To think men don’t get asked to ‘choose between the baby or mothers life’?

[itsquietuptown]

Just read an article about a husbands experience of traumatic birth, he writes that at one point the dr ‘took him to one side’ and asked if it came to it should they prioritise saving mum or baby.

This is not the first time I have heard this claim and some people are very adamant it happened to them.

But... surely this is not a thing? How would that be ethical for a birthing partner to decide on another person’s life? A husband or boyfriend or even ex-boyfriend/fling/one-night-stand having the power over a woman’s body because she has allowed them to be in the room.

I can’t see how this would be ethically right whatsoever..

It may be ethical if the mother has discussed this with the father before the birth and is unable to communicate her wishes.

No it's nonsense. They will prioritise the mother unless there's no realistic chance of saving her.

I have read things like this and had similar thoughts.

Surely the mother is the patient and they try to save the patient?

As above, it’s nonsense. The baby has no rights until born so the mother is the patient.

It wouldn't surprise me if this happens still. Tradesmen ask to speak to the man of the house in preference to the little lady on a regular basis. Ask any mumsnetter.

I'm a UK midwife. A baby has no rights until they are born. In the event of a cardiac arrest or similar, or major traumatic injury, an emergency LSCS would be carried out to give the mother the best chance of survival. Of course, where resources allow, there would be a neonatal team to provide support for the baby and an obstetric team to provide support for the mother.

Absolutely categorically 100% definitely not a thing. No doctor is making decisions on what Dave the 32 year old plumber tells them to do.

until born a baby has absolutely no rights and the mother is the patient and they will always act in the best interests of the her.

It's nonsense. Medical staff make the decisions in circumstances like that. Written to sell a trashy paper or magazine. Shameful "journalism", editor should be ashamed of themselves.

It’s nonsense! Did he even specify what the medical practitioners said would be done to save the baby at the expense of the mother?

In Eire the unborn baby has more rights than the mother.

While I don’t disagree that, in the event of things going wrong the doctors will prioritise the mother and not ask the birthing partner “who to save”, it’s also entirely inaccurate to state that the baby has no rights. We have restrictive abortion laws after 24 weeks because, although not considered a person in law, there is still a belief that in most circumstances women are obliged to carry a baby to term whether they want to or not.

In the United States hospitals that are funded by religious denominations (particularly Catholic but not only) will prioritize the child over the mother using the logic that the mother's soul is already saved but the child has not been baptized - therefore not saved).
My grandfather told the story of how he and my grandmother had four children born at home, but with the fifth there were complications and she was taken 30 miles away to the nearest hospital (Baptist). He was asked "in the event we can't save both, who do we save" and he said save my wife we have four children at home who need a mother! (Fortunately both were saved, but that was her last pregnancy.)

It's complete nonsense. Firstly, as pp said, the mother is the patient and is therefore prioritised. Mainly though, there are very few obstetric emergencies that are "the mother or the baby". If the mothers health/life is being endangered by the pregnancy, the solution is to deliver the baby, thus saving both. If the baby isn't delivered, and the mother dies, the baby will obviously die as well.

Depends on where you live.

My dad was taken into a room during my birth and was told to prepare to lose either both or at least one of us. He was never given the option to choose which one to save. I think this is likely either bollocks or the man doesn't quite understand what they are saying when being told such upsetting news. It must be an awful thing to go through, they probably just start repeating whatever they have agreed with the woman before going in then feel like they have some sort of control over a truly horrific situation.

No it isn't.

What is ethical is to keep the patient alive (assuming a straight forward situation not one where the mother is terminally ill or other more complicated situation).

Before the 8th amendment was repealed in 2018, the woman and the baby had equal right to life. Since then the mother takes priority.

And the country is called Ireland (or Eireann in Irish)

It's a male fantasy isn't it - having that power

You are saying its complete nonsense but surely you can all understand that it may differ in different places in the world. The story might not have been in the UK. I think I read the same story in Greek and a lot of the comments below if were from people that had experienced if, however they were told by the doctors that priority would always be given to the mother. I can imagine there are many countries where woman do not have those same rights.

Well, I guess that may well happen in some places in the world, but it certainly doesn’t happen in Britain (I have worked there in medicine), nor my country.

For the person who said it may be ethical for the DH to be taken aside to ask for the wife’s wishes, utter crap, doesn’t happen as would be open to all types of potential abuse. The woman is the patient and the immediate priority.

i read that story and none of it made any (medical) sense. And the stuff about having to choose woman or baby is absolutely 100% untrue. There isn’t a doctor or midwife in the land who would consider putting the baby before the mother, never mind asking the woman’s partner to decide what to do 🙄

Many years ago my mum underwent a GA for a breast biopsy. Her doctor had told her not to worry, he was confident she didn’t have cancer. The biopsy came back positive, the surgeon told dad, and asked him to sign a consent firm. Mum woke with one breast at 32 years of age. Ok, she would have given consent. But 50 years later I am still outraged on her behalf.

i don’t know much about obstetrics, and surely if anyone life is in danger you get the baby out and there are two specialist teams working on each patient. I can’t think of a scenario where you would have to choose? But anyway, I’d such a scenario were to exist, and assuming the mother was unconscious, then in days gone buy, sure, it probably happened.

Aargh! Days gone by, not buy!

I only know about Britain in the past, but the priority would have been to save the life of the mother.