Breast surgeon butcher
Court is told Scots cancer doc maliciously wounded 10 patients with unnecessary ops to earn extra cash Ian Paterson is accused of lying to patients and fudging their test results to justify putting them under knife
A SCOTS breast surgeon put 10 patients through unnecessary operations to make extra cash and enhance his reputation, a court heard yesterday.
NHS cancer specialist Ian Paterson, 59, is accused of lying to private patients and fudging test results to justify putting his patients under the knife.
A jury heard Glasgow-born Paterson caused patients to believe they could be seriously ill for years and put them through extensive, life-changing surgery for “no medically justifiable reason”.
He is said to have “exaggerated or invented” risks of cancer, telling one man and nine women harmless lumps needed serious operations.
Some of his patients were said to have been left with serious mental health problems.
The dad of three is also accused of claiming payments for more expensive surgery than he actually carried out.
Paterson, of Altrincham, Greater Manchester, denied 20 counts of unlawfully and maliciously wounding 10 patients when his trial began at Nottingham Crown Court yesterday.
The offences are alleged to have taken place at Spire Healthcare hospitals in the Midlands while he was employed by Heart of England NHS Trust. He was suspended from the trust in May 2011.
Prosecutor Julian Christopher QC told the jury Paterson may have lied to patients because he wanted to maintain his reputation as a successful, in-demand surgeon and earn extra money.
He said: “Mr Paterson was a busy surgeon with an excellent bedside manner. He was extremely experienced and knowledgeable in his field, which makes what happened in this case all the more extraordinary and outrageous.
“The 20 counts relate to individual operations which he told the patients were necessary, usually, but not always, on the basis that they had or were at risk of developing breast cancer.
“All of the operations, the prosecution allege, were in fact completely unnecessary.
“Remarkably and tragically, these were operations which no reasonable surgeon at the time would have considered justified.
“Nor are we dealing with simple mistakes or incompetence. Frequently he misrepresented the results of various tests. Both when he was first presented with a patient with a lump in her or his breast, making what he found seem more serious than in fact it was.
“And also afterwards, making it seem that it had been a good thing that the operation had been carried out or that there remained a residual risk, so justifying a suggestion that the patient could return.
“In other words, for check-ups providing him with both a fee and further opportunities to recommend further treatment in the future.
“What Mr Paterson did fell quite outside the realms of reasonable surgery.
“Mr Paterson was carrying it out not because he thought it was in the best interests of the patient, but for his own, perhaps obscure, motives.
“To maintain his image as a busy successful surgeon in great demand and at the top of his game, or to earn extra money or because he enjoyed the responsibility that came with helping people who believed that their lives were in his hands.”
The QC said Paterson frequently charged payment for more expensive operations than the ones he had actually performed.
He added: “Shocking though it may seem, Mr Paterson was lying to patients and to their GPs and in some instances to a colleague as well, about the patient’s condition.
“He was exaggerating or quite simply inventing risks of cancer in order to justify operations which were quite unnecessary.
“As a result, those patients and their families lived for many years with the belief that they could be very ill, and underwent extensive, life-changing operations for no medically justifiable reason.
“Some have consequently developed serious mental health problems.”
The court heard Paterson “systematically misinterpreted” GP Dr Rosemary Platt’s test results, subjecting her to a “traumatic series of unnecessary operations”, including a mastectomy.
Dr Platt, then 47, was referred to Paterson in 1997 after the discovery of a lump in her right breast. But he did not wait for a report conducted by a specialist breast pathologist, which ultimately did not recommend any surgery, to carry out two procedures on her.
Dr Platt underwent a full mastectomy and reconstruction, which resulted in painful after-effects.
The prosecutor said: “Plainly Dr Platt was wounded, it was unlawful and the harm which was done, quite intentionally, consisting in the removal of Dr Platt’s right breast, was on any reasonable view really serious harm.
“Mr Paterson systematically time and time again misinterpreted Dr Platt’s pathology results, thereby raising her anxiety.
“It is not at all surprising that she was apparently presenting with new concerns about possible lumps leading to excessive clinical visits and ultrasound examinations, and consenting to a traumatic series of unnecessary operations.”
The trial is expected to last up to 10 weeks.