A Dangerous Poll: Save your spouse or your child?

[Harmony1988]

No one who has done any serious climbing would accept that. That’s not how it happens in the real world.

Oh just give up with your mountain climbing or whatever it is.

The question was with an ‘if’ - which is conditional, it’s valid. If you feel uncomfortable with it, say so, don’t try to weasel your way out acting tough, saying ‘hey this doesn’t happen in mountaineering, it’s not real’

 

[Harmony1988]

A parent would willingly give life to the child. People who ask these questions are not parents.

Don’t pass judgement so quickly.

 

[Harmony1988]

Which one is in a state of grace (to the best of your knowledge)? You then let that one go. If both are in a state of grace (to the best of your knowledge) then it does not matter which one goes.

The one who dies (given they are in a state of grace) goes to heaven. We have a moral obligation, especially as spouses, to get our other half to heaven. The loss would of course be devastating in this world, but knowing he was in heaven would be a comfort to me.

I am not able to have children, so I can only speak hypothetically about them. But the same assumption applies - if the child is in a state of grace, and my husband is not, I save my husband. And vice versa.

~Liza

Yea, in split second decisions we all start thinking of who is in a state of grace

 

[Harmony1988]

Aside from the fact that it’s an absurd scenario – which I willingly admitted – when did mountaineering, climbing, or the roof of anybody’s house ever come into all of this?

I was wondering this myself

 

[kalt]

I haven’t read all the answers, but it appears that no one wants to answer the question.

Most have complained that it’s an invalid question. It’s a stupid question. I think it’s a good question that is making lots of readers very uncomfortable. No one wants to imagine being in this position. No one wants to ever have to make this decision. But the fact is that people do have to make this decision. Maybe not while mountain climbing. Maybe it’s a house fire.

Anyway, I would save my child, because my spouse would want me to.

My spouse would save my child, because that’s what I would want.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would save our child. That is what my husband would want me to do.

The best answer yet.

Notwithstanding the scenario is preposterous, as a mountaineer poster pointed out, the idea behind it is real enough. This is overdramatic, but analogous to something we face all the time.

Anybody who is a spouse knows that he/she pays out his/her life for his/her spouse in bits and pieces, and aspires to do just that. Anybody who is a parent knows they both do that for their children, or, minimally, aspire to do it.

Things like this always remind me of that line in Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”; one of the most wonderful lines in literature I have ever read:

“Full fathom five thy father lies
And of his bones are coral made.”

I see my wife sacrifice daily for our children and grandchildren, though mostly unbidden to do it, and I know she would gladly give her life for them. I think that’s how she sees life.

 

[Crepusculum]

I voted child only because I believe I could save the child quicker and then try to save the adult - if I didn’t have faith in the hope of saving both then I’d probably just stand there like a deer in the headlights trying to place a totally unjustified value on one loved one over another and ultimately watch them both plummet to their deaths.

This is what’s so powerful and so difficult about Christ’s command to love our enemies - if you made the scenario that there were 3 people hanging on a cliff - a family member, a total stranger, and a person who had tried to sabbotage you for the last decade, then if we conform our will to Christ’s will we should still find it impossible to choose, but many of us (I include myself to my shame) would find that choice much easier.

For anyone who actually rationalised a decision based on a person’s worth, let me ask two additional questions:

1. How do you explain to your child that they are alive because their mother died?
2. How do you explain to your spouse that they owe their life to their child’s death?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Aside from the fact that it’s an absurd scenario – which I willingly admitted – when did mountaineering, climbing, or the roof of anybody’s house ever come into all of this?

The original post has them hanging off a cliff. That’s a mountaineering situation, and mountaineering techniques would have to be used.

Now, no one with any mountaineering experience would consider this a realsitic scenario.

As for climbing on the roof – the point was, try lifting someone as the scenario requires. You will find it nearly impossible to lift someone – even a person much smaller than yourself – alone.

 

[proudnifi]

I’m not a parent, but am married. I voted save the child, but I don’t think either choice is “wrong” - it’s an impossible situation and you can’t win. I have no idea what I would really do since I’ve never been in that situation. I am assuming both parents (me and my husband) would both do anything for our children. So, I am assuming we’d both want the child saved over either of us.

