Disaster Baby 'accidentally decapitated inside mother's womb' during delivery

Is this 'Disaster'? It's certainly 'Horror'. Definitely ain't Science because it would imply the doctor actually used their credentials to not fuck up the delivery.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...man-tribunal-ninewells-hospital-a8344696.html

A doctor caused an unborn baby to be accidentally decapitated inside her mother’s womb while performing a delivery, a medical tribunal has heard.

Dr Vaishnavy Laxman, a consultant gynaecologist who was working on an NHS maternity unit, is said to have ignored the woman giving birth’s requests to stop and failed to provide pain relief.

The obstetrician at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee is accused of wrongly going ahead with a vaginal labour in spite of several complications that meant a Caesarean delivery would have been safer because the premature infant was in a breech position.

The 30-year-old patient’s baby boy died during childbirth. Dr Laxman was suspended by NHS Tayside in the wake of the incident in March 2014.

It was alleged that tragedy hit when the 41-year-old doctor called for the patient to push while herself applying traction to the baby’s legs.

The movement caused the infant’s legs, arms and torso to become detached leaving the head still in his mother’s womb.


Two other doctors consequently carried out a C-section on the woman to remove the infant’s head. It was ‘’reattached’’ to his body so his mother could hold him before she said goodbye. It is claimed the mother was not even in established labour at the time.

A medical practitioners tribunal in Manchester heard the doctor allegedly continued with a vaginal delivery despite the patient’s cervix being “no more than four centimetres dilated”.

The mother came face to face with Dr Laxman at the tribunal, where she engaged in a harrowing exchange across the room.

“I don’t forgive you – I don’t forgive you,” she looked at her and said, while the doctor stared down at the floor.

This was followed by the mother – known only as Patient A – looking away as Dr Laxman’s QC apologised on behalf of her.

The woman’s waters had broken early at 25 weeks and upon examination her unborn baby was found to have a prolapsed cord, was in a breech position while the mother’s cervix was around 2-3cm dilated. It can be 10cm when fully dilated.

The mother, who was clutching two teddy bears in her arms, told the hearing it was the first time she was due to give birth.

“I had been for a scan the previous Friday and I was told my son was breech and the nurse told me if anything had happened to my son it was going to be a c-section,” she added.

“But when I was taken to the labour suite nobody told me what was happening. A lot of people were talking, they kept saying the baby needed to come out but nobody looked at me in the eye and told me what was going to happen.

“There were two doctors between my legs, one on my right hand side holding my hand and there were other people there too. I was examined by a doctor but she didn’t say anything to me. They were checking for the baby’s heartbeat and it had plummeted and that’s when I was told it was going to come out.

“I remember them saying I was two to three centimetres dilated and I was told to push. Nobody said I was not having a c-section and doing something else instead. Whilst this was going on I was in pain.

“The only pain relief I was given was a spray on my tongue. I was told it was meant to loosen my cervix but I was not given gas and air – I was in pain. I had the doctors putting their hands inside me and I had them pushing on my stomach and then pulling me down.

“I tried to get off the bed but they pulled me back three times and just said they had to get the baby out. They twice tried to cut my cervix and nobody told me they were going to do it. There was no anaesthetic. I said to them ‘it doesn’t feel right, stop it, what’s going on, I don’t want to do it’ but nobody responded to me in any way.

“Afterwards I was in a cubicle with a curtain around me and the sister came over to me and told me my son had passed away. I didn’t know the details but Dr Laxman came to see me and the baby’s father was there. Dr Laxman sat on the side of my bed and she said how sorry she was for what happened but I didn’t know the full extent of what happened at that point.

“I just said ‘it’s alright, these things happen, I forgive you.’ She went away but I started screaming when I found out the full extent – I was just crying. I was upset because of the severity of his injury.

“I would never use the word stillborn, he was not stillborn he was decapitated. I was pregnant, my first pregnancy I wasn’t sure what was going on and I was told it was the safest place possible. Nobody explained the plan or risks associated. It was like disorganised chaos and I was scared.’’

Midwife Mona Chard said: “I was aware she had palpable tightening and some bleeding and she was moved to the labour suite. There was a lot of discussion but I’m not sure who was talking to who. I can’t remember Dr Laxman having a conversation with a patient. I was trying to reassure the patient and comfort her. I remember looking round and people were shocked.

“The doctor came over to me and said Dr Laxman had decided there wasn’t going to be a c-section and I saw her pull the baby’s feet and cord and she told the patient to push. That is something you cannot forget and Patient A was very distressed.’’

