Saving me or the baby.

[Whathefisgoingon]

I'm pregnant with our second, it’s very early days but DP and I got talking. I asked him what he would do if things turned bad during labour and only one of us could be saved. He said he would save the baby because it’s a “new life.”

I was pretty shocked. Obviously any situation like that would be tragic, but we have a 3 year old to think about and I feel the obvious choice would be to save his mum first. Am I wrong? How do you feel about this?

I appreciate it’s a very personal choice. If we didn’t have our son, I would choose to save the baby.

I have never felt as protective over anything or anyone as I did over my babies in the first hours of their lives - I might have considered offing DH if he so much as looked at them funny! (He didn't, he was as besotted as me) I guess if you think you can't love a newborn as much as a spouse then you didn't get the absolute wave of love I did at birth, which is the single most powerful emotional state I've ever felt - which is absolutely fine and doesn't mean anything longer term, but does show why you can't assume that your experience is universal.

With DS1 it was also a complicated pregnancy after multiple miscarriages where I had to be monitored daily from 33 weeks - I was acutely aware that I might lose him before birth, which is perhaps why I find playing a game of 'pick me!' with a spouse with hypothetical deaths of mothers and babies so tasteless.

Well firstly this isn't a thing.

Secondly, I can't think of a single acute situation in labour where it would be an actual choice between saving the mother and the baby. You save babies by delivering them, whether vaginally or by CS. And for a mother to die in labour is vanishingly rare in developed countries and the few situations I can think of, you would obviously be managing multiple things at once (eg treating sudden eclampsia while preparing for a crash cesarean section). It's not like medical teams can't multitask!

always save the mother

a mother can have more babies

the idea that a woman becomes less important (and may as well be left to die) as she carries a new life is all part of the new wave of misogyny that is flooding the world right now

Unless your husband is Henry VIII and this is 1537, I think you’re safe.

In real life when something that bad happens a crash c section would be done with teams for both mum and newborn rather than an either or decision. No one would be asked to pick mum or baby.

I actually agree with some others he probably said what he thought was the right answer that you wanted to hear, I suspect he sensed a trap and so didn't answer with how he actually felt. Some women would say omg you don't care about our unborn baby if he'd have said you.

Sorry to hear about your mum, even though family had the ultimate choice, turning life support off isn't even an option until multiple doctors and HCPs at appropriate levels have discussed, reviewed and agreed upon it bring the only real feasible decision. It would have reached a point where it went from asking to informing you these actions were the ones they were taking.

You put him on the spot. You shouldn't ask questions like this. No answer would be right, and what a horrible thought to put in his head. This would have really upset my partner when I was pregnant with my daughter.

The HV came round once she was born and put cot death in our heads, and that upset him really badly. He wasn't the same after that.

You did a not nice thing there. Think next time, and also you don't want to think about that. It's unlikely anything will happen like that.

Try and focus on the nice things around pregnancy from now on and enjoy the experience.

I have two kids and I'd pick baby over me every time in a heartbeat. (Not currently pregnant, but if I were.) I understand why you'd pick differently, but your attitude towards those who'd pick baby is a bit odd IMO. Aren't we allowed to feel differently?

I did in fact pick baby over me to some extent when it came to the birth of my last baby. Due to circumstances, I had to choose between a ELCS and an induced VBAC. I was advised that overall the ELCS was slightly more risky for the baby, and the VBAC slightly more risky for me. I went for the VBAC.

I actually told my husband that if there was a scenario where he could only save me or the baby then he should save the baby. And I told him that if I were in that situation then I would save the baby and not him. This is one of those ethical /philisophical questions where individuals will think differently. You, however, won't be in that situation, because medical staff will save you. My debate was about a natural disaster type situation, I understood that in a medical situation my life would be paramount.

We live in a country where maternal death is fortunately very rare, so you asked him a pointless question that was impossible to give a correct answer to, apart from "God forbid it ever comes to that".
If you had the choice between saving your child or your dh, who would you honestly choose?

@110APiccadilly Of course. I meant that I was baffled at them saying I’d asked the question of DP for an ego boost.

100% save the baby. All of our hopes and dreams centre around this new life, as it should. Yes, growing up without a mother is awful but families cope. I’ve had several occasions in my life where I’ve had to make decisions- and the children always were top of the list.

I agree with your DP

This! It's 2023 not 1523. There may be some very very rare and unique scenarios but they are just that.
Women used to make wills and write letters to their living children before childbirth. The landscape when these decisions were actually made was very different.

