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's the stuff of overwrought historical melodramas that has also become a trope. It's complete crap obviously, but some people still like to parrot it.
If anyone watches Selling Sunset, Christine claimed that happened during her birth. She's also barely on nodding acquaintance with the truth in general.

I may be wrong but I'm sure I've read that years ago if it were a Catholic family the Priest would tell the doctor to keep the baby.

What would a priest even be doing there?

I may be wrong but I'm sure I've read that years ago if it were a Catholic family the Priest would tell the doctor to keep the baby.

But why would a Dr listen to a priest, unless it was a Catholic hospital? Talking about British and equivalent countries.

If you are RC and it looks like you are close to death you would have a priest there. You would get 'the sacrament of the sick' AKA the last rites. This means that if you die you are in 'a state of grace' and so will go straight into heaven.

Priests used to have a lot of power and were listened to. When my family moved to a small village my brother and I went to the local village school. The local priest would visit and tell my mother we should go to the RC school that was two busses away.

When my mother raised the possibility of someone abducting a small child travelling alone she was told she had, "a dirty mind".

This was the 1970s in Yorkshire, priests don't tell parents where to send their children to school any more but they did dictate people's lives.

It's not a thing. The mother's life is prioritised until the baby is born. I think a lot of people interpret information being given to them as a request for permission, especially in stressful situations. "We're going to try to save your partner as a priority and we will do our best for baby at the same time" "OK then" over time gets changed in someone's head to "Is it ok that we prioritize your partner?"

No. But years of experience with discussions around death have taught me that people have very odd recollections of many of these conversations and often believe they’ve had more agency than they really had. Particularly around removing mechanical ventilation or ‘life support’. I’ve also heard parents describe their ‘instructions’ to medical staff during a resuscitation that simply didn’t happen, and have had a number of random relatives insist they’re the ‘person who’ll make the decisions’ even when there aren’t any decisions to be made.

People make sense of difficult and traumatic events by creating a narrative in which they’re the focus.

My dad was told that they were going to try to save my mother because I was a lost cause. Today it probably would have played out very differently.

I just have to mention that my mother and I were only dying in the first place because this was back when women were given twilight sleep for delivery and my mother was one of the people who can’t handle the drugs. The problem was caused entirely by the medical system.

@sashh I can remember my relative wanting an abortion in the 70s.. and the Dr refused I think they needed permission from the DH. Yorkshire also... I can believe things like this happened tbh.

Priest still come to hospitals now and its before my time but I can believe it when you say priests held a lot of power back then.... things were different by far.

I think this thread is a little harrowing really to think things are getting mixed up in 2022 still.

I also read that article. I doubt it's true. Was based in Scotland so UK laws. Unfortunately, the baby died at 8 months old

www-usmagazine-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/news/man-forced-to-choose-between-saving-wife-or-baby/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16600217393005&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usmagazine.com%2Fcelebrity-moms%2Fnews%2Fman-forced-to-choose-between-saving-wife-or-baby%2F

I'd like to hear the doctor's side of this conversation.

Women are sacrificed to save babies every day in the UK.1/3 of births in the UK are c sections. Mothers are 4 times more likely to die after a c section. But they are carried out every day, in the majority of cases to 'save' the baby, often if for example, the heart rate is reducing.These babies are saved but some mothers die. In cases of pre/eclampsia when the baby is premature the birth is often delayed to give the baby a better chance of survival/ avoiding morbidities. Delaying birth endangers the mother and risks death. Again sacrificing the mother for the baby.

These decisions are made taking into account the risk to the mother and are carried out when it's reasonably low. A c section is a well understood procedure & isn't typically high risk.

That's a bit dramatic to say women are being sacrificed by having c sections. I don't know many women who would choose NOT to a c section if it meant their baby would survive,

…..and herein lies the issue.

I imagine a large number of women, if there were problems in labour, would tell their midwife/doctor/partner to save the baby’s life over her own if it came to that point.

