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.

You assume she has no other children.

Should they lose their mother because of a foetus?

Gummy that's very strange thinking most parents would literally die to save the life of their child.

I was brought up catholic too. The Catholic Church has no business making life or death decisions. They wedding, baptisms, funerals. That's their business.

Oops, have just seen MyBrilliantDisguise's reply. Certainly at some stage it was a Catholic thing.

Mother - no one else has a say in it

I'm guessing it would be up to doctors to make the decision as they would know the survival odds of each person better
But I did (during a very weepy third trimester) tell my partner that if anything went wrong when I went into labour that he had to make sure that they did everything to save the baby and not me
Luckily my dh was great and didn't look at me like I was insane. Just promised me that he would.
Thankfully no decision like that had to be made

Repoint of course the baby is a person , no different two hours into labour than at the end.

With dc2 my dh was warned baby would be 2nd priority just as I erupted blood over the operating table

Lest we forget.

Note, though, that a synod of bishops underlined that Catholicism, while it asserts the 'inalienable right to life of the mother and unborn baby', has never taught that the foetus' life takes precedence over that of the mother.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

The mother would always be prioritised. In a situation where a mother is gravely ill or injured, generally the best chance for the fetus is to treat and resuscitate the mother. Occasionally delivering the fetus can help efforts to revive the mother so an emergency section might be performed. If the mother is dead a perimortem caesarean can be performed to try and save the fetus but this is usually futile.

The birthing partner/relatives/NOK would have no say in the matter (nor should they). Thankfully these situations are very rare.

Gummy that's very strange thinking most parents would literally die to save the life of their child.

Not strange at all. Why is it better for two (or more) children to grow up without a mother and a grieving father than one child to grow up with a mother? Why would any parent choose that for their children?

"Gummy that's very strange thinking most parents would literally die to save the life of their child."

Which is, presumably, why it's a good idea to give clear instructions in advance of being in a crisis situation.

Strangely my obstetrician told me prior to delivery his role was to care for me. In the event of an emergency another specialist would be called to care for the babe.

It's always the mother. The doctors would never ever ask the family their choice in this because it is their job to make the best decision on behalf of everyone.

Mother. Every time.

Historically, it's the mother's life which takes precedence.

Only the doctor should decide, if a decision is to be made. Clearly a partner is going to be in no fit emotionally state to make such a decision.

Interesting that someone said they were told the baby should be saved. I was also brought up Catholic and always believed it to be the mother who should be saved.

My understanding of the Catholic position is that action may be taken to save the life of the mother even if the death of the baby is a secondary effect. Causing the death of the baby cannot be the primary purpose of any action. Hence, in an ectopic pregnancy, removal of the fallopian tube would be permissible whilst administering methotrexate to cause the death of the baby would not be.

I understand that legally a baby has no rights before the moment of birth, no matter how close to birth they are. So the mother's life would always be prioritised.

I asked this question during pregnancy with DC1 and was told it would be me. Apparently the reason there should be two MWs in the room at delivery is that one can look after mum & the other look after baby.

Horrible situation, I suppose medical staff do their best and prioritise based on medical factors.

For my first baby, I would have said save my child any time.
He's not "Just a foetus", what a horrible thing to say. It's a baby, a new human person, at the start of his life. I would argue that I had my life, and it's his turn. I would have trusted my family to never feel guilty about losing his mum at birth and have a happy childhood. A baby has as much right to live than I have!

For my next children, I think it's more difficult. I would have said save the baby too, but that would mean abandoning all my kids. They would still have a happy life without me, or the potential for one, but the saddest thing would be to know how sad they would be. (and I have a lot more living to do!)

I feel so sorry for husbands, and doctors, who have to make this decision. It's impossible.

I personally know women who had to make this kind of decision, after being diagnosed with cancer. Go for treatment, or give their unborn baby a chance. I have huge respect for them and the choice they made, whichever it was. it's such an impossible situation.

I think the mother would get picked from a medical point of view as a baby isn't really seen as a living being (or something) until the baby is born. I think the only person who would have a say otherwise would be the mum

If it’s clear cut mum over baby then the mum will be chosen every time at any medical hospital, no matter the national religion of the country within which it operates. If, however, mum has terminal cancer/disease or is unlikely to survive the birth anyway, then the doctor needs to choose the baby provided it has a greater chance at living. They don’t call it an ethical dilemma for nothing!

I was in a similar situation during DS1s birth, I seem to recall someone saying "save the woman, it's too late" but nobody else present agrees that this was actually said (I was on my fourth canister of gas and air and may have imagined the words being said) but a midwife in the room definitely told me several times that D1 wasn't going to make it and that I should "stop fussing, what's done is done" birth partner remembers that part. So by that experience alone I'd say they'd opt to save the mother. For what it's worth DS1 was resuscitated after birth and survived the ordeal.

In British law the an unborn baby is not a recognised citizen, hence the death of unborn twins late in gestation in the Omargh Bomb being acknowledged separately to the official death toll.

If a pregnant woman was severely assulted and the baby died of its injuries, the offense is legally different if the death of the baby occured in utero or was born then died of its injuries ( thinks of a local crime where a pregnant woman was stabbed through her bump. I think both survived due to EMCS)

If the big red button is pressed during birth, separate paediatric and obstetric teams will rush in to provide mother and baby with specialist care.

It happen to me in childbirth with DD. I was prioritised - the medical team thought that DD was past saving. DH knew things were going wrong, but was not asked to decide.

She's nearly 6 and sitting next to me practicing her songs for harvest festival assembly later this week.

I've always heard it would be the mother.