In this case, it was: “According to the complaint, the baby’s legs and torso were delivered through the C-section incision without the head. The baby’s head was then delivered vaginally.”
The lawsuit claims doctors “pulled on the baby’s head and neck so hard and manipulated them so hard, that the bones in the baby’s skull, head and neck were broken.”
…
According to the medical examiner’s report, the baby’s death was caused by the “fracture-dislocation” of his upper cervical spine and spinal cord.
Yes, it actually by definition does. An internal decapitation doesn’t mean the head was removed, but a decapitation does mean the head was removed from the body. That’s how the terminology works.
Keep in mind that decapitation doesn’t mean the head was removed from the body.
In this case, it was: “According to the complaint, the baby’s legs and torso were delivered through the C-section incision without the head. The baby’s head was then delivered vaginally.”
From here: https://www.ajc.com/news/medical-examiner-rules-babys-decapitation-at-birth-a-homicide/LYMJVYQUUBCD3L5MHUGIQEO3PU/
Well that’s the most traumatic thing I’ve read today.
The article indicates that it was full separation
…
It most certainly does not.
Wait… What? I swear the article previously said the torso was removed via c section and the head vaginally… I’m confused.
Edit: I forgot I read it in the article linked in this thread by @[email protected] instead of the OP article.
Yes, it actually by definition does. An internal decapitation doesn’t mean the head was removed, but a decapitation does mean the head was removed from the body. That’s how the terminology works.
The two are often used interchangeably by journalists, which is why the reminder is necessary.
According to the linked article (which is not a good article) it was internal decapitation, although another source says it was a complete separation.