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?

"I'd guess the birthing partner would be asked to decide?"

Don't be ridiculous.

Doctors just aim to save all lives. They make the decisions that are most likely to save lives. One might be more likely than the other, whatever, but they're still going to endeavour to save both. There's no dramatic 'choice' made outside of soap operas.

I think if sepsis should have been diagnosed earlier then Maryz has a point in this case.

Blimey - I "know" Maryz from various other boards and would never describe her as anti-abortion! Pedantic, yes, but I'll also hold my hand up to that because, well, sometimes pedantry is really really important

If I follow correctly, all she is saying here is that it's important for the pro-choice lobby to be beyond reproach because any hint that they are obfuscating the facts (particularly in relation to individual cases) will be used against them in the campaign running up to the referendum. And more generally, it's important that people voting in the referendum understand what they are voting for: access to abortion that relies on a woman accusing a man of rape, for example, is not the access that women deserve and should be entitled to.

The hospital had refused to allow her to stay on the treatment because of the pregnancy. Her husband, Brendan, had asked variously for an abortion, early delivery of the baby or a Caesarean section. All were refused

Maryz, this is exact wording in the article. To me, that says that the hospital refused to treat her because of the pregnancy (and they refused an abortion to end the pregnancy). Fairly clear to me. I don't think you're being pedantic- I think you're minimising the horrific nature of this case.

There's no dramatic 'choice' made outside of soap operas

That's just not true. I know of two deliveries that went from an apparently straightforward labour into a crash into theatre for an emergency C section where the mum was put under general anaesthetic as they were pushing her through the corridors of the hospital. In both cases the dads were asked to agree that their first priority was to save their partner. I suspect that more of my acquaintances have had this experience too.

But olenna, in those sorts of situations getting the baby out as quickly as possible is the best treatment for both the mother and the baby. There's no prioritising one or the other.

Ok, big breath.

Overjoyed by pregnancy, a medic herself, severe back pain at 17 weeks led her to go to the hospital, obviously knew and felt that something was wrong with her and the pregnancy - an intelligent woman. Asked for a termination. Denied as heartbeat was still observed. Told this was a Catholic country. Replied, I'm Hindu. Kept in hospital. Deterioration of the patient ensued, presumably because of the continuing heartbeat. Her much longed for baby dies and the mother also dies of catastrophic spread of sepsis throughout her body a few days later. The fetus was not able to be removed because of the sepsis spread.

The position in Ireland on abortion seems similar to how schools / SS / other public bodies used to respond to reports of suspected FGM, believing (or choosing to believe) that they couldn't or shouldn't do anything to intervene because "it's a cultural practice" or they "would be acting illegally under the Equalities Act".

Of course it was bollocks: safeguarding legislation gave them a very clear duty to protect these girls, but time and time again individuals and organisations failed to do so because of misguided interpretations of the law and not wanting to upset the applecart in local communities.

In both cases the dads were asked to agree that their first priority was to save their partner. I suspect that more of my acquaintances have had this experience too.

So what would happen if they didn't agree? Considering that the unborn baby doesn't even count as a "person" legally in the UK, I find it hard to believe that the medical team would choose the babies life over the mothers on the babies father say so especially as the father may not even be the mother's next of kin.

Are you telling me then Maryz that she didn't ask for a termination?

So what would happen if they didn't agree?

I suspect that the conversation was in part about preparing the dad for the possibility that the baby might not survive, or might survive but with life-changing injuries or conditions as a result of the traumatic birth

I suspect that the conversation was in part about preparing the dad for the possibility that the baby might not survive, or might survive but with life-changing injuries or conditions as a result of the traumatic birth

So it's totally out of order of the doctors to put a decision that doesn't need to be made because they're treating the mother and baby anyway on to the husband.

Then Maryz you know, if you live in Ireland, exactly the kind of nasty and subtle tactics the anti choice lobby use in order to stifle discourse on the subject.

I lived there too. I have had direct experience of it. These people set up stalls on a Saturday, morning till evening, with horrific pictures that are deliberately doctored. They set them up outside shops, deliberately, that families will go into. Children can see them. It's disgusting and abusive.

Maryz can you comment also on the brain dead woman I posted a link to earlier. Treatment was given to her, despite her decomposing body.

I'm telling you that she didn't ask for a termination until three days after they should have diagnosed sepsis

Where you there? Are you calling her husband a liar?

If a miscarrying patient in the UK was put in a corner of a ward and left there, with no treatment, no tests and no observations, people would be yelling "the hospital is at fault" - the same applies here

Of course. But I am guessing the phrase 'there is a fetal heartbeat and this is a Catholic country' would not have been uttered to the patient. This is different to a case where the patient was neglected due to incompetence. The patient was let down because the staff interpreted the 8th amendment to mean that they could lawfully refuse to perform an abortion. To pretend otherwise is willful blindness I am afraid. The presence of any law that can be interpreted in such a way is contrary to human rights (as the ECHR found).

Same with the cancer case. You said it makes a difference that the hospital did not refuse to give her cancer treatment but instead refused to give her the treatment because she was pregnant. She was refused an abortion- the procedure she needed in order to be not pregnant and receive the treatment. The only way she could receive the treatment was by first having an abortion. The distinction really does not matter, unless you are trying to defend the hospital's actions. Splitting hairs and being pedantic is ignoring the bigger picture- women are routinely being sidelined in favour of the fetus and the only way this will change is radical legal reform giving them the right to have a termination. The current law is plainly inadequate.

And they missed it, not once but at least three times. At least? Was it more then?

You are saying this to a person who had life saving surgery due to sepsis. There is no mistaking it. Temperature is off the scale, your senses are highlighted, it cannot possibly be missed - the cleaner even said I was ill. Thankfully I wasn't pregnant and living in Ireland at that time.

The 8th amendment is the problem.