The hearing was told the woman was given cocodamol before she was examined and Dr Laxman decided to carry out the delivery naturally.

“They tried to coerce the birth through traction as the baby was coming feet first followed by the lower abdomen, upper abdomen and head,” lawyer for the General Medical Council Charles Garside QC said.

“However, there was an obstruction during the birth which proved to be fatal. Dr Laxman allegedly delivered the legs, torso and arms successfully but whilst trying to deliver the head, it got stuck in the cervix.

“The attempt to manipulate the baby’s head to come out of the cervix failed because the cervix has clamped onto the baby’s head and despite effort made to assist, these efforts failed. Dr Laxman made three attempts to cut the cervix with scissors but Baby B’s head was separated from his body and his head was stuck inside Patient A’s body.

“The doctors had to arrange for the head to be removed. A Caesarean was then carried out – not by Dr Laxman who had become overcome by events – but by Dr C and Dr D, and his head was removed in that way.

“As a matter of compassion the head was reattached so the appearance of the baby was not too extreme. The baby was shown to his mother so she had the consolation of seeing him.’’

Mr Garside added: “At no stage was Patient A given any pain relief or instructed on when the C-section was being carried out. At no point did she try to comfort or consolidate or explain to Patient A what was going on.

“She failed to perform a Caesarean... without general anaesthetic at a time when speed was needed. They should have carried out a category one Caesarean section. The baby had a heartbeat, it was slow, but it was not dead. The choice was taken by Dr Laxman to try a vaginal delivery and this was the wrong choice. They should never use a vaginal delivery in that situation.

“New babies are fragile, but this tiny baby was more fragile, and being pulled or twisted could do a lot more damage [my note: this sentence trailed off as-is]

Dr Laxman, who was working at the hospital with a team of other doctors, faces being struck off. She denies contributing to the death of the baby.

Her lawyer Gerard Boyle QC addressed the mother during the hearing and told her: “Dr Laxman has asked me to say she is so very sorry and deeply saddened for the outcome of your baby.

“She knows that no amount of words can or will soften your pain but she is hoping that knowing that what she was trying to do was her very best to deliver your baby quickly and sufficiently and she had best intentions at heart. She did not intend to harm you or harm your baby and she offers her apologies in every possible way. She hopes at some point in time that will make you feel in a way, slightly better.’’

Edit: This story is 4 years old. Fuck you, you should feel horrified TODAY.
 
Last edited:
What people do when they have children is make the decision for another person that life is worth living. Yet for many people it isn't. And when many people come to the conclusion that suicide is the correct option to opt out of the rat race, they are forced to stay alive against their will either by family members too selfish to let someone end their pain or by people whom are required by their job to resuscitate people(when people hang themselves) leaving the person in a vegetative state far worse than the one they were in before. Or they leave them in psych ward on suicide watch where their mental health deteriorates.

You're rolling the dice for another individual for your own benefit when they get no benefit from existing over not existing at all. In life there are winners and losers. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that bad things only happen "sometimes". A direct contradiction to all of the people whom have never had any happiness in their life from beginning to end. If there is a winner, then logically there is a loser. A lot of happiness comes at the expense of another individual.

Plenty of people find the nature of life to be reprehensible and the fact that they are born is a logical crime onto their person. Yet the appropriate party doesn't get punished, because you're just expected to put up with all of the horrors of life and suck it up despite the bond between person and life & parent and child being involuntary.

Telling me to grow character is completely illogical as it doesn't address the argument. You wouldn't know anything about my character or my perseverance
 
So I got the expected responses. People here are advocating that even if the baby would've grown up and lived a miserable life, that it should've been born anyway in order to keep the mother happy. Resembles psychopathy, definitely some solipsism.

Edit: I'm talking about what's best for the baby. The mother is irrelevant. Nobody forced her to have the baby.

We're not talking a reasoned decision about a reasoned decision to have the baby die here (something which happens in NICUs all the time). You might as well say that a baby is better off being mauled to death by a pitbull because it *might* have grown up to have a miserable life.

Huge ethical questions arise from any practise of heroic medicine, but this wasn't an edge case. You should probably read some Peter Singer if you want to argue a pro-eugenics position. There are plenty of good arguments for abandoning heroics at both the beginning and the end of life. You haven't advanced any, though.

On a different note, it's inexcusable that this case has taken 4 years to be presented to the tribunal.
 
You're not making any sense. If that hypothetical baby was never born in the first place then it would've never had to have gone through the gruesome suffering of being torn apart by the pitbull. That suffering is part of life. Don't know why you're differentiating the two.

