Doctor Decapitates Baby During Birth

[LadyTevar]

I have no words for how sick this article makes me.


GA Doctor Decapitates Baby During Difficult Birth

A doctor decapitated a woman's baby during a "nightmare" delivery in Georgia, a legal case has claimed.

Dr Tracey St Julian is being sued for gross negligence by Jessica Ross and Treveon Taylor, whose son died at Southern Regional Hospital during a complicated birth.
Several nurses are also being sued for concealing the incident.

Their lawyers claimed Dr St Julian had been too forceful with the baby during the delivery.

Cory Lynch, one of their legal team, said the couple were "so excited about the birth of their first child".
"Unfortunately, their dreams and hopes turned into a nightmare that was covered up by Southern Regional Medical Center," he said.

Warning - some readers may find details in this story distressing

The Medical Examiner's office and Clayton County Police are investigating the case, which they were made aware of on 13 July, though the death occurred on 9 July.
According to the attorney's statement, Dr St Julian attempted to deliver the baby vaginally using different methods including "applying traction to the baby's head."
Lawyer Roderick Edmond, also representing the parents and who is also a doctor, alleged Dr St Julian had applied "ridiculously excessive force" to the baby.

"Dr St Julian came in, and she, in the process of trying to deliver the baby, pulled on the baby's head and neck so hard, and manipulated them so hard, that the bones of the baby's skull, face, and neck were broken."
He said: "When the womb was opened, the feet came out, the body came out, and there was no head," he said.

The baby was not able to be delivered vaginally due to shoulder dystocia, where the baby's shoulders become stuck in the birth canal.
Dr St Julian, a board-certified obstetrician and gynaecologist, did not proceed with a caesarean delivery at the appropriate time, as previously requested by the couple, the lawsuit says.

Ms Ross and Mr Taylor, both 21, attended a news conference on Wednesday in Atlanta where their lawyers announced the suit against Dr St Julian and Southern Regional Medical Centre, a hospital in Riverdale.

Mr Lynch alleged in graphic detail the measures staff had taken to cover up the horrific incident, including wrapping the baby's body in a blanket and propping his head up to make it look like it was still attached.

He claimed that medical staff had failed to report the incident.

The couple only found out what had happened to their son while making arrangements at the crematorium, four days after his death, according to the lawsuit.

In a statement, Prime Healthcare Services, who own the hospital, said its' "heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with the family and all those impacted by this tragic event".
"Our commitment is to provide compassionate, quality care to every single patient, and this loss is heart-breaking," the hospital said.
It added that Dr St. Julian was not an employee of the hospital, and it had "taken the appropriate steps in response to this unfortunate situation".

The suit alleges gross negligence, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages, in addition to covering the cost of the infant's $10,000 funeral.
The couple's lawyers have said the case highlights the higher rates of infant mortality for black women.

The BBC has contacted Dr St Julian's office for comment.
Dr St Julian has not yet filed her defence and has not issued a public comment on the case.

[Solauren]

I'd be calling for Manslaughter charges at minimum.
If I didn't do something rash, violent, and highly illegal instead.

[Batman]

Some sort of 'the doctor killed a human being' charge at any rate. And trying to cover it up afterwards is beyond the pale.

[bilateralrope]

I'd be calling for Manslaughter charges at minimum.
If I didn't do something rash, violent, and highly illegal instead.

Agreed. I wonder if the prosecution is holding back for fifth amendment trickery. Specifically, you can plead the fifth in a civil case to avoid testifying, but that can lead to an adverse inference. While pleading the fifth in a criminal case can't be held against you.

Which means that letting the civil trial run first means the accused has to decide between risking the adverse inference in the civil case or risking saying something that will be used in the criminal one.

Or maybe the prosecution is just making sure they have a strong case before they get an indictment.

[LadyTevar]

I'd be calling for Manslaughter charges at minimum.
If I didn't do something rash, violent, and highly illegal instead.

Agreed. I wonder if the prosecution is holding back for fifth amendment trickery. Specifically, you can plead the fifth in a civil case to avoid testifying, but that can lead to an adverse inference. While pleading the fifth in a criminal case can't be held against you.

Which means that letting the civil trial run first means the accused has to decide between risking the adverse inference in the civil case or risking saying something that will be used in the criminal one.

Or maybe the prosecution is just making sure they have a strong case before they get an indictment.

