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?

Thinking about this and apart from anything else.

Surely asking would totally fuck up the partner.
No one should be asked to choose and as others say who know, that's not how it works.

Living with that choice would be an appalling thing to put on anyone.

And what if they just can't decide? Docs decide presumably.

It makes no sense in a terrible situation to heap that responsibility onto the partner.

In my opinion they should save the mother.

How could it be the thing

That a partner has to choose life or death. The risk of them having huge guilt, psychological issues etc would be huge.

No it would be a terrible approach.

My DH was told that “baby is okay at the moment we are doing what we can for your wife”. He told them that at that moment he didn’t care about the baby “just concentrate on my wife”. At that point I was a real person that he was in love with while the baby was still a stranger….. I would have said the same in his position.

Before having DS, I had very little care for my own life. I'd struggled with my mental health since my early teens and while I wasn't suicidal, I always had the mindset "if I die, I die" because, well, I won't care because I'll be dead.

SINCE having DS, I realise that no one could possibly ever love or care about or want the best for DS AS MUCH as I do. So he needs me there to be in his corner. And I'd do anything to be there for him for as long as possible.

My point being, I'd have told DH to save DS before he was born.

If I was pregnant again now, I'd save myself (but only because DS exists).

My mindset is probably not the healthy one, though.

Different scenarios You’re describing two patients who need care @CouldBeOuting
1.The neonate who has a treatment team
2.You who had a treatment team
And your partner understandable emotional turmoil

I was extremely ill with pre-eclampsia at 36 weeks pregnant, the consultants priority was to keep me stable. My babies heart beat had pretty much dropped but they would not operate until I was considered well enough. I barely remember much of the day my daughter was born (thankfully they did manage to save us both) but I very clearly remember my husband saying to me in theatre, ‘as long as you make it that’s the only thing that matters now’. My daughter wasn’t breathing when they did the emergency section but they managed to bring her round. They wouldn’t have done that if it posed more danger to me. Neither DH or I got any say in that.

@Snookie00

There was a family in our village growing up who had this situation. The mother found out early in pregnancy that she had cancer and chose to continue with the pregnancy and delay starting chemo until after the birth. She gave birth to a premature baby and died several months later leaving 3 older children and a premature baby motherless. I think she was selfish and wrong to chose to inflict that on her children. If she had not had older children then perhaps it was more understandable but she has left those children with a terrible legacy as she prioritised her unborn child over herself.

Selfish and wrong? That woman was in a terrible, terrible situation. She had no good options, and was trying to make decisions against the constant cultural background noise of "good mothers always put their children ahead of themselves, good mothers would die for their children". Don't call her selfish. Have some compassion.

@NiceGerbil

How could it be the thing

That a partner has to choose life or death. The risk of them having huge guilt, psychological issues etc would be huge.

No it would be a terrible approach.

It’s not an approach. It’s not a thing Unborn child has no rights. There is no fraught decisions to be made No one will be asking

My DH and I choose to save me (hypothetically). Even more so when it was my second baby.

If it was a choice between my 4 year old and me, then we would choose my 4 year old.

The mother would be saved.
Real life isn't like those Hollywood tearjerkers where the surgeon demands that the grief stricken husband chooses between his wife and child and sacrifices one or the other accordingly 😂

Due to a previous medical condition my life was at risk (had to explain but it was more the unknown it’s rare to survive what I had and even more so to then give birth)

I had wanted to give birth naturally but at the consultation session was given a 50/50 chance of survival at which my husband fainted. I think it hit him at that point. I wanted my babies life to be priority but my husband always said to me that he would put me first. We had a lot of conversations!
I was lucky, had a csection and blessed with a our daughter.

It’s difficult to know how anyone would feel unless in the situation. I still stand by choice of baby first but my husband and family would have picked me.

Occasionally you get stories in the media which romanticise a woman sacrificing herself for her unborn. I remember one where the woman already had a child or even more than one. So you ended up with a single father taking care of a newborn and their other kid. Obviously people can make their own decisions but I just felt it was so wrong. You could have had a couple and their existing children and the parents obviously sad but supporting each other over the loss but instead you have what seems like a much more damaging situation.

Can anyone even think of a plausible physiological emergency situation in which it would be a choice between mother and baby anyway?

In a life threatening emergency, a baby would always be delivered quickly, because you cannot resolve a cardiac arrest (which is what all life threatening situations lead to) in a pregnant woman without delivering the baby. You wouldn’t leave a women on a life threatening situation pregnant, unless for a short time to stabilise them, in which short period they may die I suppose. But generally you would seek to deliver as quickly as possible, to save the mothers life, and then of course the neonatal team would take over baby’s care anyway and do resus and whatever else.