All of the losers in life wouldn't have suffered if they were never born in the first place. Them being born and forced to live is a net negative. These are the same people that you would've argued should be born while spewing platitudes if they were in the same position as this baby. Yet the observable results of their lives contradicts the same notion you try to push. That is an undeniable logical reality.
 
You're not making any sense. If that hypothetical baby was never born in the first place then it would've never had to have gone through the gruesome suffering of being torn apart by the pitbull. That suffering is part of life. Don't know why you're differentiating the two.

All of the losers in life wouldn't have suffered if they were never born in the first place. Them being born and forced to live is a net negative. These are the same people that you would've argued should be born while spewing platitudes if they were in the same position as this baby. Yet the observable results of their lives contradicts the same notion you try to push. That is an undeniable logical reality.

Do you fap to a portrait of Schopenhauer?
 
You're not making any sense. If that hypothetical baby was never born in the first place then it would've never had to have gone through the gruesome suffering of being torn apart by the pitbull. That suffering is part of life. Don't know why you're differentiating the two.

All of the losers in life wouldn't have suffered if they were never born in the first place. Them being born and forced to live is a net negative. These are the same people that you would've argued should be born while spewing platitudes if they were in the same position as this baby. Yet the observable results of their lives contradicts the same notion you try to push. That is an undeniable logical reality.


Ain't nobody stopping no assblasted mofo from killing himself if that's what he wants to do. Just don't involve the rest of us.

As for the rest of your sperg on this topic.

Not a single goddamn thing you've written is remotely unique or thought provoking.
Do you even know where your edgelord ideas come from?
Of course not, because if you did you would never have adopted them in the first place and subjected everyone here to this diarrhea of the keyboard.

Let me give you a hint: the people who came up with this shit lead privileged lives, married and reproduced.
Now why would they do that and why would they try so hard to convince the rest of us peons that rolling the dice on life, and not being risk averse, is a bad thing?
Why would they want people who they never met, for their genetic lines to die out?

Seriously ask yourself that.
 
You're not making any sense. If that hypothetical baby was never born in the first place then it would've never had to have gone through the gruesome suffering of being torn apart by the pitbull. That suffering is part of life. Don't know why you're differentiating the two.

All of the losers in life wouldn't have suffered if they were never born in the first place. Them being born and forced to live is a net negative. These are the same people that you would've argued should be born while spewing platitudes if they were in the same position as this baby. Yet the observable results of their lives contradicts the same notion you try to push. That is an undeniable logical reality.

I personally have no problem with everyone ceasing to have babies and humanity dying out. I just don't think the fact that some people lead miserable lives is a sufficient basis to advocate that position.
 
Then the idea that people are rolling the dice for others with the result being people leading miserable lives is acceptable?
The fact that parents aren't held accountable for offspring being miserable over the course of their lives? The fact that people aren't held accountable for keeping people from killing themselves, even keeping them in a vegetative state when the person's wish is to die?

If this logic was applied to anything else, it would be a problem, but for birth it supposedly isn't?

All of that is besides the point. It's pointless to argue from emotion on a subject like this because people are blinded by their biological imperative and are willing to screw over anyone, even their own children to fulfill it.

To prevent more suffering, people would need to stop bringing suffering people into the world in the first place. That's logically what would need to happen to stop suffering and it would stop it completely, so it's the most sufficient notion. Whether humans would actually do it isn't relevant. So this baby was saved from a life of potential suffering, so dying before it experienced life is a positive for it's condition as it never had the chance to experience suffering. The absence of pain is good.
A nonexistent entity isn't missing out on anything as it doesn't have any needs. It's not regretting the life it never had. So at worst, this situation could only be net neutral for the baby.
 
To prevent more suffering, people would need to stop bringing suffering people into the world in the first place. That's logically what would need to happen to stop suffering and it would stop it completely, so it's the most sufficient notion.

As we cannot reliably predict which foetuses will go onto lead a life of suffering, the only way to achieve this is for humanity to stop reproducing altogether. Again, though, you're not really advancing any arguments in favour of that proposition.
 
So this baby was saved from a life of potential suffering, so dying before it experienced life is a positive for it's condition as it never had the chance to experience suffering. The absence of pain is good.

Pretty sure getting your head ripped off hurts like fuck.

Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you dude, Jesus.
 
It doesn't matter if you don't have psychic powers to predict which specific fetus will suffer in the future. That isn't even addressing what I said.

