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..

@CecilyP yes I know that. But she was in labour for like 3 days, they didn’t know if she was going to make it at one point, so the discussion came up but luckily a decision didn’t have to be made. I wasn’t saying Henry VIII had her bumped off 😅

Shelby2010 · Today 10:22
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.

A C-section was a more unusual operation in those days; about 4% of births, but the aim would have been to save both mother and baby. It may have been that he was asked to sign a consent form. Thanks

No, I know that too! But if she was in labour 3 days, there wasn’t much that could be done! A C-section would have been a definite death sentence!

Any doctor who asks that question should be disbarred.

The Mother should be saved - always.

More to the point, why the fuck does the husband get to decide? Who made him omnipotent?

I think this is where the trope originates. Aristocracy etc often prioritised the baby in the event it may have been a son, the wife was replaceable after all.

No, I know that too! But if she was in labour 3 days, there wasn’t much that could be done! A C-section would have been a definite death sentence!

@CecilyP Well yes that’s the point, that’s part of the ‘choice’ - C-section to get the baby out safe. I’d rather not utter how they got babies out when they wanted to save the mother… it’s pretty grim.

No, I wouldn’t want to go into that either. But we can definitely surmise that Jane Seymour didn’t have a C-section if she was still alive 12 days later.

Wouldn't happen in the UK today. I don't know enough about consent type issues in the recent past (70s/80s) to know if the position has changed. We need to remember that until the late 1890s (Married Womens Property Act) married women were merely chattels to their male spouse. Attitudes related to this persisted for a long time - my Mother always talked about how she wasn't able to apply for a credit card on her own account (she was the higher earner of the two) but needed her husband's signature on the application. This was the late 70s.

Today, however, for medical decisions the mother takes precedence.

As an anaesthetist we teach our junior doctors that if they get in to trouble they always have to take the action that safeguards the Mother even if the child is at risk.

In ITU decision making becomes very complex as being pregnant puts a huge strain on your body and patients will often do better without the additional challenge of supporting a pregnancy - when the patient can contribute these decisions should be made using a shared decision model. However, if the patient is unconscious then you rely on their family to try to represent their views to be taken into consideration (note: this is not the same as make the decisions!).

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.

It also doesn’t take into account a high risk pregnancy where for medical reasons the baby has to be delivered early in the hope of saving the mother’s life but it has been left too late.

It happens often in places like Afghanistan or rural Africa today. It's very hard for aid groups like MSF trying to explain to male relatives that the mother's life is prioritised, the male relatives may see this policy at very least, as depriving them of their inherent right to decide which life to save. The decision is also tough to implement because sending a live women home when her baby dies : she may be blamed & abused for that outcome, as though it's her fault, especially if the baby who died was a boy. So the aid groups may spend a lot of energy trying to help male relatives accept that it's ok to prioritise the mother's life.

I think I filled out a birth plan type form (not sure if it was official NHS or one I'd found) and it had this question in it so we filled it out.
My husband was aware of my wishes (both in agreement btw) if it came down to it.
If your married then husband would be next of kin.

No, I wouldn’t want to go into that either. But we can definitely surmise that Jane Seymour didn’t have a C-section if she was still alive 12 days later.
@CecilyP is this a joke? I don’t really know how to respond anymore…
Well yeah sure, if it makes you happy, we can definitely ‘surmise’ that. Well done for educating me and anyone else who mistakenly thought Jane Seymour had a semi- successful c-section back in 1537 😂😂😂

Firstly, the question of saving mother or child may well have been a thing in the times before ‘modern medicine’ where an foetus was stuck in the birth canal (not uncommon in the days of rickets/untreated fibroids etc) and both mother and baby were doomed. A ‘Caesarean’ would be almost inevitable fatal for the mother (no anaesthesia, no fluid replacement or infection control, no antibiotics or other modern drugs), but the baby might have a chance of survival. Not in modern medicine in the UK.
The previous posters comments about the mastectomy and the husbands consent for sterilising surgery however are true. It was the common practice in my experience of nursing from the 1970’s until retirement, that husbands were required to sign that they had been informed of the nature of surgery, this was often called ‘husband’s consent’ because it was on the same form as the patient’s. It was not ‘legal’ IYSWIM but it was done to prevent vexatious litigation from husbands ‘denied their rights’ to reproduce 😤. This stopped by the late eighties (where I worked anyway).
The breast biopsy was done immedwhile the patient was still anaesthetised, by Frozen Section, the results were available within 10-15 minutes and the surgery proceeded to mastectomy where the Pathologist found cancer cells in the FS. In my area the patients would have this explained prior to surgery and sign consent to ‘Biopsy and whatever necessary’ , husbands were NOT contacted during surgery, but this may have differed in different parts of the country. The breast specimen from mastectomy would be subjected to the usual histology after the surgery. This practice changed when more treatments became available beyond mastectomy and radiotherapy, again in the eighties.

