Who should you save?

[Hortcoke]

This was a topic in my class ethics and philosophy.

You're a doctor, and you're on a birth in which only one can survive, the mother or the child, who should you save? and why?
It is assumed, that if the mother is unconscious, the father is the one who takes a decision, but let's assume that she doesn't have any family member, is only you and your decision.

[CharlieHorse]

depends on the situation. i'll make a decision based upon the medical circumstances

[CosmicNoodle]

depends on the situation. i'll make a decision based upon the medical circumstances

Exactly,

But, if it was 50/50 id take the mother, the child has yet to develop a personality, memories, attachment, it has no friends, social network, all it has is a possibility of those things. Its not really a human as we know it, its life hasn't started in my opinion. Line an engine that has yet to start, possibility, but nothing yet.

But the mother, she has a complex social network, if she dies, tens of people will be devastated, she has memory's, attachment, friends, a personality.. Perhaps even psychologicaly destroyed.

And I don't want to sound cold and heartless, but a mother is a useful member of society, a baby is a useless blob for at least 16 years. So from a purely logical poi t of view, the mother is more use to society alive, a dead mum and an orphan is nothing but another problem for social services.

[Typhlosion]

The mother. She can make more babies.

[DeadEyes]

That's an interesting question for sure, I would tend to say the child since it's a new and innocent life and the mother probably would want to sacrifice herself for her children but (they say that everything you say before the word but is meaningless, but I do mean that) if the mother in question has no family as you mentioned I would be worried about where the child would end up and the mother could always try having another child later on (unless the actual issue is causing the mother to become infertile).

[CharlieHorse]

The mama, usually in those sort of cases, the mother's life is has more priority than the child's life.

[Miserabilia]

If they're both perfectly healthy, and the woman is an adult, not like 13 and pregnant or whatnot, physicaly and mentaly healthy, I'd choose the baby.
I think it's the more logical thing to do because you're actualy extending life more, in a way. The woman has had a life and the baby has more time to live. Besides, what are the ods that the woman will have another child? You can't know.
This woman probably wanted to have a baby, and primitively it's normal to accept that you are in a way ready to die when you have children.

What I'm saying is basicly that it heavily depends on the situation, but if you really don't have any information, the woman would idealy place her child's life before her own.

Now I understand that this may make me sound more "pro-life" and I feel like there's a heavy connection between these two subjects, but
- the woman already has the baby, there's no choice involved for her
- one *has* to die
Which is why this would be my decision, IF I WERE LOGICAL.

I have no idea how I would act in that situation , in real life. Stress would probably take over.

[ImCoolBeans]

It really depends on the situation. If the baby has a better chance of surviving, then I would save the baby, but if the mother had a better chance then I would try to save her. I think a lot of mothers would say "save the baby" but if the baby has a slim, to no, chance of survival then I think it's better to save the mother if she had a greater chance. Better to save one life than lose both.

[Horatio Nelson]

If they're both perfectly healthy, and the woman is an adult, not like 13 and pregnant or whatnot, physicaly and mentaly healthy, I'd choose the baby.
I think it's the more logical thing to do because you're actualy extending life more, in a way. The woman has had a life and the baby has more time to live. Besides, what are the ods that the woman will have another child? You can't know.
This woman probably wanted to have a baby, and primitively it's normal to accept that you are in a way ready to die when you have children.

What I'm saying is basicly that it heavily depends on the situation, but if you really don't have any information, the woman would idealy place her child's life before her own.

Now I understand that this may make me sound more "pro-life" and I feel like there's a heavy connection between these two subjects, but
- the woman already has the baby, there's no choice involved for her
- one *has* to die
Which is why this would be my decision, IF I WERE LOGICAL.

I have no idea how I would act in that situation , in real life. Stress would probably take over.


Bam. Perfect response.

[Uranus]

It's a really difficult choice. I would rather save both, but I can only save one? I'm not really sure. As Joe said the baby has no social life, no memories, no friends, no knowledge, ECT....but he/she is still an innocent child. And yes the mother has friends, a life, a job(to help support her family), ect...

To be honest...it's not my decision. I'd ask the mother to choose between herself and the baby and do what she requested..because I probably wouldn't be able to choose in this situation.

[Semi_IronMan]

That's tough. If I save the mother, the baby dies young. On the other hand if I save the baby he grows up without a mother. I would probably save the baby since the mother has already lived many years, but there's still that part of them growing up without a mother. I'm torn

[Hudor]

It would depend heavily on the situation but if its a 50-50 chance i would prefer to save the mother because, even without the child the mother will be able to live(no matter how painfully) and may recover from the loss. Whereas for the child, it would be the loss of the mother and it would adversely affect his/her life ahead in a greater way than for the mother. Also the child has no identity, no existence as of yet or any strings attached while the mother has a life and strings attached to her. Saving the mother, in such a situation seems better because the impact her death would have on the world/society in general would be greater than the child's.

[thatcountrykid]

I would save the baby as I'm sure the mother would want considering she kept it. The baby deserves to live and it shouldn't die because it's considered replaceable by some.

[fairmaiden]

This is really difficult. Obviously it would depend on the circumstances, but I think I would save the child. The child could have so much potiential, and it would be fair to give it the chance to start it's life.

Although if I was ever put in this situation, I'd probably leave the hospital immediately and live my days out as a guilt-ridden hobbit in the middle of Arizona.

[amgb]

That's a tough one....as the doctor, I would save the baby. The baby won't have a mother, but at least the baby still has the father, although the ideal situation would be to save both the baby and the mother..but the mother has already lived most of life and experienced life, and to let a baby die and not give them the chance to live their life is cruel (and yes it's also cruel to let the mother die). The baby hasn't even seen the world, if it died then it's life would be ripped away and a newborn deserves to live, even if it's at the cost of the mothers life. Putting myself in the mother's shoes, I would tell the doctor to save my child instead of me because I love the baby and I would want it to live.

