Sur­geon ‘still poses a risk’

Birmingham Post - - FRONT PAGE - Kim Pilling Spe­cial Cor­re­spon­dent

ASURGEON jailed for car­ry­ing out un­nec­es­sary breast op­er­a­tions on 10 pa­tients has been struck off.

The ac­tions of Ian Pa­ter­son, 59, were “se­ri­ous” and “in­ten­tion­ally harm­ful” over a pe­riod of 14 years and “fun­da­men­tally in­com­pat­i­ble” with the med­i­cal pro­fes­sional, a tri­bunal has ruled.

His fail­ure to ac­knowl­edge any of his faults showed a lack of in­sight that in­di­cated he still posed a se­ri­ous risk to pa­tients, the med­i­cal prac­ti­tion­ers tri­bunal also con­cluded.

Pa­ter­son was sen­tenced in May to 15 years in prison af­ter he was con­victed by a jury of of­fences of wound­ing with in­tent and un­law­ful wound­ing against the 10 pa­tients.

His trial at Not­ting­ham Crown Court heard har­row­ing ev­i­dence from the nine women and one man who were treated in the pri­vate sec­tor be­tween 1997 and 2011 at Lit­tle As­ton and Park­way hos­pi­tals in the West Mid­lands.

Pa­ter­son did not at­tend the dis­ci­plinary hear­ing in Manch­ester and was not legally rep­re­sented, although he was made aware of the pro­ceed­ings by post to HMP Not­ting­ham.

The tri­bunal heard that Pa­ter­son did not op­pose the pro­ceed­ings and had ex­pressed a wish to be erased with­out the need for a hear­ing.

An­nounc­ing the con­sul­tant sur­geon’s era­sure, tri­bunal chair­woman Va­lerie Pa­ter­son (no re­la­tion) said: “Mr Pa­ter­son’s ac­tions were se­ri­ous, in­ten­tion­ally harm­ful and took place over a pro­tracted pe­riod of time.

“He de­ceived pa­tients, and fel­low pro­fes­sion­als, by com­mu­ni­cat­ing that the pa­tients were at risk of can­cer and needed to un­dergo pro­ce­dures.

“He then un­der­took and charged for these pro­ce­dures, none of which were nec­es­sary for the main­te­nance of their health. Mr Pa­ter­son ex­ploited the trust that was put him in as a doc­tor, for his own gain.

“As a re­sult, the pa­tients in­volved have suf­fered, and con­tinue to suf­fer phys­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal con­se­quences.

“In all these cir­cum­stances, the tri­bunal con­cluded that Mr Pa­ter­son’s con­vic­tion, and the ac­tions which led to his con­vic­tion, ren­der him fun­da­men­tally in­com­pat­i­ble with con­tin­u­ing to be a doc­tor.”

She added that the panel had seen no ev­i­dence of an apol­ogy or re­morse on be­half of Pa­ter­son.

Ms Pa­ter­son con­tin­ued: “It (the panel) noted that he main­tained his in­no­cence through­out the po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tion and through­out his trial. The tri­bunal is satis- fied that there is a risk of rep­e­ti­tion, if given the op­por­tu­nity.

“It con­sid­ered that this lack of in­sight into ac­tions would in­di­cate that he still poses a se­ri­ous risk to pa­tients.

“It was also con­scious that Mr Pa­ter­son’s ac­tions have had a rep­u­ta­tional ef­fect, in that they have dam­aged the trust pa­tients put in doc­tors, and have po­ten­tially dam­aged the trust put in doc­tors as a whole, by the wider pub­lic.”

Pa­ter­son’s jail sen­tence has been re­ferred to the Court of Ap­peal by the at­tor­ney gen­eral to as­sess whether the term of im­pris­on­ment was un­duly le­nient.

In 2012, more than 700 pa­tients of Pa­ter­son, who also worked in the NHS, were re­called af­ter con­cerns about un­nec­es­sary or in­com­plete op­er­a­tions.

> Ian Pa­ter­son, 59, was im­pris­oned for un­law­ful wound­ing of pa­tients

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.