their own spin on it

I accept this, granny, but while they perhaps can't do much about the "mad old ladies", surely the church could clamp down on priests and nuns who insist on something which is against their teachings?

Puzzled I'm puzzled. What exactly has the church teachings got to do with the pluralistic society that Ireland wants to be?

Hint: It was the church that insisted the 8th amendment be introduced into the constitution.

What exactly has the church teachings got to do with the pluralistic society that Ireland wants to be?

I imagine the church have a view on that

IME, though, massively powerful organisations tend not to appreciate any reduction in that power and will sometimes take steps to avoid it which others might consider unwise ...

I am Irish Catholic and the older generation of my family would be very religious I was always told the mother takes priority. As it happens this topic did come up once a couple of years ago and I think it was to do with something someone had seen on television and my even my daily mass going grandmother was in the camp of the mother always taking priority. My grandmother lost her sil in childbirth nearly 60 years ago so she has very strong feelings on the matter (even though both mother and baby died in this instance so neither died to save the other)

Yes I am reading the same posts. Have you just based your assumptions on Maryz on this thread alone?

Yes. If your comments are referring to other threads you should make that more clear.

But she shouldn't have had to ask, it shouldn't have got to that stage

That is an incredibly naive statement to make. You are being deliberately obtuse on this matter.

You have stated that you are going to vote no in the forthcoming referendum because it doesn't go far enough.

I understand that. But it's a step forward, and you know it is. If passed, it will allow for challenges against the 8th amendment that will probably be successful.