I am very much hoping there's more than just Civil Case damages here. "Malpractice" doesn't even BEGIN to cover this. I don't know if there's a "Malpractice leading to Death" charge, "Manslaughter" also works.
And that hospital needs smacked too, for trying to cover it up.

I hope the family gets $$$$... even if it doesn't help the trauma they were put through.

[madd0c0t0r2]

Shoulder dystochia: https://www.rcog.org.uk/for-the-public/ ... n-leaflet/

Pretty rare, and pretty commonly resolved when it occurs, but you get something like 3minutes from it occuring to getting the baby out to avoid brain damage or death of baby. Pulling out hard enough to damage nerves in baby's arm is not uncommon (and the baby normally heals it right up).

It's not something that can be dealt with by ceaserean. This is a fucking horrible situation.

[Ralin]

Agreed. I wonder if the prosecution is holding back for fifth amendment trickery. Specifically, you can plead the fifth in a civil case to avoid testifying, but that can lead to an adverse inference. While pleading the fifth in a criminal case can't be held against you.

Which means that letting the civil trial run first means the accused has to decide between risking the adverse inference in the civil case or risking saying something that will be used in the criminal one.

Or maybe the prosecution is just making sure they have a strong case before they get an indictment.

He pulled a baby's head off and then tried to pose the corpse so it looked like the head was still attached. How much stronger could the prosecution's case get? That's like something South Park would make up for a ridiculous over the top punchline.

[LadyTevar]

He pulled a baby's head off and then tried to pose the corpse so it looked like the head was still attached. How much stronger could the prosecution's case get? That's like something South Park would make up for a ridiculous over the top punchline.

No.
The NURSES were the ones who did that, it seems, reading the article. That's why they're also named in the suit, as well as the hospital itself.
Now, was that the Doctor's Idea or one of the Nurse's? We don't know, won't know until or unless the Prosecutor talks to them.

Which, again, is another reason to wait for after the Civil Suit, because someone might implicate themselves or others during the trial and the Prosecutor can use it against them

[Ralin]

She, my bad

The NURSES were the ones who did that, it seems, reading the article. That's why they're also named in the suit, as well as the hospital itself.
Now, was that the Doctor's Idea or one of the Nurse's? We don't know, won't know until or unless the Prosecutor talks to them.

I, uh. Doubt they just did it of their own initiative. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where 'I didn't tell them to put the head back on and hope no one noticed!' was the defense I was relying on.

[Broomstick]

On another forum I frequent this is also a hot topic. Apparently the hospital is now claiming that the baby died in utero, before the delivery. IF that is the case, then the mother's health/life takes precedence over the integrity of the infant's body BUT at a certain point you'd think they'd perform a cesarean. (In the bad old days, and in large animal veterinary practice today, there are techniques to cut up a deceased infant in the womb to make it easier to remove in order to preserve the life/health of the mother, but they are seldom used these days in humans) And also tell the parents that "the baby died" before, you know, engaging in measures that result in detached body parts. Or rather, perform a cesarean to avoid the distress caused by what happened in this case.

"Posing" a stillborn infant for viewing/holding/photographing by the parents is actually pretty common BUT parents are supposed to be informed of what happened to their child.

The funeral home involved, upon receiving a body with a completely detached head, sounded the alarm. The funeral home owner said they would expect a body in that condition to be received from a coroner, not directly from a hospital. Severely damaged bodies do need to be dealt with, but there are procedures and regulations and best practices around that which clearly were not followed in this case.

Clearly, Something Went Wrong, which is bad enough, but the cover-up is just as bad, perhaps worse. And there's no doubt there was an attempt to cover this up.

[bilateralrope]

Agreed. I wonder if the prosecution is holding back for fifth amendment trickery. Specifically, you can plead the fifth in a civil case to avoid testifying, but that can lead to an adverse inference. While pleading the fifth in a criminal case can't be held against you.

Which means that letting the civil trial run first means the accused has to decide between risking the adverse inference in the civil case or risking saying something that will be used in the criminal one.

Or maybe the prosecution is just making sure they have a strong case before they get an indictment.

He pulled a baby's head off and then tried to pose the corpse so it looked like the head was still attached. How much stronger could the prosecution's case get? That's like something South Park would make up for a ridiculous over the top punchline.

It's not just about charging the doctor over killing the baby. It's also a question of if there are any other charges to hit the doctor with and/or if there are any other hospital staff that should also be charged.

