Based upon this thread in GD.
Prior to your having a child, did you discuss whose life would be saved (either the mother or the child) if faced with a “We can only save one of them” decision. For this poll, assume that the survivor will be reasonably healthy.
Poll coming.
No. We didn’t discuss that.
In a modern western hospital, while things can certainly go terribly wrong, the scenario where letting one die will save the other must be so rare as to be practically non-existent. Steps taken to save one are not likely to kill the other. IANAD.
We discussed it. For each kid, it was save the wife. More discussion than this of course, but it boiled down to the idea we could have more kids and there is only one mother. This was especially true the more kids we had.
Thanks for setting this up, Nars Glinley!
Hopefully, it’s clear to all voting and posting, that we’re talking about whether you discussed who to save if a decision has to be made while in labor/during the birth process, not whether you discussed who to save from a fire years after your child is born or something like that.
Anyway, I voted “No”.
We discussed it. My husband was insistent that if anything happened, I would be his priority.
As it turned out, after a 33 and 1/2 hour labor, I developed eclampsia, complete with a fairly major seizure after childbirth, then nearly had a stroke (in a literal sense due to uncontrolled, labor-related high blood pressure after discharge).
I hadn’t expected to be grateful we’d had that discussion, but looking back I am. Things worked out, and in most cases the childbirth will be relatively uneventful, but things do happen. My second birth went off without a hitch - 5 hour labor, no complications after. It was a comparative cakewalk.
We discussed it but to no real point; we never had any children.
With our second I told my husband that I had a child at home who needed me. My pregnancy was high risk enough to make it worth discussing. Felt horrible to say it, but he needed to know what I wanted.
Never gave it a thought, but I would have unhesitatingly chosen to save my wife. No question.
We discussed it and agreed that my wife’s life took priority. The longest part of the conversation was the “Should we feel bad for thinking this way? Would everyone else choose the baby?” part.
Yep, this.
We did tangentially discuss I guess. At some point we talked about how my MIL did not like the idea of using a Catholic Hospital where they placed the life of the child over the life of the mother. I thought that was ridiculous. The mother should come first. Maybe that conversation staved off a formal discussion when we were getting ready to have our first.
My youngest child is 21 years old, I really don’t remember if my wife and I had that discussion. I do think it’s not a clear cut decision and would depend largely on the specifics of the situation. There is no way I could give a blanket answer on a general hypothetical.
We didn’t discuss it, but I would have let her make the final decision if we had.
We also talked about this tangentially. I would not have used a Catholic hospital except in extremis due to their bias. I went to a doctor and a hospital that would prioritize me as the patient.
My doctor may have veered too far in that direction. My second child was breech, and she let me deliver it vaginally. Ultimately my son was fine, but the delivery was rough on him.