Aibu for choosing mother rather than unborn baby?

[Bells3032]

I'm currently 20 weeks pregnant. Having one of those hypothetical conversations regarding what would your partner do if something happened and it was your life v unborn baby's life. I said 100% he should chose me. Friend was surprised and said she'd chose her unborn baby over her.

Said it makes more sense to choose the mother as she's less "replaceable" for lack of a better sense (not that a baby is replaceable but hopefully you know what I mean) and the only person who'd be more upset at losing the baby than me would be me.

Am I just a horribly in maternal person.

Which would you chose?

When my mum was in labour with me things got a bit dicey and the doctor came out to my dad - this was in the olden days when men paced up and down a corridor smoking fags - and asked if it became necessary who should they save, the baby (me) or his wife. My dad said "My wife of course!" and he was right. IMO it should always be the mother who is saved.

I'd choose the mother. Not that it would be an easy decision, but the mother would probably have family and friends, maybe even other children, who would be deeply upset to lose their loved one. The baby may well be loved by its parents in the abstract, and I imagine they'd grieve for it, but having lost my beloved husband last year, I know I couldn't take responsibility for causing anyone the grief I've been through at losing him - a fully physically, emotionally and mentally developed adult. Which is what I believe someone choosing their baby's life over their own would be doing.

I like walking around old cemeteries. There's a lot of women who've died giving birth. I've often wondered if it was this scenario. Sadly most have their few days old, babies buried with them. Thankfully we are no longer our husband's property and we have rights.

It’s more likely they died after birth of infections or bleeding in the days before antibiotics or blood transfusions.

My mum and dad were out in this position for real when she was in labour with me because mum had toxaemia. Dad was told that the doctors were doing everything they possibly could to save us both but asked that if they could only save one of us, which would be want them to concentrate on. Dad said they were to concentrate on mum.
Fortunately, otherwise I wouldn't be here, they were able to save us both but I personally think it's pretty obvious that the mum should be the priority.

I knew someone who was diagnosed with cancer while in the early stages of pregnancy and needed treatment that would harm a developing baby. She refused a termination and waited for the treatment. Baby died, harmed by the cancer. Mother's cancer so aggressive that she didn't live long afterwards. Older children left motherless.

Insanity. It's like an extreme form of mummy martyrdom - all for nothing. It's actually an incredibly selfish act if you have existing children IMO.

In Northern Ireland they save the baby first

@TeachesOfPeaches

In Northern Ireland they save the baby first

How does this work in practice?

Meh. No-one knows who they'd choose and you probably wouldn't get a choice. It's a ridiculous hypothetical situation that you probably never experience.

I imagine there are very, very few situations where the choice is one or the other.

It's like having two children and being told you can only save one. Unthinkable so why even go there?
I became seriously ill in labour. There was very little communication with us, the hospital had protocols and those will ultimately be to save both but to prioritise the mother if not.

American hospital shows love this scenario and love the “should you sacrifice your life for your unborn child’s” question. I always think it’s incredibly selfish to bring a baby into the world that you can’t look after. They need sooooooo much looking after.

The thought of bringing a child into the world without their mummy ramps my hormones into overdrive

@TeachesOfPeaches

In Northern Ireland they save the baby first

Do you have a link?

I've been trying to find one but can't.

I know that in Ireland the foetus having personhood rights led to some terrible things but I can't find about NI at all.

When I was pregnant with my first I told my partner to choose the baby over me. There is no right or wrong answer to it. If I was put in that situation now not sure what I'd want as I've lost 2 babies since my first

I have 3 very much wanted children. Before they were born I would have chosen me each and every time and expected dh to do the same. Now I would put the kids before me in a heartbeat.

@stillsleeptraining the difference in the US (and in Canada) is that in the UK if you lose capacity to make your own medical decisions, the doctors make a decision in your best interests. In Canada and the US, your NOK makes the decision, and doctors have to do what they say regardless of whether the doctor thinks it is the right thing to do (I have been a physician in Canada and had families making what were to my mind perverse decisions about their family member’s treatment).

So it is entirely possible that husbands have been asked in the US - for example when an early c-section would significantly improve the woman’s chance of survival but before the baby is viable, or if they wanted to use a drug which would harm the fetus. The husband could say no in that situation and the doctors would have to abide by that, same as if a capacitous woman over here refused a specific treatment.

Obviously in most situations, the woman dying swiftly kills the baby, and the baby is usually better out than in anyway if they are more than 30 weeks gestation and the mother is unstable, so it isn’t common for there to be a genuine option of killing the mother and saving the baby.

My df was faced with this exact scenario when my dm was pregnant with me. He chose my dm. Luckily, we both survived but his rationale was that they could have another baby but he would never find another wife like her. I have zero issue with his decision, it was right for them at the time.

@PinkCheetah

This is a pointless discussion anyway. In real life the medics would always prioritise the mother over the unborn child.