[LadyTevar]

On another forum I frequent this is also a hot topic. Apparently the hospital is now claiming that the baby died in utero, before the delivery. IF that is the case, then the mother's health/life takes precedence over the integrity of the infant's body BUT at a certain point you'd think they'd perform a cesarean. (In the bad old days, and in large animal veterinary practice today, there are techniques to cut up a deceased infant in the womb to make it easier to remove in order to preserve the life/health of the mother, but they are seldom used these days in humans) And also tell the parents that "the baby died" before, you know, engaging in measures that result in detached body parts. Or rather, perform a cesarean to avoid the distress caused by what happened in this case.

"Posing" a stillborn infant for viewing/holding/photographing by the parents is actually pretty common BUT parents are supposed to be informed of what happened to their child.

The funeral home involved, upon receiving a body with a completely detached head, sounded the alarm. The funeral home owner said they would expect a body in that condition to be received from a coroner, not directly from a hospital. Severely damaged bodies do need to be dealt with, but there are procedures and regulations and best practices around that which clearly were not followed in this case.

Clearly, Something Went Wrong, which is bad enough, but the cover-up is just as bad, perhaps worse. And there's no doubt there was an attempt to cover this up.

You're absolutely right. If the baby died in utero there's a completely different procedure, and the baby would have been sent to the Medical Examiner's Office/coroner for an autopsy/COD. A Decapitated Baby should have gone immediately to the ME/Coroner, not the funeral home.

I'm also wondering how the doctor/nurses explained the blood that *had* to be everywhere. Babies don't have the full 5liters of blood, but it'd still be far more blood than a normal birth. Just what did the doctor say to them?!

[Broomstick]

Normal birth results in a fair amount of blood loss, and nurses and other personnel are pretty adept at cleaning it up quickly. Also, if the baby was already dead and its heart no longer beating the body wouldn't necessarily lose all its blood because there would be nothing pumping it through the body any longer.

[Broomstick]

Here's an article with a timeline.

Looks like the baby might have actually been dead at the time of decapitation, and other damage occurred to the child's face, skull, and spine before that event.

[wautd]

This is pure horror. I can't imagine what's the mother's going through

[Broomstick]

That is why both parents are receiving professional counseling for medical trauma. Thank goodness, lord knows they need it.

[LadyTevar]

Here's an article with a timeline.

Looks like the baby might have actually been dead at the time of decapitation, and other damage occurred to the child's face, skull, and spine before that event.

Considering the timeline seems to come from the hospital that's being sued, I have questions as to the truthfulness.
As for the fetal heartbeat going erratic, anther article said that shoulder dystochia can cause truama to the fetus and cause complications and death if the child is not freed in a timely manner. That is plausible. I would ask what the doctor was doing to the fetus when the 'heartbeat stopped'.

The article does state that the doctor did finally do a c-section to free the body, which might explain the wording in the OP about "The feet came out, the body came out, but the head wasn't there".
The new article also states the parents weren't allowed to hold the child at all. Again, not SOP even with a fetal death, and makes me wonder if that was so the head wouldn't fall off in her lap.

There is still a whole lot of blame-shifting and excuses in this, and none of it is accepting the fact a baby is dead because someone fucked up.

[Broomstick]

There are a lot of records kept regarding medical care these days, while I agree that there are questions about the timeline coming from one of the accused parties it is plausible, if not yet proven, that it is a truthful statement that can be backed up by documentation.

Children can be injured or die during childbirth even with nothing doing anything wrong. One problem with the kid getting stuck in the birth canal is that death can result from several different mechanisms. Dislocated shoulders (which may or may not involve nerve damage, which may or may not be permanent) or broken bones are "lesser" complications. On top of that, a baby stuck in the birth canal puts the mother at risk of tissue tears or even uterine rupture.

Again, on another forum, I read an account from a doctor who delivered a baby already known to be dead via the use of some traction which partially separated the skin and neck tissues. The point being that this sort of damage to an infant during a birth gone bad is not unknown. However, in that case the baby was already known to be deceased at the start of labor, and after the baby was delivered it was cleaned and swaddled so the parents could hold their baby, take photos, and gain some closure on a tragic situation. Information was not withheld from the parents, which is very important.

I really think in the OP situation is was not just that the baby died but how the whole situation was handled. Also, my limited information is that there are a number of things that can be done to deliver a stuck baby in this situation before you start pulling bits off (which would be a truly extreme situation). I think there is definitely a case for malpractice here, and not just for the doctor.