This thread is a spinoff from another.

The scenario: You're a paramedic and you roll up to an accident scene where there is a wounded mother and child, both unconscious. It's dark, and no reasonable determination can be made about their social status or background. Its within your power to save one, but to do so means the other will die. Which one do you save, and why?

Go.

I have rendered aid at such a scene and had an injured mother screaming "just help my baby, please just help my baby."
Of course that is what I did and if it were myself and one of my kids I would want the same.

Originally Posted by Real Ira

I have rendered aid at such a scene and had an injured mother screaming "just help my baby, please just help my baby."
Of course that is what I did and if it were myself and one of my kids I would want the same.

Lets assume that mom is out cold, same answer? Why?

I would save the child. In my mind, the life of the child is potential not yet realized, and knowing nothing about what the mother has done or is capable of doing, I would rather err on the side of the child, thus giving them the chance to strive for greatness.

Noob dude until i had to make that choice i don't be leave anyone could pre determine.

Originally Posted by QQuestor

Noob dude until i had to make that choice i don't be leave anyone could pre determine.

That's the idea of the conversation, to put yourself in that position, even if its only in your mind. There are no right or wrong answers, and I've watched people flip-flop multiple times during the course of the discussion.

my friend i probably would die trying to save both , which probably cause the loss of both.
Sadly i can not make that choice till i Have to make it.

Originally Posted by QQuestor

my friend i probably would die trying to save both , which probably cause the loss of both.
Sadly i can not make that choice till i Have to make it.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". I understand.

It's simple , you save the life of the mother. She can always have another child, married or not. It is the standard of care nation wide. Thats assuming both are equal in potiential outcome. Otherwise you save the one most likely to survive. If you attempt to save the most critically injured, you may and often lose both. It's basic mass casualty triage.

Originally Posted by 62pilot

It's simple , you save the life of the mother. She can always have another child, married or not. It is the standard of care nation wide. Thats assuming both are equal in potiential outcome. Otherwise you save the one most likely to survive. If you attempt to save the most critically injured, you may and often lose both. It's basic mass casualty triage.

In the scenario, both have an equal chance at survival, but you only have time to render aid to and save one. This is an ethics question more than a medical one, and you seem comfortable in your decision.

Glad you made it.

Child
Women
Men
Pets
Drunk driver

In that order.

Originally Posted by Griffin

Child
Women
Men
Pets
Drunk driver

In that order.

We all wish that was so. Usually the Drunk is in No Acute Distress and getting in our way.

The death of a child at any age is a horrible ordeal for the family to endure. But the best therapy is to " and this sounds terrible" replace the child with a new one. The greiving process allows for most to over come the loss and move on. A new crisp shiney baby can do just that.

A widowed father with a possibly life long disabled child is not wished upon anyone.

And in todays society , one must remember. A dead person can't sue you, but their family will.

Originally Posted by n00b-E

This thread is a spinoff from another.

The scenario: You're a paramedic and you roll up to an accident scene where there is a wounded mother and child, both unconscious. It's dark, and no reasonable determination can be made about their social status or background. Its within your power to save one, but to do so means the other will die. Which one do you save, and why?

Go.

The quote "social status or background" are both indicators of the subliminal message this silly thread is trying to make, as if those two issues would ever play a part in a life saving event. I guess for some it may, I just hope they never become paramedics.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

The quote "social status or background" are both indicators of the subliminal message this silly thread is trying to expose.

Feel free to not participate then if you feel that is the case. You won't be missed, I can assure you.

Save the mother, for the reasons outlined by 62pilot plus, for all you know, the mother could have three other children at home, or at school, who would lose their mother. I Victorian, and earlier, times, the survivability of infants was so fraught that the chief method of ensuring the survival of some of those offspring would have been to have a lot of children. That is less so today, in western society, but still has a basic validity.