 

[BioCatholic]

A more likely scenario would involve drowning or trauma, especially trauma.

Children decompensate much more quickly, and almost never fall into a shockable arrhythmia than do adults after trauma. Once a child’s heart stops, it is pretty much over.

The more plausible situation is a car accident where both are injured, and one spouse is not. The name of the game in trauma is to keep blood pressure up in order to prevent arrhythmias and organ failure.

If you are on a back road and have a single car accident on wreck with a tree, with your spouse and child in the car, that is MUCH more likely. I’d say you’d have to look at each and try and determine who has the best chance of surviving.

If you choose to help your child over your spouse point blank, you might just deny lifesaving care for an adult in order to provide futile care to your child. Then BOTH die when one could have been saved. If the child has fatal injuries, then they are fatal and death is imminent. If your child was awake after the trauma, and then goes unconscious, without immediate IV access and probably a dopamine drip or PSAG garments, the game is over.

Chances are that the adult spouse might remain conscious with the ability to compensate, while the child might be unconscious. The key there is to try and keep the child alive, but while maintaining a close eye for signs of decompensation in an adult. Once both are unconscious, i’d pretty much stick to the adult because they have a better chance of surviving extended periods of shock.

Thing is, it is absolutely impossible to try and plan ahead for this. This is one of many reasons Paramedic and flight medic training is so long and intensive. You have to be trained to read the situation as it unfolds. The average person won’t know what to look for or what to do.

 

[HannahLisa]

If I was married and had a child, and this situation happened, I would save my child.

I’m guessing my husband would want me to save the child. It would be MUCH more likely that I would succeed in pulling my child up than my husband.

And I think it would be a lot easier to explain to a child that Daddy wanted to save him and died for him than explain to my husband and myself that our innocent child died so he could live – not to mention seeing the look on my child’s face when he KNEW that Mommy didn’t save him.

 

[lizaanne]

Yea, in split second decisions we all start thinking of who is in a state of grace

I did - it was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the question. I honestly didn’t think of anything else.



~Liza

 

[Filius99993]

This question came up last night, and inspired a surprising amount of debate and discussion, so I figured I’d throw it out here and see what people think.

Here’s the situation:

You find both your wife/husband and your child dangling from the edge of a cliff. There is no time to speak with anyone, and you only have the option to save one of them. You know that the one you don’t save will fall to his/her death.

Which one would you save, and why?
Is there an obligation to save one over the other?

In addition to posting your explanations, please also place a vote on the poll above.

Generally, I don’t hang around cliffs, and since I’m probably going to marry someone who’s afraid of heights, I doubt this situation occurs. (No, I don’t understand why I am attracted to acrophobics)

 

[masterjedi747]

The original post has them hanging off a cliff. That’s a mountaineering situation, and mountaineering techniques would have to be used. Now, no one with any mountaineering experience would consider this a realistic scenario.

Generally, I don’t hang around cliffs, and since I’m probably going to marry someone who’s afraid of heights, I doubt this situation occurs.

For crying out loud… FORGET ABOUT THE CLIFF! :nope:
Please! It’s not essential to the question at hand. Really.

If someone gave you an absurd word equation like this…

**“Johnny has 9 nuclear bombs in his pocket. He loses 4 of them.
How many nuclear bombs does Johnny have now?”

** The answer is 5! Not “oh, well, Johnny would never really have nuclear bombs in the first place”, or “you can’t carry nine nuclear bombs in your pocket, so it’s a stupid question”.

Just answer the “stupid” question anyway! Don’t avoid answering by appealing to the sheer absurdity of the question, which was acknowledged by myself all the way back in Post #2.

Honestly, I’ll change the situation to a house fire, if it will make you people happy:

Both your spouse and your child are trapped beneath rubble inside a burning building. Both will be dead within 60 seconds unless you run inside to save one. There are no firefighters (or any other people) anywhere nearby, and you only have enough time to save one of them. >>> Which one would you save, and why?

 

[sojo]

As previously stated, I would save my son before my husband, and that is exactly what he would want me to do.

