Surgeon fined, censured over errors

A surgeon who now works in an Auckland hospital has been censured, fined and forced to work under supervision after making three serious mistakes in separate operations.

The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal yesterday heard the surgeon admit to professional misconduct relating to complaints from three patients.

A request for permanent name suppression was declined but interim suppression will apply to allow for a possible appeal.

The surgeon was charged last October after complaints from patients treated between October 2001 and March 2003.

One patient suffered ongoing complications after the doctor stapled through her rectum into her vagina in 2002. The surgery was to close a colostomy after surgery to remove a bowel tumour and to rejoin her bowel and rectum using a stapler.

In another case, a patient suffered excessive bleeding from a cut to the aorta during an operation to correct reflux.

The tribunal found that situation constituted professional misconduct because the surgeon had not given the patient enough information about the surgery and therefore failed to gain informed consent.

In the third case, the surgeon admitted he failed to use reasonable care and skill during a laparoscopic appendectomy when he cut a major vein.

The tribunal sentenced the surgeon to public censure and a fine of the lesser of $20,000 or 25 per cent of costs. He would also be required to work under approved supervision for a further two years.

A patient spoken to after the hearing said the findings had brought some "closure".

The surgeon's lawyer, Harry Waalkens, said the man regretted what had happened and remained apologetic to the patients.

He said the fall-out from the incidents was "a fall from grace for this man".

"He very much regrets it and only wishes he could turn the clock back. Life, I can tell you, will never be the same for him again."

Mr Waalkens asked the tribunal to limit any penalty to supervision conditions and censure, pointing out that publicity over the complaints had already resulted in great financial cost to the family and generated an unpleasant racial attack.

The surgeon had lost his job at the hospital where the operations took place.

Kristy McDonald, QC, counsel for the Director of Proceedings in the office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, said imposing a penalty would help in "retaining the public's confidence in and respect for the medical profession".

She said there were clear issues of competence in relation to the man's surgical abilities. She also raised concerns about "shortcomings" in his communication with patients.

"[The surgeon's] conduct in respect of all three complaints was unacceptable and he deserves to be reprimanded."

Ms McDonald opposed an application for permanent name suppression, saying any damage to the surgeon's reputation could not outweigh the public interest in knowing his identity.

"Patients and potential patients have the right to know [the surgeon's] name, particularly in the context of a conviction on a charge based on three separate complaints and which relates to professional misconduct in relation to three separate incidents," she said.

Mr Waalkens argued that publishing the man's name would make it difficult for him to keep a job and would badly affect his family, some of whom had already been forced to change jobs as a result of publicity.

Tribunal chairman David Collins said members had "reflected very, very carefully" before refusing to grant permanent name suppression.

Mr Collins thanked the surgeon and the complainants for their conduct during the hearing.

- NZPA