If he hadn’t given her his hand, would she have been in mortal danger? And an IV sedative wouldn’t have helped?
Come on.

If we assume for the sake of discussion that there is no danger to life here, would it be right to decide in favor of the moral side? And is this even considered affectionate touch at all?

If she says she needs it, she is the one who determines that. Of course, if she herself says it isn’t necessary, then no. A woman giving birth has been granted far-reaching leniencies, and this is no worse.
Beyond that, this is touch that is not affectionate, and that too is a reason to be lenient even without danger to life.
You can look here: https://ph.yhb.org.il/18-09-05/
I don’t think there is a moral question here. It’s a question of need, and if the need is great there is room to permit it within Jewish law.

Rabbi Michael Abraham, I’m surprised: if you say that this touch is not affectionate touch and therefore permitted, why not say that this touch is not touch at all, and therefore of course it is permitted?

Suppose there were a halakhic prohibition on a husband touching his wife during childbirth even when she is very frightened—would it then be right to decide in the moral direction (that is, in the direction of helping a person in distress at the expense of Jewish law)?

You’re taking me to undefined and hypothetical places. If Jewish law were to forbid it even in such a situation, we would need to see what the source for that is and what the reason is. If there is a direct prohibition, then apparently the moral consideration itself was taken into account and overridden. If we simply haven’t found a permission, then there may be room for a transgression for the sake of Heaven, or for morality to decide in very extreme situations. All this is very hypothetical.

Moishi, attempts to be witty are nice, but why troll? I invest enough time answering serious questions from people who ask in order to get an answer. If you’re really asking, it would have been appropriate to look at the link I posted above before spraying your urine all over us.

Let’s say that in this case there is a halakhic decisor who holds that there is no danger to life here (despite the woman’s fear), and let’s say he also holds that this is affectionate touch, but he is still undecided about how to rule between the moral consideration and the halakhic consideration. How would you recommend that he rule in such a situation, given his assumptions?

Usually I would forbid it. If it is insanely important to the woman (say, her sanity or her relationship with her husband), then even if there is no danger to life there is room to consider it differently.

Thank you. By the way, if it interests you or any of the readers, the case appears at this link:
https://www.mako.co.il/mako-vod-keshet/baby_boom
Episode 1
The segment from around minute 16:50.

They touched me during childbirth too; I understand your pain.

I saw the episode too…
As a woman, I have to say that this is danger to life in every sense! These are such critical moments, and it has huge implications afterward too, like depression and so on…
And exactly as Rabbi Michael said, you do whatever the woman wants! Unbelievable that even here people have to get into unnecessary philosophizing.

I accept the criticism that I didn’t read the link, but I wasn’t trolling. I was surprised how one can view such hand-holding as not affectionate touch, since the reason she wants her husband’s hand is because they are together and their special relationship gives her strength. And there in the link, in note 5, it turns out that this is apparently the view of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Others hold, from what I understood, that “affection” means specifically touch involving desire at the moment of contact, and at the moment of encouraging touch here there is apparently no desire.

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