[Gamma Male]

Exactly,

But, if it was 50/50 id take the mother, the child has yet to develop a personality, memories, attachment, it has no friends, social network, all it has is a possibility of those things. Its not really a human as we know it, its life hasn't started in my opinion. Line an engine that has yet to start, possibility, but nothing yet.

But the mother, she has a complex social network, if she dies, tens of people will be devastated, she has memory's, attachment, friends, a personality.. Perhaps even psychologicaly destroyed.

And I don't want to sound cold and heartless, but a mother is a useful member of society, a baby is a useless blob for at least 16 years. So from a purely logical poi t of view, the mother is more use to society alive, a dead mum and an orphan is nothing but another problem for social services.

I was basically just going to write this.

[Attacker3]

What a very odd question, I see that people are saying that they would save the mother. That makes me sick. You may ask why, so I will tell you.

The mother has lived for X more years than the baby. I think that the baby should be saved just so it can have a life. The mother has already experienced a bit of life, and the baby has had really nothing at all.

I would die for a baby if that meant it lived. I have at least lived a bit of my life, and to be honest, a baby is the most adorable being in existence :D

And plus, a mother could be driven to suicide if their baby died and she lived. It's happened way too many times before. Better one alive than both dead.

[Croconaw]

I'd save the mother because babies are useless.

[SethfromMI]

Exactly,

But, if it was 50/50 id take the mother, the child has yet to develop a personality, memories, attachment, it has no friends, social network, all it has is a possibility of those things. Its not really a human as we know it, its life hasn't started in my opinion. Line an engine that has yet to start, possibility, but nothing yet.

But the mother, she has a complex social network, if she dies, tens of people will be devastated, she has memory's, attachment, friends, a personality.. Perhaps even psychologicaly destroyed.

And I don't want to sound cold and heartless, but a mother is a useful member of society, a baby is a useless blob for at least 16 years. So from a purely logical poi t of view, the mother is more use to society alive, a dead mum and an orphan is nothing but another problem for social services.

I would save the mother, not because the baby is useless, but for the other very valid reasons you mentioned

[eli_w]

The mother. She can make more babies.

The baby can grow up and make more babies as well doeee

[Typhlosion]

The baby can grow up and make more babies as well doeee

It is much more guaranteed that the mother will have a second chance at procreating than a newborn, let alone the time growing up takes. If the mother may have a second chance in generating a newborn, in such a scenario that she isn't killed (or significantly harmed) it is preferable to have a second baby with a mother than a kid with no parents at all (read OP).

[Babs]

Probably the mother, depending on the circumstances.

[Silicate Wielder]

The mother. She can make more babies.
My thoughts on this too.

[eli_w]

It is much more guaranteed that the mother will have a second chance at procreating than a newborn, let alone the time growing up takes. If the mother may have a second chance in generating a newborn, in such a scenario that she isn't killed (or significantly harmed) it is preferable to have a second baby with a mother than a kid with no parents at all (read OP).

If the mother's body is subject to (or has a high rate of) dying during child birth if she does deliver, why wouldn't it be the same scenario if she got pregnant again and tried to deliver a second time?

[Thunderstorm]

I know I wouldn't want to be a kid and never have met my mother. I would save the mother.

[Vlerchan]

I'd save the mother for the same reason CosmicNoodle gave.

She's 'more' of a person. She has a personality, attachments, a social network, etc.

[Katie96xox]

It would strongly depend on the circumstances but I would be more inclined to save the child. I believe a mother should always put her child's life before her own so in this case I believe the child should be given preference as that would be the wish of any good mother in my opinion. I think any mother would feel pretty shit knowing she'd only survived because her child had been left to die.

[the main man]

Baby, new life for someone who has one shot.

[Saint of Sinners]

My brain tells me that saving the mother is the logical decision as the mother has a social network, job, can have future kids etc. But my heart knows that a mother would sacrifice herself for her child with no regrets, and would probably end up pretty depressed if she lived instead.

Would have to be a snap decision in the heat of the moment.

[Hortcoke]

Thank you all for your answers, I was wondering your opinion.
It suppose that you must save the mother. You (as the mother) don't help nobody being dead.

If I ever face this... well, I would have nightmares after this, no matter what I would choose.

[sunnieseason]

I don't really like these questions. They are usually designed to make it impossible to stick to any kind of principle of morality. It's a way of making it seem like there is no such thing as principles. It's such a rare situation that it's not really a valid question of morality or ethics.

[Kacey]

Honestly, if this situation were to ever come up, I would save the child. The only actual purpose in life is to have offspring... The mother just fulfilled that purpose, but the child has not. Sure, the mother has a personality and blah blah blah, but as I just stated, purpose in life...

[Melodic]

My heart says the child. I wouldn't have the heart to kill a newborn baby unless I was asked to directly by the mother.

[Wanderer_]

The child - it's what the mother would want

And the whole "the mother, she can have more babies" thing is a guess, you don't know that.

[tovaris]

The child, save the child.

[sunnieseason]

My heart says the child. I wouldn't have the heart to kill a newborn baby unless I was asked to directly by the mother.

So you would kill the baby if the mom wanted you to?

[Melodic]

So you would kill the baby if the mom wanted you to?

Yes. Oddly enough, It would be illegal not to.

[sunnieseason]

Yes. Oddly enough, It would be illegal not to.

I'm not sure what you mean? Killing a baby is illegal and immoral even if the mom wants you to kill it.