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 think that in most cases the mother's life would be prioritised (if there is a chance she will make it) before that of the baby.

But in practice it would not be as harsh as that sounds- as soon as the baby is out, they would do everything they could to save its life.

For clarification, I choose my life over the unborn baby as I love my first child so much that I would never choose for them to grow up without a parent. Yes I do love the baby but nowhere near as much as I love my already born child, they will always have priority.

And to the people who say it's odd that a parent would rather save themselves than the baby, that depends on when you think the baby becomes a person. I love the baby but they are a potential person until I have given birth, after birth then save them but until that point it would logically be a much worse impact to my already existing family to lose me than the baby.

My DD was delivered by EMCS at 28 weeks to save my life, if I'd refused we'd both have died anyway.

I'm sure I've read this real life scenario, in MSF & other aid agency blogs, so low income country settings. Most of the world over, when mom can't choose (say unconscious), the extended family/father of baby will choose the baby. Will agitate loudly on this point and argue if health professionals aren't doing what they want. Especially if the baby is a boy. :(

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

Out of interest, what sort of procedure were they suggesting? It's all well and good hypothesising, but what procedure are we talking about where the child survives but the mother dies? I can think of e.g. a premature emergency C section where the baby has to come out and the mother's life is saved, but the baby dies. However, I cannot think of a situation the other way around where the mother dies solely to save the baby (and would not have died in any event).

I also find it hard to believe that doctors would be so insensitive and unprofessional as to ask the baby's father whose life they would prefer to save.

Historically, they used to hurry along the birth or perform a Caesarian if the mother was in danger so that the baby didnt pass away unbaptised. That was linked to the Catholic Church. Nowadays they've distanced themselves from that, I think.

I'd imagine that they'd prioritising saving whoever was most likely to survive?

Always, without question, the mother.

I had a traumatic birth and afterwards I asked the consultant who they would of saved (in reality it was only me in any danger) and he said it is always the mother. The midwife also confirmed this to me.

@Pengggwn You don't have to explain the concept of limbo to me - I'd already said that I was brought up as a Catholic!

They save the mother and neither the mother or their birthing partner get to input into the decision thankfully. If they did otherwise the pressure on either or them to make a decision and the guilt they'd have to carry either way would be unbearable.

Mother. (Even if the mother might sometimes choose otherwise.)

I should of added when my partner was born his dad was asked who he wanted to be saved mum or my partner. He chose mum as both were very very poorly and mum was bleeding out. I find it sad that they told my partner when he was old enough. I would never ever tell my child that.

I wish I could like your post GummyGoddess. You put it really well.

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

Historically, prior to easily-accessed C-sections, in very difficult births the life of the baby was actively sacrificed to save the life of a mother.

I have a 'missing uncle' who was classified as 'stillborn' in the 1930s - in fact, the evidence is that he was killed in the birthing process, probably by having his skull crushed in order to make it smaller, in order to save my grandmother (who was tiny, due to malnutrition in early life). He doesn't have a birth certificate or known place of burial, so he is hard to trace, but that is the best information that we have.

Always the mother (health care professional).

I live in Ireland. Here, in the constitution, a foetus has equal rights to the mother. Yes, you read that correctly.

Women like Savita Halipavinar have died because doctors couldn't prioritise the life of the mother as a miscarrying foetus still had a heartbeat.

I for one can't wait to vote out the 8th amendment next year.

It depends on who is more likely to survive.
For example: mother is suffering a severe antepartum haemorrhage and the bleeding is not stemming even with serious intervention. Mother is close to flatlining.
Attention will surely then be turned to getting the baby out alive.
A paramedic friend told me that a baby can survive inside it's dead/dying mother for approximately 5 minutes before oxygen is depleted - that's enough time for a crash csection.

I've been involved in a case where a septic mum refused to be delivered (preterm) both her and her baby died. It was tragic and something I'll never forget.

In Ireland, the baby probably would be prioritised. The Savita Halappanavar case is a clear indication of the priorities of catholic based medicine.

And yes, for whoever expressed disbelief earlier in the thread, Ireland does have (historically) Catholic and Protestant maternity hospitals. I was born catholic but would not voluntarily step foot in a catholic one.

X post with face

My bread, the do a peri morten section to save the mother, not the baby. It's much easier to resuscitate with only one circulation! If the baby survives of course that's a bonus but saving the mothers life is always paramount.

The mother is saved, technically midwives obstetricians etc are there for the health of the mother not the baby.

*peri-mortem