Yes this. For the one saying her sister would argue to save the baby and let her die - what would happen, in reality, is that the argumentative person would be asked to leave the room and the doctors would do their job, which is to save the life of the patient - the mother.

@CCN2012

My df was faced with this exact scenario when my dm was pregnant with me. He chose my dm. Luckily, we both survived but his rationale was that they could have another baby but he would never find another wife like her. I have zero issue with his decision, it was right for them at the time.

Why would a doctor let a man decide if his wife could live anymore?

Sorry but I don't believe half of these, they just sound like family tales.

@Recessed

I knew someone who was diagnosed with cancer while in the early stages of pregnancy and needed treatment that would harm a developing baby. She refused a termination and waited for the treatment. Baby died, harmed by the cancer. Mother's cancer so aggressive that she didn't live long afterwards. Older children left motherless.

Insanity. It's like an extreme form of mummy martyrdom - all for nothing. It's actually an incredibly selfish act if you have existing children IMO.

FFS. Can you engage your brain before judging this woman? Many people with cancer will die, even with treatment. This woman's cancer was aggressive, so her choices were probably along the lines of:

• terminating the pregnancy - a c.30% chance of her survival, and 0% chance of her children having the additional support network of another sibling if she died; and
• not terminating - a c.10% chance of her survival, and a near enough 100% chance of her children having the additional support network of another sibling if she died.

It's not a black and white choice. Think of the utter devastation of making these decisions before taking such a ridiculously utilitarian view.

t's not a black and white choice. Think of the utter devastation of making these decisions before taking such a ridiculously utilitarian view.

I did engage my brain and I stand by my opinion. To me it is a black and white choice when you have existing children. They come before a foetus every single time, no exceptions.

No child cares about the "support network" of an infant sibling, who they may grow up to resent in those circumstances. They care about their mother. Not to mention the parent left behind being so busy dealing with a newborn they won't be as available to support their grieving children. It's a ridiculous decision to make and martyrdom is the only reason I can see - or as you say an inability to engage their brain.

My df was faced with this exact scenario when my dm was pregnant with me. He chose my dm. Luckily, we both survived but his rationale was that they could have another baby but he would never find another wife like her. I have zero issue with his decision, it was right for them at the time.

So, having sought his opinion, what did the medics do differently to what they would have done had he made the opposite choice?

It's a ridiculous decision to make and martyrdom is the only reason I can see

Do you talk about all women facing coercion into an unwanted abortion in that way?

I had a toddler when I was diagnosed. I knew that my first obligation was to him. I knew that if continuing my pregnancy would compromise my survival chances then I would need to consider termination. Thankfully i didn't have to. But although I was clear of this in my mind, I never actually managed to say it out loud as I couldn't physically speak through the tears at the horror of it. And that's not because I am a ridiculous martyr, it's because terminating a much wanted baby is an awful thing to have to contemplate.

There is little consideration of the man who has to choose.

(Although it doesn't happen here anyway).

It's too much for ordinary people to be expected to decide.

We don't have the death penalty here which is good. But bog standard bloke is expected to decide who lives and who dies from the partner he presumably loves or cares about massively and the baby they have conceived and she has carried all that time.

It's not a fair thing to ask. Most men would be psychologically impacted. And feel guilt over the choice they had to make and the one they chose to die.

No that's not right.

Boy, is this an "advanced civilization" question. In very rudimentary civilizations and in the lower animal kingdoms, the question never arises. ALWAYS save the mother, because without her, the baby would not survive, nor would there be any further babies. It isn't a bad rule. A harsh one, perhaps, but nature is not kind. It is impartial.

This woman's cancer was aggressive, so her choices were probably along the lines of:

- terminating the pregnancy - a c.30% chance of her survival, and 0% chance of her children having the additional support network of another sibling if she died; and
- not terminating - a c.10% chance of her survival, and a near enough 100% chance of her children having the additional support network of another sibling if she died.

With aggressive cancer the chances of the unborn child surviving were extremely unlikely to have been "near enough 100%".

And as others have said - a newborn child is not in any sense a "support network" to an already existing child. Even with the scenario you suggest as is - cutting your own chance of survival by 2/3rds in order to ensure a newborn baby in the family is almost certainly not the choice your currently existing children would either prefer or be best served by.

@Mamanyt

Boy, is this an "advanced civilization" question. In very rudimentary civilizations and in the lower animal kingdoms, the question never arises. ALWAYS save the mother, because without her, the baby would not survive, nor would there be any further babies. It isn't a bad rule. A harsh one, perhaps, but nature is not kind. It is impartial.

Animals don't save surely? They don't do anything. They have no means to do so etc.

And as for rudimentary civilisations. What/who do you mean by that?

In USA women have died because of a religious view against termination.

In short- the woman was not the priority.