And unlike many here, we actually faced a situation a bit like this. When my son was a baby, we were awoken by a neighbor’s phone call - a wild fire was approaching our home, actually only 200 feet from the house. I was in my underwear and screamed at my husband, who looked out the window with me and we saw what looked like a wall of flame approaching. He threw me the keys to the jeep, and I grabbed my son, jumped into the jeep (in my underwear), and he and I raced to the jeep. My husband said, “I’m staying, you go.” And we did. We drove down our dirt road like bats out of h*ll and parked at the bottom of the hill where I stood in the road directing the volunteer fire fighters who would never have found our unmarked road in the dark.

From the bottom of the road it looked like the house was gone, and I prayed and prayed for my husband’s safety. Many Hail Mary’s believe me!!!

The fire was stopped 40 feet from the home. A firefighter drove down to tell me, and we were all reunited, though the embers burned for 3 days around our home.

So I guess I know exactly how I would behave in the proposed scenario.

sojo

 

[Harmony1988]

People here are so illogical or they just don’t want to answer the question.
They go to great lengths to get around it.

Forget the situation, who would you choose, spouse or child.

Simple enough.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you are on a back road and have a single car accident on wreck with a tree, with your spouse and child in the car, that is MUCH more likely. I’d say you’d have to look at each and try and determine who has the best chance of surviving.

That is the standard for all rescues. You don’t focus your effort on the one you want to save, you concentrate on the one you can save and who needs immediate action.

If your child is dying, and your wife has a broken finger – you work on the child. If the child has the broken finger, and the wife is about to die, you work on her.

 

[He_Man]

For crying out loud… FORGET ABOUT THE CLIFF! :nope:
Please! It’s not essential to the question at hand. Really.

If someone gave you an absurd word equation like this…

"Johnny has 9 nuclear bombs in his pocket. He loses 4 of them.
How many nuclear bombs does Johnny have now?"

The answer is 5! Not “oh, well, Johnny would never really have nuclear bombs in the first place”, or “you can’t carry nine nuclear bombs in your pocket, so it’s a stupid question”.

Just answer the “stupid” question anyway! Don’t avoid answering by appealing to the sheer absurdity of the question, which was acknowledged by myself all the way back in Post #2.

Honestly, I’ll change the situation to a house fire, if it will make you people happy:

Both your spouse and your child are trapped beneath rubble inside a burning building. Both will be dead within 60 seconds unless you run inside to save one. There are no firefighters (or any other people) anywhere nearby, and you only have enough time to save one of them. >>> Which one would you save, and why?

You are in no position to post what appears to be a divisive, pointless topic who answers don’t in any way invalidate the love someone has for their spouse OR child, and then get mad because someone counters your question with a series of conditional questions as well.

What WAS your point with this?

 

[He_Man]

People here are so illogical or they just don’t want to answer the question.
They go to great lengths to get around it.

Forget the situation, who would you choose, spouse or child.

Simple enough.

Make us.

No one is obligated to answer silly, meaningless questions, no matter how many times you demand it.

I
ll answer, because I could really care less about the ramifications of anonymous polls oin the internet. Perhaps I’ll act differently when the times comes, hence why this is pointless. I chose my child, but honestly Lizanne’s answer was the best by far.

But stop acting as though anyone owes you an answer.

 

[hasikelee]

This question came up last night, and inspired a surprising amount of debate and discussion, so I figured I’d throw it out here and see what people think.

Here’s the situation:

You find both your wife/husband and your child dangling from the edge of a cliff. There is no time to speak with anyone, and you only have the option to save one of them. You know that the one you don’t save will fall to his/her death.

Which one would you save, and why?
Is there an obligation to save one over the other?

In addition to posting your explanations, please also place a vote on the poll above.

Um, why am I standing on the edge of a cliff with my husband and child?

Maybe your poll should include an option for calling DFS or a spousal abuse hotline.

I chose the child, of course. The age wasn’t specified, but I’m assuming an older child would have been called a teen.

Hello, has anyone ever been on a cliff? Let’s see, who can you successfully grab: a full-grown man/woman or a small child? Although both have a serious risk.