My primary area of interest is England, but anywhere in Europe will do. When a woman died in childbirth, was it customary back then [Primarily Tudor era and later, but plus really anything pre-1900 will do] to perform a Caesarean Section, when the mother was near death or dead? If so, what was the tipping point for when that was acceptable? Any examples? I assume the Church probably had an opinion, but I don’t know it. And the real root of what I guess I’m getting at..... once the mother was 100% dead, would they cut in for the child? How about if they thought the baby was dead too? This is inspired by my interest in how badly boys were wanted- would they cut into dead flesh even to just find out the gender? Thank you if you can answer!
Much of the work on pre-modern medicine Caesarean sections, or sectio in mortua, has concentrated on who could legally perform it--just licensed (male) physicians, or (female) midwives as well. As you might be able to guess from the name, however, one constant for the medieval and Renaissance eras was the absolute requirement that the mother already have died. Sectio was not about valuing the life of the baby over the life of the mother.
In point of fact, medical texts from this time expect the infant not to survive. The idea is rather to have enough time to perform baptism so the child can go to heaven. At least in the late Middle Ages, there is a heartwrenching set of miracles related to childbirth that are "miracle baptisms." A stillborn baby (for any reason) is brought to a priest or a shrine, miraculously revives long enough for a cleric to perform the sacrament of baptism, and then expires for good.
If you're interested, the amazing Monica Green has compiled a bibliography of sectio in the Middle Ages and Renaissance that is freely available online (although most of the articles are paywalled because academic publishing is a scam and a crime).