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?

Mydcaremarvel Legally an unborn child is not a person.

I think they hsve to save the mother as she is actually a living breathing person, the baby hasnt yet been born.

The law is very clear that the mother is priority. The baby has no specific legal rights until it is born.

Mother

Iolaus - "There are cases where a section is done if mother is in cardiac arrest no matter of gestation but because it easier to do cpr on a woman without a gravid uterus."

This thread got me googling, and this article on perimortem CS came up: here. Looks like it's relatively recently that they did the statistical studies to suggest that doing the CS earlier rather than later not merely gave the baby the best chance, but also dramatically improved your chance of resuscitating the mother.

Mother.

And yes, it is very distressing to the treating team involved when these kind of decisions come up.

Another HCP. Mother always until baby is born.

It is upsetting to be involved in situations like this.

I always thought the Catholic position was officially that neither the mother or the baby could be intentionally harmed to save the other, although that's not the same as prioritising the wellbeing of one over the other.

I would imagine the doctors would say save the mother.

Personally I would say save my child. Im sure my wishes would be over ridden but its how I feel.

DP knows if there came a choice, we are in an accident or something like that and he can only save me or a kid, save the kid every time.

Its the same for him too.

@MyBrilliantDisguise I was also brought up catholic and was told the mother!! How strange is that?!
Although, if it was me I think I would want baby to be saved ... but actually being in the situation may be different and I don't mean to sound goady.

I know that in a prehospital situation where a mother and newborn baby are both in cardiac arrest, CPR is given to the baby first.

It must be a horrific situation :(

Mother should be prioritized in my opinion and I believe that to be the case in the medical profession.

but a maternal death in the UK is such a rare and shocking thing to happen that it's everyone's worst nightmare scenario.

whilst I completely understand your point of view, I am worried that the death of a baby is not such a shocking thing. I wish both would be equally shocking.
I know that no doctor wants any harm to mother or baby, or is casual in his view of either mum or baby, but the whole system seems more "casual" about the death of a baby. I have witnessed cases where things got critical because they were left too late - purely by lack of resources! If all available surgeons are in theater, other patients end up waiting. It's just frightening that the life a baby is maybe not seem as important as the life of his mum.

Irish law meant a woman who was in a car crash at something like 5 weeks pregnant was kept on life support to save the baby. Her hands and feet turned black, her brain liquidised and her husband and parents begging to turn it off were ignored. She had to be kept long enough that they could save the baby. You are still asked who in a situation like that here even though the law dictates the answer. Mothers life always,morally.

I was brought up Catholic and was told the baby should be saved over the mother

I was also brought up Catholic and have never been told this.

The medics would decide, and they would try to save the mother.

I was in this position and it is the mother (me) who was saved. They did all they could for DD1, but she only survived for 8days.
After her death I really wished they had not prioritised me.
When I was pregnant again I told the consultant that I wanted the baby to be prioritised if the same thing happened again, but he would not agree to this.

It also depends on what stage of labour. In some cases you need to deliver the baby to save the mother which is done almost simultaneously. Essentially, if baby is still in utero and the mother is dying of course you save her first - no mother, no baby.

Whatever we all feel about the subject, the law is quite clear: the mother is the patient and therefore the priority.
Once the umbilical chord is cut, every effort will be made to save the baby (by a seperate neonatal/paediatric team).

I have been involved in a case of maternal death when the baby survived (some 20 years ago) and it was harrowing; I still think about it from time to time .

In this country it is the mother.
That is not the case everywhere in the world.

I was brought up Catholic and was told the baby should be saved over the mother By a doctor in the UK?

In England (Wales and Scotland maybe too?) surely the doctor would have to save the mother, because until the baby is born, she is the only actual patient. Nothing could be done that actively killed the mother, when it could be avoided. Even if avoiding it means certain death for the baby.

We came close to facing this when my DSis had her DD. She had to have an emergency C section at 32 weeks due to pre-Enclampsia and we very nearly lost both of them. They both survived and my niece is now 8 years old and extremely bright.

Thankfully it didn't happen earlier in the pregnancy. But in these situations the baby has to come out even if it's too early in the pregnancy. So the mother's life comes first.