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 told them when things were looking a bit pear shaped to save ds. The surgeon pointed out that I was his patient but that those nice people over there from NICU were there for my son. I vaguely remember some guy waving at me from a great distance and thinking he didn't look old enough to be a Doctor. That was pretty much my last coherent thought until ds was around 6 months.

What would happen if the mother was conscious and refused consent for whatever the procedure was that would save her life but kill the baby?

If the mother was assessed as having capacity to make that decision then the team would have to respect her wishes, awful as it sounds. In the same way as they couldn't give a Jehovah's Witness blood that might save their (and their unborn baby's) life.

assassinated I've never heard of a procedure to the mom that would kill the child certainly not at the "giving birth" stage.

What would happen if the mother was conscious and refused consent for whatever the procedure was that would save her life but kill the baby?

Competent adults can refuse treatment for whatever reason they want.

Save my babe rather than me!, now that's real love!

Perhaps be careful not to indirectly criticise a choice you'll never be in a position to have to make yourself, eh?

Irish maternity hospitals would prioritise the baby (hopefully things have changed). My family who are not Catholic would go to the further away protestant maternity hospital for that reason.

Competent adults can refuse treatment for whatever reason they want.

I remember a case of a woman refusing CS, was found competent and they both died.
People have the legal right to make really awful decisions.

There wouldn't be an attempt to declare you incompetent due to the situation? As in you must be illogical to consider it?

(@Out2pasture yes, I agree that I don't know of anything either, but it is the whole premise of this thread!)

Irish maternity hospitals would prioritise the baby

Bollocks.

My family who are not Catholic would go to the further away protestant maternity hospital for that reason.

Protestant maternity hospital?

There wouldn't be an attempt to declare you incompetent due to the situation? As in you must be illogical to consider it?

No, it's about your capacity to rationally make a reasoned decision. No one has to agree with what you choose.

Yes, that's what I meant @PurpleDaisies, worded very badly. That you've lost the capacity to make a rational decision due to the circumstances.

DH was asked this question with DC1. Luckily for him he chose me (although I guess I wouldn't have known if he'd said the baby) and much more importantly baby survived too.

In the case I remember the mother had repeated and very thorough psychiatric assessments; in the end it was a court that had to decide that she could not be made to have a CS against her express wishes as she had capacity to make that decision and understood the likely outcomes.

That you've lost the capacity to make a rational decision due to the circumstances.

If that were the case, doctors could just say a patient was irrational and didn't have capacity every time they made a bad choice (e.g. refusing a transfusion etc).

Capacity is about the ability to make a decision.

I went to a catholic school and one of the girls informed us that Catholics would save the baby. We asked the nuns and while they tried to assert that the doctors should try to save both it was clear to us that the mother's life was secondary. In practice if you're trying to save both and can't actively disadvantage the baby then it doesn't look good for the mother. I am encouraged that the Catholics here think that this might have changed. Well I'm well in my 60s and I don't think it has changed, it was never the case that the baby should be saved at the expense of the mother, neither should the mother be saved at the expense of the baby. The doctors/midwives do their best and either both survive, or one survives or neither survives. That was the teaching back in the 50s when I was learning my Catechism.

It is a common misunderstanding that refusing to sacrifice the baby means the Church is happy to sacrifice the mother. Many people, Catholics and non Catholics, misunderstand many of the church's teachings. My favourite one is that Catholics can commit any crime including murder and just go to Confession and all is forgiven even when fully intending to commit another murder tomorrow, I was told this many times in the 60s and 70s when IRA bombings were going on, "Oh they can only do that because they know every time they do it they will get forgiven at Confession." The concept of a Good Confession and contrition was lost on them.

I would find it pretty terrifying if a woman's competence were challenged in those circumstances. But I think I vaguely remember a case where exactly that happened: the woman was sectioned under the mental health act and a c-section was performed. I think she sued successfully.

Not RTFT

In the UK it would be the mother.

I think it may be different in ROI where the foetus has equal rights with the mother, but prepared to be corrected

My friend had pre eclampsia and she was told if she had a stroke they'd save her over her child.

@Penggwn- having phonetically sounded out your name, and the fact that you are a Catholic, are you in fact a Dominican? I was raised Catholic and always had a soft spot for the Marians myself.

Mother. The baby has no rights until it is born.

Capacity is task specific.
And, say, personality disorders are quite different from mental illnesses (until recently considered not really treatable).

No medical professional want to be in the situation in which they have to make these kinds of decisions and they don't happen in a vacuum - there are usually teams of people involved.

Even rendering somebody incapable using the MH Act is not a quick thing - I'm not saying it cannot be mis-used but often these are judgement calls.

It is always the mother ( I'm a medical professional )