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?

The man waned his wife to attend the hospital where her life would be less valued? I.e. they'd pick the baby over her?? And he said it out loud?? Omg

I'm actually not at all surprised.

I have read several posts and concluded that the final decision will be made by a medical team who decide who will stay alive. The fetus does not have any rights according to the laws. DH can use the courtesy of the doctors and be present during a delivery. Although without a right to interfere the work of a medical team. Right? Is a woman able to notify the medical authorities about her own decision before a delivery starts? I find it interesting to know. It is a kind of a will, is not it?

beat95 From reading many of the well informed posts on this thread, in the UK the medical team will prioritise the mother above the unborn baby every time, (except possibly in exceptionally rare cases where the mother will almost certainly die soon anyway) but will do everything they can for the baby as well. It has nothing to do with the mother's ability to have more children nowadays, it is to do with the rights of a person vs the rights of a potential person. Also, until the baby comes out the mother is the patient. Medics must act in the best interests of their patient.

After the baby is born, as I understand it medical care will be given to the person who needs it the most (triage). This conflict would only arise in a situation where there was limited help available (say a woman had given birth at home/in public so suddenly that the ambulance had not yet arrived) and the midwife/doctor/bystander with first aid experience had to decide who to help first. This scenario would never happen in a hospital however, where there should be separate teams helping the mother and the baby.

What about the Catholic Church? I have grown in the Catholic community, though never have heard about this issue to be discussed. Although I had a girlfriend who had a premature delivery, almost 6 months, at the hospital under the patronage of The Catholic church in Milano. The doctors have saved both. Although a baby was more in danger than a mom. They were concentrated on a baby first. Finally, they have saved her life. A mom has got minor tearings and a couple of stitches. Is it normal?

I don't think a woman can demand that her baby's life is prioritised above her own, but I assume she can refuse a particular treatment no matter how strongly her doctors advise her to have it (unless it can be proven that she is not of sound mind, which would be very difficult to do). All adults of sound mind have the right to refuse life saving medical treatment due to body autonomy don't they? But I don't think that applies in medical emergencies where the patient is unconcious, and I don't think you can leave instructions.

"They were concentrated on a baby first. Finally, they have saved her life. A mom has got minor tearings and a couple of stitches. Is it normal?"

That should be normal yes, because after the baby has been born they would prioritise the patient whose life is at risk over the one who has minor injuries. That is called triage and applies in other emergency situations too. For example, if there was a road accident the first paramedics on the scene would treat the unconscious casualty before the casualty screaming in pain with a broken leg.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage

squishysquirmy Thanks a lot. I see you know the issue deeply. It was interesting to me to know the distinction and the priority between a patient and a potential patient. I agree, modern medical technologies very rarely entail fatal outcome either to a mom or a baby.

squishysquirmy Thanks for a link. I will surely look at a term "triage". Interesting.
So, as I got it, a baby coming out is a crucial moment when he/she obtains the legal right to the priority treatment if any serious issues arise?

Sorry beats95 feel like I should clarify that I am neither a medical expert, nor a legal expert. I know a little bit about it as ethics, body autonomy and women's rights are subjects I am interested in, but only as an amateur iyswim. I based the answers above largely on what more knowlegable posters on this thread have said.

I think that's right beats, although I can't imagine a situation in a hospital where the medical staff would have to choose between saving the life of the mother or the baby, as there should be resources on hand for both. The only situation I could envisage where that sort of choice would be made is in some chaotic situation where there is limited help available - eg, if an off duty doctor delivered a baby on a train, and the baby came out not breathing but the mother was conscious I assume she/he would try to resuscitate the baby while other bystanders attended to the mother. If the baby was fine but the mother started haemorraging, the doctor would pass the baby to someone else and look after the mother. But that kind of situation must be v rare!

squishysquirmy I got it. I have not enough time to read all the posts here yet. For me, you sounded very confident and clear. Thank you! I will continue to browse the posts.

Triage is also why A&E is not a first come first served system - if you have a broken leg and someone else is rushed in on a stretcher not breathing, the other person will be seen first even if you have been waiting longer. This is obviously perfectly reasonable, yet there are still some people who would moan about it!

Singingtherapy So, you say there is no such thing as choosing a priority between the life of a mom and a baby? I easily agree. This discussion even for a 22-year old woman as me is pretty simple. If a baby is still inside, mom's life prevails. If a baby is out, two separate teams work on the issues with a mom and a baby. Different responsibilities, different treatment. That's it! In most of the cases, no one will get a chance to die. Over.

squishysquirmy Thanks again! You are right. Nowadays, such things happen very rarely. I am convinced it is very hard today to die during a delivery. So, no a dilemma of a choice between a mom and a baby. As for hemorrhaging, I am not sure yet but I think the team must be always ready to treat it with proper medication. These are the basics. So, the things got clarified for me. I am over.

My brother was born in mid 1950s, my father was asked who to save the mother (his wife) or the baby? He told me at that time it was traditional to save the baby (based on religious grounds), but he did ask for his wife. Both survived.
What got me is how he had to ask permission from work to go to the hospital and then caught a bus there - took several hours!! He said when he got back to work the next day his boss had left a £5.00 note on his desk (a very generous gift in those days), and as communications were not what they are today they did not know the outcome until he arrived back to work. And, neither did he on the way to the hospital.

This morning in radio 4 there was an interview with, iirc, the chair of the committee who is discussing abortion in Ireland. I know I haven't got that quite right, brain muddle today, but there's enough there if anyone is interested.

The mother wil always take priority. The Fetus will be treated as a parasite (taking from the host - mother. Quoting an obstetrician I work with) and the woman will always come first until the baby is born. Then as another poster stated they are triaged as to who need the most urgent medical care first. Hopefully in hospital there would be enough staff called to such an emergency to treat both at the same time if needed (paediatrics would be on standby for the baby and midwives / obstetrician for the mother)

whosafraid I'm also from Dublin, I know exactly which ones you're on about, I was born in the one that would prioritise the mother. I have a friend whose father was a doctor and who asked his wife to always carry a document during each of her pregnancies stating that she was not to be taken to the other hospital in the event of an emergency.

As others have said the law in the UK puts mum’s life first.

In the US it is different though. I think the baby has more rights the further along the gestation they are.
For instance there was a case where a mother refused a section for a superficial reason and the baby died I think.
She was arrested possibly ( my memory of this is vague).
In the UK that wouldn’t be possible.

I think the UK has it right though.

It's much more likely she was told she could get treatment, but it wasn't advisable while pregnant, and it might damage the baby etc etc. so she waited until after she travelled for an abortion.

That just doesn't make sense. If you are going to abort then a treatment that might damage the baby is irrelevant.

I was having twins with a very difficult birth. Eventually husband was asked if all risks were equal who were the docs to concentrate on. I have never asked what his decision was and did not want to know as at the time which ever reckon he did make would be the right one. All survived, luckily.

The death of a mother has an impact on more peoples lives with her death than does the death of an unborn foetus.

It's a good thing that there is a general presumption that the mother is prioritised. I wasn't in a position to give an opinion when it reached that stage with us, but if I'd been asked a few hours earlier I might well have said prioritise the baby. Which would have been a generally bad decision and may have led to worse outcomes for both of us.