The baby was stuck in breech position and the doctor refused to do a C-section. Photo / Getty Images

A first-time mother has spoken of her 'inconsolable' agony after her baby boy was decapitated in a botched birth.

Laura Gallazzi, 34, was rushed into hospital after her waters broke at 25 weeks of being pregnant- but had no way of knowing that her the doctor trying to deliver her new born baby Steven would accidentally decapitate him, reports Daily Mail.

When she arrived at hospital The British Red Cross worker was told she had suffered a prolapsed umbilical cord and she was "petrified", but was soon expecting a C-section.

Dr Vaishnavy Laxman, 43, attempted to carry out the delivery naturally at Dundee's Ninewells hospital and urged the patient to push whilst herself applying traction to the baby's legs.

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

Two other doctors subsequently carried out a C-section on the woman to remove the infant's head.

The baby's head was "re-attached" to his body so his mother could hold him before she said goodbye.

It is believed the child was already dead before he was decapitated during the bungled 15 minute delivery.

Recalling her nightmare when she first learnt Steven had died, Laura Gallazzi told The Sun: "Dr Laxman sat to the edge of my bed.

"She told me Steven hadn't made it.

"I told her, 'Don't worry, these things happen.' I thought it was because I was only 25 weeks.

"I didn't know something untoward had happened. I even held her hand. I told her I forgave her."

Laura and her husband Steve McCusker had spent a year trying to get pregnant and could not wait to be new parents.

She added: "My son was dead and then they told me he had been decapitated. I was screaming, My poor baby.

"Why didn't they give me the C-section in the first place? Instead of having to carry it out to retrieve my son's head?

"If I didn't have tubes and needles in me, attaching me to a machine, I don't know what I would've done.

"I was inconsolable. I thought they were going to just bring in a body.

"I didn't want to be left with that memory."

Dr Vaishnavy Laxman, 43, was found culpable of medical failures after a tribunal revealed she should have given the 30-year old patient an emergency Caesarean section as the premature infant was in a breech position at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee.

At the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester, consultant Laxman - who qualified in Chennai, India - denied wrongdoing.

The service said there was no impairment of Dr Laxman's fitness to practise and cleared her to return to work at another hospital.

The tribunal cleared Dr Laxman of misconduct and said her fitness to practise was not impaired.

Laura said she did not forgive Dr Laxman and the incident has left her with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The tribunal ruled the decision to proceed with a natural birth was "negligent and fell below the standards ordinarily to be expected" but did not amount to serious misconduct.

The panel's written decision said: "The failing which the tribunal has found proved was not sustained, persistent or repeated, but rather a single error of judgement made in very difficult circumstances.

"The tribunal was satisfied that throughout the attempted delivery of baby B, Dr Vilvanathan Laxman believed that she was acting in both patient A's and baby B's best interests, and that she genuinely believed that proceeding with a vaginal delivery was the optimum course to take in the circumstances which existed at the time."

Dr Laxman said she believed the baby would have died had a Caesarean section been carried out.

But at a finding of facts hearing, panel chairman Tim Bradbury said: "It was Dr Laxman's decision in this regard that was to dictate her subsequent actions and the course of events which ultimately led to Baby B being decapitated.

"The Tribunal was in no doubt that throughout her involvement in the attempted delivery of Baby B, she was endeavouring to achieve the best outcome for Patient A and Baby B.

"However the central issue in this case is whether Dr Laxman's decision to attempt a vaginal delivery of Baby B rather than an immediate caesarean section under general anaesthetic was clinically indicated or whether the only proper course in the circumstances would have been to proceed to an immediate Caesarean section.

"Dr Laxman had not sufficiently addressed in her mind the risk to Baby B by proceeding with a vaginal delivery - namely the risk of head entrapment and the delay this complication would inevitably cause.

"Further, the Tribunal found that she embarked upon a vaginal delivery without a proper basis for concluding that a delivery was imminent or that there were any characteristics present that might be regarded as favourable to a vaginal delivery.

"The Tribunal did not accept that in these circumstances a caesarean section was the appropriate mode of delivery for foetal wellbeing. The Tribunal did not accept that the circumstances were such that Dr Laxman should have assumed that a caesarean section would have no prospect of success.

"The Tribunal determined that at this time Dr Laxman's priority was a live delivery and there was also a reasonable prospect that Baby B could have survived following an immediate caesarean section under general anaesthetic.

"The decision to proceed with vaginal delivery represented a failure in her clinical decision-making on the evidence available to her at the time."