So in fact, all these doctors who are ‘putting the patient’s life first’ may actually be going against what the mother wishes.

I have always wondered what would happen in these circumstances? If the mother has expressed those views do the doctors have to uphold them and ensure the baby is saved? Or would they still prioritise saving the woman’s life even if it meant the baby dying?

It’s an in retesting debate about issues such as ethics, consent, morals and decision making.

Good god I hope it didn't happen that way! Poor woman - surely if she were hemorrhaging then a c section would be first up anyway in order to stop the bleeding?

I am not in Britain but my first pregnancy went wrong and my husband was taken aside and told that there was a good chance he was going to lose one or both of us. At no point was he given a choice but he was told to brace himself. He was so upset and I can imagine that the man in the story may have got confused about what the Dr was actually saying in that circumstance iyswim?

I went against medical advice to continue my second pregnancy, I chose to continue despite dire warnings and I refused to consent to a termination when they tried to insist upon one as my condition was deteriorating.
The point being it was my choice and no one else was asked. I prevented drs treating me as the priority which was absolutely the default.
Had I been unconscious the choice would have been taken out of my hands and my life prioritised they made that very clear to me so I don't see how this story could have happened.

I wanted to go against medical advice to try and save my first baby by delaying delivery but I was very unwell and long story short, there is no way they would have prioritised the baby over me, that was very clear.

I've just picked (with the support of my consultant) to have an induction rather than a C-section because in my particular circumstances the risks of an induction are higher to me, and the risks of a section are higher to baby. The risks of both options are very small; I wouldn't call this picking baby's life over mine as the chances are we'll both come out of either option absolutely fine.

But firstly this illustrates that the poster who talked about C-sections isn't necessarily right (a section is riskier for some but not all mothers).

Secondly I'm now intrigued by to what extent I can legally choose to prioritise baby over me. I know you can always refuse treatment. So is it the case that if I'm offered treatment that might be helpful to me but harmful to baby, I can always choose to refuse it, but if I'm not offered treatment that might be helpful to baby but harmful to me, I can't demand it? Even though the overall risks might be similar?

I think @Perplexed0522 raises a very good point about what the mother prefers and whether doctors do/ should take that into account.

I imagine a large number of women, if there were problems in labour, would tell their midwife/doctor/partner to save the baby’s life over her own if it came to that point.

I don't think this would necessarily be the case at all, particularly if the mother already has children.

So is it the case that if I'm offered treatment that might be helpful to me but harmful to baby, I can always choose to refuse it

Correct

but if I'm not offered treatment that might be helpful to baby but harmful to me, I can't demand it?

You can’t demand any treatment (although I really don’t think patients understand that). You can be offered treatments that are believed to be clinically appropriate. It’s a core practice that doctors don’t offer their patients treatments that will harm them.

I had two high risk births - the way the hospital worded things it was ensuring the risk was lowest for me. In the nicest way the baby second. Thankfully all ok both times!

I regularly have conversations with family
about things like resuscitation and intensive care in non obstetric situations. Even when we think we’ve been very clear patients and families often relay that they were given choices/asked to sign/asked to decide when they were actually given an update about where things are medically, what might work and what looks to be futile.

My sister had a biopsy done on a lymph node during cancer surgery, to further determine the spread and therefore decide exactly what to do during the op. It was quick, she remained under anaesthetic.

Sorry that was in reply to a PP, the quote didn't work.

Good god I hope it didn't happen that way! Poor woman - surely if she were hemorrhaging then a c section would be first up anyway in order to stop the bleeding?

Not necessarily. The bleeding is generally caused by the placenta detaching which it would normally do after the birth. A quick caesarean under general anaesthetic would save the baby. If the baby has already gone by the time the mother gets hospital (as happened to a friend who lived rurally) no operation is needed.

As usual with these stories there is a complete lack of medical detail. So we can only.speculate that the mum died from a bad reaction to the general anaesthetic.