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..

Yeah, it’s bollocks.

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

🤣🤣🤣

Yes, this sounds like journalism a La "take a break". That or something some men imagine happened at their wives hospital bedside to make them feel big and important, or else they've been watching too many hospital dramas.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

My FIL was asked this - but it was over 60yrs ago, ahead of an emergency c-section. He was shocked to be asked such a question.

I guess it goes back to previous times when for the upper classes marriages were arranged and getting an heir was the wife’s primary duty.

Possibly also linked to a time when fewer women had a doctor at the birth & if there was a doctor, they would have been male. I can’t imagine a midwife asking such a question.

Nope, what a surprise a man talking shite.

In the early 80's, the daughter of my Mother's friend had epileptic fits because she had to lessen her meds, to not cause severe kidney damage, if not death in the babies she carried. During one bad episode the medical staff only talked about the baby. My mother's friend had to kick up a fuss to get her DD prioritised over the baby. The ability to ask questions about care and take legal action helped define who the patient is and get women better care. There are both women and babies dying across the UK because of a lack of care, so I wouldn't outright call someone a liar, but it shouldn't happen.

I'm absolutely sure it has happened in the past, in more patriarchal times, but I really bloody hope it doesn't happen now, other than to ask the next of kin what the woman's wishes might be.

This is a trope that comes up in Victorian dramas (which I can just about imagine being possible as in those circumstances there might be only one doctor and both baby and child needing help - plus of course the notion of the wife as property at the time).

Writers love it because it's so dramatic.

DH told me when I was heavily pregnant that he'd chose the baby over me! I cried until some hasty Googling reassured me he'd never get the choice. (He's not a monster, he'd just severely overestimated how much I'd bonded with our unborn child and wrongly thought it was what I wanted).

Oh so give it a rest with the scaremongering and educate yourself. Women are *not’ 4 x more likely to die following a section.

www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/nov/23/health

not

Hmm interesting so perhaps it’s something that happened in the past when women had poor rights? So it’s now an imbedded cliche as PP put it

@felulageller Even if some procedures and causes of action are riskier for the mother, it is the woman who has decided she wants to do go ahead with that and consented to treatment that prioritises her baby.

My issue is the idea that in a situation where she is not conscious or unable to consent that her ‘chances of being saved’ rely solely on the needs/wants/preferences of the man in the room.

No, it would be my worst nightmare.

I think Henry VIII may have been faced with this possible dilemma when Jane Seymour had a difficult labour. You know, back in the 1530s, and only because having a legitimate heir was of vital importance, I don’t think it was a normal thing to consider even then. You could ‘choose the baby’ - but babies often died young anyway, so to do so unless the circumstances were very extreme, like the secure and safe future of the country, (not that I’m condoning that as a valid reason!) made little sense. You could still easily end with no wife, and then a few weeks later no baby either. But anyway, yeah 1500s… I think times have moved on.

I’m thinking Macduff’s father might have been asked this question, but I don’t think it’s part of modern medical practice.

I suspect some guy got pulled aside and told 'it's not looking good, we may have to make difficult choices' eg your baby might not pull through and we might need to do something to save the life of the mother that endangers the life of the baby.

Not 'you must decide which of them gets to live'.

It’s not a thing in Britain now. I can’t think of many places it would be. The priority for the medical team is the mother because she’s their patient.

My breath is literally taken away by the ignorance in this post.

No one can be this stupid ill-informed, surely?

A perfect example of how you can get to read utter, utter tosh on the internet because it doesn't get to go through the editorial process.

@felulageller what complete bollocks. Even if those stats are true, you are presenting them completely without context. for example, certainly in britain, maternal mortality rates are quite low so the statistic is less frightening than it sounds. Also, that doesn't take into account the fact that most c sections are because vaginal birth is too dangerous/has failed - ie there are ALREADY significant problems and risks.

This sort of thing really does just perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes.

As for "who shall we save"? Such bollocks.

All humans have rights, including babies. Either they have rights of they are not a baby.

The policy in many areas is save the mother first.. obviously try to save both but save the mother if it literally comes to one or the other

I’m a midwife.

This would never ever happen. Legally the baby has no right to life before birth whereas the woman does. Saving the baby at the expense of the mother would be illegal and lead to health professions losing their registration.

Not until they are born they don’t. They are not legally a separate person until birth. You might hold different beliefs but the law is clear.

It’s total bollocks and it’s not even an actual choice, it’s an absolute no brainer - who would actually save the unborn baby over the mother?

Yes you’re probably right on that one!

I think Henry VIII may have been faced with this possible dilemma when Jane Seymour had a difficult labour. You know, back in the 1530s, and only because having a legitimate heir was of vital importance,

No Jane Seymour died a couple of weeks after the birth. No one is really sure what the cause was but would be something treatable now that wasn’t then.