Touching at birth

If he hadn't given her a hand, would she have been in danger? And wouldn't a sedative in an IV have helped?
Come on, really

If we assume for the sake of discussion that there is no Pico here, is it correct to rule on the moral side here? And if there is a touch of affection here at all?

If she says she needs it, she decides. Of course, if she herself says there is no need, then no. The mother was allowed extreme permissions and it is no worse.
Beyond that, it is a touch that is not of affection and is also a reason to be lenient even without a picon.
You can read it here: https://ph.yhb.org.il/18-09-05/
I don't think there is a moral question here. It is a question of necessity, and if the need is great, there is room for permission within the halakhah.

Rabbi Michael Avraham, I'm surprised if you say that this touch is not a touch of affection and therefore permitted, why don't you say that this touch is not a touch at all and therefore certainly permitted?

If it were shown that there was a halakhic prohibition on a husband touching his wife during childbirth, even in a place where she is very afraid, would it be right to decide in the moral direction (i.e. in the direction of helping a person in distress at the expense of halakhic law)?

You are taking me to undefined and hypothetical places. If the halakha prohibits even in such a situation, we need to see where the source of this is and what the reason is. If there is a direct prohibition, then apparently the moral consideration itself was taken into account and rejected. If we simply did not find a permit, there is room for an offense per se or a moral decision in very extreme situations. All of this is very hypothetical.

Moishe, trying to be witty is nice, but why troll? I spend enough time answering serious questions from people who ask to get an answer. If you're really asking, you should have looked at the link I posted above before you beg us.

Let's say in this case there is a judge who believes that there is no pikuach nefesh here (despite the woman's fear) and let's say he also believes that this is a touch of affection, but he is still undecided about deciding between the moral consideration and the halakhic consideration. How would you recommend he rule in such a situation, given his explanations?

Usually I would forbid it. If it is incredibly important to a woman (risking her sanity or her relationship with her husband), even if there is no danger to life, there is reason to consider it differently.

Thanks. By the way, if this interests you or any of the readers, the case is presented at this link:
https://www.mako.co.il/mako-vod-keshet/baby_boom
Chapter 1
The part from minute 16:50 approximately.

I was also touched during childbirth, I understand your pain.

I also saw the episode…
As a woman, I have to say that this is a lifesaver for all intents and purposes! These are such critical moments and it throws a lot of weight even after the birth, like depression, etc…
And just like Rabbi Michael said, do what the woman wants! I can’t believe that even in this case it has to reach unnecessary philosophies

I accept the criticism that I didn't read the link, but I wasn't trolling. I was surprised how holding a hand like that couldn't be seen as a touch of affection, after all, the reason she wants her husband's hand is because they are together and the special bond between them gives her strength. And there in the link in note 5 it turns out that this is probably the opinion of the rabbi. And others believe from what I understood that affection is actually a touch of passion at the moment of the touch, and at the moment of the touch of encouragement, where there is apparently no passion.

The affection that is forbidden is sexual affection, not friendship. Touching my mother or my sister is a touch of affection, but not sexual affection.