Suffering is inherent to life, so what we do know is that people will suffer. If the desired result is to eliminate suffering, then the only logical course of action is to stop bringing more people into the world. That is the only way to achieve the desired result. I don't know how one could contest that.
 
Suffering is inherent to life, so what we do know is that people will suffer. If the desired result is to eliminate suffering, then the only logical course of action is to stop bringing more people into the world. That is the only way to achieve the desired result. I don't know how one could contest that.

No-one is contesting it. You've yet to make an argument as to why eliminating human suffering - bearing in mind that the vast majority of people on this planet have a means to kill themselves available but choose not to do so, implying that they think life is worthwhile despite their "suffering" - is such a desirable result that it justifies wiping out humanity in its entirety.
 
It doesn't matter if you don't have psychic powers to predict which specific fetus will suffer in the future. That isn't even addressing what I said.

Suffering is inherent to life, so what we do know is that people will suffer. If the desired result is to eliminate suffering, then the only logical course of action is to stop bringing more people into the world. That is the only way to achieve the desired result. I don't know how one could contest that.
I didn't know Connor Bible returned to Kiwifarms. Rejoice!
 
Don't mean to detract from the oh-so-entertaining quarrel going on here, but:

This is what happens when government sets quotas and stupid bullshit down from on high to interfere with doctors, patients and their decision making process. Another kiwi mentioned that the NHS is very anti- caesarean and I guarantee you that culture is what lead to this doctor not using their god given talent and all that medical training.

The WHO set down a quota not too long ago about the 'acceptable' rate of caesareans in developed nations. Not really controversial right? Except that number was pulled out of their asses and not based on any scientific fact.
And now you have this horror.

A little off-topic here (but the actual story is horrifying and has left me too speechless), but oh my fucking God, so that has to explain why there was that one poor UK mother some years back who naturally pushed out her 15-pound baby, which they didn't realize was so huge because I guess they don't do ultrasounds before delivery.
Screen shot 2018-05-11 at 7.51.10 PM.png


Jesus Christ, UK, Europe, get your shit together.

Also:
“I had been for a scan the previous Friday and I was told my son was breech and the nurse told me if anything had happened to my son it was going to be a c-section,” she added.

So they knew this long before she went into labor. But they had to follow bullshit government quotas, apparently, so they left this poor woman in the dark and then this medical malpractice happened as a result. The incident may have happened four years ago, but the hearing is still on-going?? Fuck.
 
I can't remember whether intervention starts at 24 or 26 weeks gestation, but I know some tertiary hospitals will medically intervene at 23 weeks with success.

24 weeks. That's considered the "viability" benchmark with today's technology. The chances aren't ideal, but over 50% make it. However, they'll make an attempt 22 (sometimes) to 23 weeks (with some success too!). It's spectacular what can be done the days.

one poor UK mother some years back who naturally pushed out her 15-pound baby, which they didn't realize was so huge because I guess they don't do ultrasounds before delivery.


Jesus Christ, UK, Europe, get your shit together.

Yeah, the UK is weird. Women don't typically get their first ultrasound until 12 weeks there. And from there on they aren't done as often as the US and other developed countries. I find that really, really odd due to the fact molar pregnancies aren't as rare as you'd think and etopics are even more common.

Molar pregnancies are horrific. In them, the ovum that's fertilized contains no genetic material but manages cell reproduction anyway. This results into grape like cysts that fill the uterus. Just cysts. It can also lead to a rare form of cancer if left untreated long enough.

Sorry for my autism on this subject. It's just really interesting the shit that can go wrong.
 
You're not making any sense. If that hypothetical baby was never born in the first place then it would've never had to have gone through the gruesome suffering of being torn apart by the pitbull. That suffering is part of life. Don't know why you're differentiating the two.

All of the losers in life wouldn't have suffered if they were never born in the first place. Them being born and forced to live is a net negative. These are the same people that you would've argued should be born while spewing platitudes if they were in the same position as this baby. Yet the observable results of their lives contradicts the same notion you try to push. That is an undeniable logical reality.

So basically, the last dozen exceptional posts you've essayed here can be summed up in one simple sentence?

"I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN!" (REEEEing optional)

Debate in Deep Thoughts or go to a more appropriate place to discuss this philosophy, for example https://aeon.co/conversations/the-t...ruth-does-this-original-non-consent-matter-98 or any other message board, really.

No living thing has consent to be born, not humans, animals, plants, microbial organisms. Zip. Get over it and get some professional help for your negative outlook on life.
 
Back