My post #5 was made with your position in mind.
There is a big moral difference between treating both patients and failing for one of the two, and treating one by killing another.
Obviously, I am in favor of treating both mother and child when this is possible.
Recently, an ectopic pregnancy went full term (unbeknownst to the docs) and a healthy child was born. This is probably a one in a million chance.
Is it really the proper thing to do to risk almost certain death for the mother for a slight chance of the baby surviving?
Let me give you another example. My first child was born at home. My wife and I took almost 100 hours of emergency childbirth training. In discussion with the teacher, a nurse-midwife, she described her own training that she once had to implement in a remote area.
The mother was carrying twins. They were positioned so that the heads interlocked and neither could be born.
The mother could not be transported to the hospital, and the midwife was not qualified or permitted to perform a C-section.
The only option was to remove the head from one of the babies. An awful choice, but if not done both babies and the mother would die horrible deaths.
Should she have continued trying to save all three, or was she right to implement her training and save two lives, as she did?
That “life or death” is often used to rationalize decisions made for other reasons does not mean that such decisions are not sometimes necessary and entirely moral.