A tragic Canvey Island mother who wanted to bury her stillborn baby was horrified to be given tissue samples instead of the body.

In 2006 Danielle Tivey, 27, was ecstatic when she was told by Southend University Hospital that she was expecting twins.

But excitement turned to tragedy when at a later routine examination an ultrasound scan showed that one of the twins had died.

The twins were to have been two boys. Danielle was told that gradually the dead baby, Tommy, would shrink away as his surviving brother, Alfy, grew nearer to his birth. Tommy would then simply become part of the placenta. Danielle wanted to arrange a funeral for Tommy, or at least to have his remains returned to her so she could hold her own service and bury him in her garden.

Her wishes were made clear to medical staff and became part of her midwifery notes.

In January 2007, Danielle gave birth to Alfy, by caesarian section. But she heard the obstetrician say: ‘I’ve never seen one of these before’.

Tommy had been preserved, in a state known as ‘fetus papyraceous’. He was clearly identifiable as a baby, but Danielle described him as ‘flat on one side but looking exactly like a 20 week old baby. I could see his head, an arm and a leg’.

Tommy’s remains were taken away and subsequently Danielle and her surviving son, Alfy, were discharged from hospital.

Having heard nothing more from the hospital, later in January Danielle called them to ask when she could have ommy for burial. But she was told she was ringing too soon.

She made a number of further phone calls to the hospital over the following weeks, but was told that Tommy was still in pathology and he had not been ‘worked on’ yet. In March that year a hospital pathologist prepared a report on the unusual situation concerning Tommy’s preservation. But still there was no word as to when Danielle would have his body returned to her.

At a meeting with the obstetrician at the hospital in August 2007, Danielle was told how tests had shown that Tommy died of a blood clot. But when asked when she could have the remains returned to her, the doctor appeared completely unaware of her requests.

Following the meeting, the obstetrician wrote to the pathologist: ‘I was at a loss to answer her question as to what has happened to the baby because apparently all the forms filled in say that she wished to dispose or arrange burial etc herself. However, she has not received the fetus and has not been able to do so far. I wonder if you could find out what has happened, where it is, and let me know so we can communicate with the patient.’

A month later, Danielle was told she could collect Tommy from the hospital. She had organized a cremation and a casket was made for his ashes.

She arrived at the hospital with her partner, George, and was approached by a member of staff in the reception and handed an envelope. The assistant then left without offering any explanation.

When they opened the envelope, Danielle and George found six wax blocks containing tissue samples of Tommy, cross sections of his body. Danielle was physically sick outside. She was shocked that Tommy’s body had been disposed of in this way and at the manner in which she had been given the tissue samples.

She made a complaint to the hospital about their failure to return his body and the way they had ignored her repeated requests. She and George were subsequently invited to a meeting at which the hospital admitted being at fault.

But the shock of what had happened to her dead baby caused Danielle to suffer a severe psychiatric disorder. She developed a pattern of frightening dreams and obsessional behaviour. She became severely distressed, irritable and fearful. Her relationship with her partner and her son Alfy was badly affected and she lost her job, putting a huge financial strain on the family. Danielle and George subsequently took out a legal challenge against the hospital and its procedures through Harlow and Loughton-based solicitors Attwaters.

After negotiations the hospital admitted breach of duty and the case has been settled for an undisclosed sum, representing compensation for Danielle’s psychiatric injury and her loss of earnings.

The case was handled by James Sherwin, a medical negligence specialist with Attwaters. ‘This demonstrates quite appalling incompetence and insensitivity by the hospital,’ says James Sherwin. ‘The hospital claims that documentation that would normally be expected to be in place was not completed by staff, so that there was no subsequent discussion with Danielle about her wishes. ‘They had also lost all the documentation relating to Danielle’s wishes to keep the baby. ‘But above all and having realized what had happened, to present a grieving mother with some cross sections of her dead child in a buff envelope in the middle of the hospital reception was completely insensitive.’ In a brief statement, Danielle said: ‘I can’t believe that anybody could be so unfeeling as to behave in this way, let alone the NHS who we turn to because they are supposed to be caring.’