You couldn’t leave a pregnant woman pregnant in an life threatening situation because then she would shortly die which would mean the baby would die anyway.

I can think perhaps in medieval times the lord of the manor being asked choose, perhaps because of obstructed labour or decelerations (if mediaeval midwives used Pinards and could interpret what they were hearing?) and then the woman being butchered in short order to deliver a live baby, but of course that would not happen now. I’ve worked in rural Africa and it doesn’t happens there either.

Any other HCPs here can think of when this might happen? Anything I’ve missed?

My life, without a shadow of a doubt. No one would get to make that choice for themselves, it would always be the mother saved over an unborn child.

@Bookworm65

Surely the husband/ partner doesn't get to choose which one he wants to save. I think that did used to happen in the past but not now, I hope. Why should he have the power of choosing life or death over partner or baby. I imagine, but don't actually know, that a doctor would choose the one most likely to survive. Does anyone know what really does happen ?

My Catholic cousin was asked this years ago when his wife had a very difficult pregnancy. I believe because the view of the Catholic Church was that the baby should be saved over the mother. The baby not having had the opportunity to be baptised etc it would go to Limbo. ( Limbo has now been dropped from RC teaching I believe. ) In 2010 an American Hospital was stripped of its Catholic affiliation for aborting a baby to save the mother's life. as below:

'The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, Ariz. has stripped St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, also in Phoenix, of its Catholic affiliation for performing emergency surgery on a woman that saved the woman’s life but ended her pregnancy, which was in its 11th week. The Church says that the hospital violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops and describe the operation as “an abortion.” But the doctors involved said that if they hadn’t operated, the mother would have lost her life, too. The ACLU has stepped in to demand that the federal government ensure that Catholic hospitals do not prevent women from receiving emergency medical procedures in cases such as this.'

My mum made my DH promise he would save me if it came to it when I gave birth. She said we could always have another baby but I was irreplaceable.

What an incredibly stupid, pointless & hurtful conversation for your mother to have.

As others have said, 'if it came to it' doesn't ever apply nor is a choice presented, in terms of whose life to 'save'.

I believe because the view of the Catholic Church was that the baby should be saved over the mother.

I'm Catholic. This isn't true.

In 2010 an American Hospital was stripped of its Catholic affiliation for aborting a baby to save the mother's life. as below:

I don't know the details of this case, but even in Ireland, when abortion had not been legalised, the Catholic dogma permitted treatment for a mother where her life was in danger, even if it resulted in the death of the unborn baby. (However, the details around that were highly nuanced, about what exactly was necessary re the life of the mother, so I'm not saying it was a good situation. In fact, it resulted in tragic deaths).

However, in general, you are misrepresenting the Catholic Church's position on this.

My first pregnancy was high risk. I had in-depth conversations with my parents and DP about how I wanted DCs to be raised. DP was adamant he'd save me over DCs so I changed my NOK to my DM who I knew would follow my wishes. DCs were premature, touch and go for all 3 of us but we survived.
Whilst pregnant with DC4, I became ill and needed surgery which risked the pregnancy. I told doctors DP and DM, I had to come first as I had 3 other DCs who would always resent DC4 if they were left motherless.

@GoingOutOutNEVER

Some people will say what they think is morally the right answer I.e baby over mother.

I don't see how it is morally right to prioritise an, as yet, unborn baby's life over the mother. The baby would be motherless. I can't even bear to think of that.

Later on, in emergency situations as outlined in previous posts, of course I would prioritise my child's life over mine.

However the medics do their best to save both mother and child unless it is obvious one will not survive anyway.

The days of the husband/potential father, choosing which life to save, are thankfully over.

If it was a choice between my 4 year old and me, then we would choose my 4 year old.

What a crazy scenario to discuss. How would it be?

@HTKB, I'm very glad you know better than me how my delivery went. I didn't give birth in the UK, nor the US, for starts. My life was threatened as well as DDs due to preeclampsia and it was a decision-making situation of minutes, not hours. I was in ICU for a week. We were asked by the medical staff if we were prepared to take a risk and wait longer (to give DD a better survival chance). We did that. I'm very grateful they managed to save my life and bring DD safely and am even more grateful that situations like mine are very rare - but please don't automatically assume that a person you know literally nothing about is lying or exaggerating because it collides with your experience.

Would always choose myself whether it was my first or if I had already had multiple. If that makes me horrible and unmaternal I’ll wear that badge proudly.

Sorry but even some of the people on here who claim they would save the baby probably would not when they were actually facing imminent death.

It’s natural instinct to want to survive and in my case and in probably most peoples case I think that overrides any love of an unborn child.