An unborn child is not a baby, it’s a fetus.

Ime the mother’s life takes priority if you HAVE to choose. More usually, everything is done to safeguard the interests of both. The mother won’t thank anyone who doesn’t consider the baby.
The DP in the UK isn’t asked to choose. But they often express a preference unasked-for. And again ime they always choose the mother.

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

Nope not in the U.K. the mother takes priority, as she always should.

You are 100 percent right about consent. No one can consent on behalf of anyone else. Not even a child. (I don’t know when it started though)

If someone cannot receive, understand, process and forsee the consequences of and effectively communicate a decision, they can’t (not won’t. They don’t have to make a good decision. They just have to be capable of it) consent. And the medical team and their family act in their best interest. If they can’t work out a compromise, then they have to go to court, who hears both sides and orders what is in the patient’s best interests.

I’ve never heard of it going to court. Presumably this sort of situation wouldn’t allow the time. I never heard of anyone in a medical profession tell the story either. And you’d think it’s the sort of professional thing that would come out now and again.

I think whoever said classic patriarchy fantasy is right. It was exaggerated or misunderstood (or wilfully misheard) to match a man’s personal narrative. Some men are really struggling with women having the power to control their bodies, particularly procreation, these days.

My friend maintains ‘next of kin’ has no legal standing. I don’t know if it’s true.They have a law degree, but have never practiced. I’ve never heard it from another source. But then the consent thing is widely misunderstood, too. I’ve lost count of people who believe they can consent (or not) for their children.

I was responding to your post where you said:

@CecilyP Well yes that’s the point, that’s part of the ‘choice’ - C-section to get the baby out safe. I’d rather not utter how they got babies out when they wanted to save the mother… it’s pretty grim.

I’m not sure what point you were making. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm presuming you aren't in Ireland because if you were you wouldn't call it Eire. I am and this around time last year I was in hospital having an abortion to save my life, what you are saying just isn't true.

there’s no automatic next of kin in the UK and nothing legally that states who your next of kin is.

It’s usually your closest relative but you could have a friend as your NOK if you wanted where you provide that information in advance. My understanding is that in an emergency it would be the closest relative ie spouse, parent, sibling.

@Turnthatoff dont biopsy’s take a week or so, or minimum a few days to come back?

I would have that the patient would already have been woken up before the same is even off for testing.

When I was a theatre nurse, in the late 80s/early 90s, we could do a ‘frozen section’ where the sample was taken in theatre, sent straight to pathology, and a quick frozen slice was taken and assessed, so if necessary we could proceed if more surgery was needed. The patient stayed on the table, asleep, because it only took maybe 20 minutes.

I can see how that would be done, and the patient’s husband asked for consent, when they found the tumour was malignant. Although even in those days, our consent forms said the patient gave consent for X procedure, plus anything further that was found to be necessary - the surgeons were supposed to inform the patient about possible complications and what they might have to do, and to explain what further procedures might be necessary - the most likely ones, that is. And the patient could rule out certain procedures, if I recall correctly - or at least specify that they were to be woken up and asked for specific consent.

Sorry for your loss, and I hope that you are fully recovered 💐

During the traumatic birth of my dc, I had to sign a consent form. They spoke to me and DH and very clearly explained that if they have to make a choice between saving the mother or saving the baby, then they will save the mother's life first.

I can't imagine that things would have changed in the last 20-odd years since then.

It's emotive bullshit.

They have to prioritise the only living person in the room. The woman.

Once the fetus is out, it then becomes a separate person who has their own treatment, but until that point, it's legally the actual person, not the potentially a person, that is treated.