Hypothetically I think it's strange that a woman who already has children's life seems to be perceived to be more valuable than a woman who doesn't yet. And the weird fixation on husband’s choosing! Thank God we live in 2023.

Did you have a difficult first birth OP? I think sometimes birth trauma can manifest in strange ways. I'm sure your husband said what he thought you wanted him to say.

Remember that boy that they took off of life support against the parents wish? It took going to court but in the end the doctors make the decision. It's only helpful if the family agrees, but if they feel it's necessary they will go to court to get it done if there is no hope. I'm sorry you lost your mum at a young age, but the decision was made by the medical professionals. Your family only supported it.

People generally have completely false ideas about how much input anyone other than the patient has in relation to medical decisions (in the uk, don't know enough about other countries).

I used to work in hospital complaints and the amount we'd get about DNR decisions - people don't understand that it is ultimately the medics decision and they can make a DNR decision even if the patient and their family disagrees with them.

Also that while there is an expectation they will discuss the decision, as long as the patient is competent (even if very unwell) the discussion only has to be with them -
There is absolutely no expectation to discuss treatment with family/next of kin unless the patient is unable (either unconscious or without mental capacity) to have the discussions themselves. It was fairly common for family members to have no idea that their parent/DP had agreed to a DNR.

I can’t understand how any parent wouldn’t prefer their child to be saved ahead of themselves. Mothers as well as fathers. I would totally understand if my DH said what yours had said. It’s what I’d expect him to say - parents always put their kids first.

This used to happen in Ireland in the very recent path.
Under the recently repealed 8th amendment to the constitution which gave the unborn a life equal status to that of the mother women could and were refused treatment when pregnant. Women died.

You think it would be an ego boost for the op to hear he'd let their unborn child die? I find it more odd you'd think that than op asking.

The Dr rushing out and saying "who should we save?" to the waiting parent is the kind of thing that happens in movies. It might not be realistic but if you've never been in that scenario, it isn't impossible that people might think they'd ask the partners opinion.

OP is probably be hurt too, because he's not thinking about how it would impact both your existing child and the future child. DS would rather have me over a sibling he's never met. A young child needs a parent more than they need a sibling. But as others said, he'd never get the choice, it a as probably a knee jerk answer and he'd probably change his mind faced with the reality.

What about the existing child? What are his needs? Does a 3 yo need a Mom ro a baby brother more?

I think your dh may have been watching house of the dragon or Bridgeton!!!

In the uk it's the mothers life that takes precedent.

I don't really like the sound of him op

Hypothetically I think it's strange that a woman who already has children's life seems to be perceived to be more valuable than a woman who doesn't yet I don't think it's that so much as the existing child's needs out weight the unborn child's needs.

When I was born (at home a long time ago) the midwife told the Doctor who had just arrived that she could save me or my Mother, but not both. The Doctor took over and we were both fine, nearly scared my mother to death though! My Father was not consulted by either.

This used to happen in Ireland in the very recent path.
Under the recently repealed 8th amendment to the constitution which gave the unborn a life equal status to that of the mother women could and were refused treatment when pregnant. Women died.

That's incorrect.

In the scenario PP described (cancer treatment while pregnant) the situation was always the same: where possible, treatment that would harm the baby is delayed, which would usually be the mother's wishes, but this was not valid in the case where delay posed an immediate and life-threatening risk to the mother.

It has always been the case that a mother's life would be prioritised over a baby's. The issue with the 8th is that it was sometimes not possible to determine where the threat to a mother's life was imminent or likely. That's what led to tragic cases like Savita.

However, there are many situations prior to repealing the 8th where a mother's life was correctly saved ahead of a baby's.

People tend to get confused about this.

Not even slightly confused.
if you read the testimony of leading obstetricians to the parliamentary committee on the 8th amendment you will know that this was a reality. Where clinically appropriate treatment for the mother you adversely impact the unborn doctors had to assess if the mothers life or only her health was in danger. The doctor had to be 51% sure that the mothers life was in danger without the treatment.
Women died because by the time it was clear that their lives were in danger the treatment was too late. This happened in cases of cancer where it became more aggressive, threatened miscarriages that led to sepsis. Or in the case of someone I know of a bleed on the brain with life altering consequences but I guess in that case the doctors were right, it was only her health.

I would be upset if my partner said this to me. 'A new life'? What about the life that was there in the first place and the fact that you already have a child who needs their mother???

But no, he wouldn't get the choice. It's not like house of the dragon. The woman's life is always put first and rightly so.