By: Ozren Podnar |
Ian Paterson - a surgeon who mutilated hundreds of women with unnecessary breast surgery |
|
The British National Health Service (NHS) this year paid more than 3.2 million pounds in damages to patients who had become victims of a maverick surgeon in the area of Birmingham.
Dr. Ian Paterson performed hundreds of unnecessary or improper operations while working for the Heart of England charity, which is an organization under the NHS umbrella, the British equivalent of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund.
A total of 503 women filed a claim for compensation, but it seems that over one thousand patients had the misfortune of falling into the hands of a surgeon who used his scalpel too eagerly.
Shocking testimony
Patients told shocking stories to the media.
Gail Boichat told that her surgeon diagnosed her with breast cancer in 1995 and persuaded her to undertake lumpectomy (removal of a malignant breast tissue with some of the surrounding, healthy tissue).
However, another doctor later discovered she never had cancer.
"I should be grateful for the fact I actually never really had cancer, but I cannot accept the other side of the story. I cannot get that part out of my head, "she said.
Dr. Paterson performed unnecessary lumpectomies on Gail and other 405 healthy patients.
Among the victims was Jade Edgington, who was 16 years old when she underwent four unnecessary operations.
The other seven hundred patients did have breast cancer, but the surgeon performed on them the procedure called "cleavage sparing mastectomy."
This procedure invented by Paterson himself, but it has never been approved in the UK.
"Many clients developed cancer again after partial mastectomy," said the lawyer Kashmir Uppal from Birmingham, whose office represented 400 patients.
Executive Director of the Heart of England Foundation, Dr. Mark Newbold, expressed regret over what happened to a large number of women. „Our thoughts are with them and their families," he said.
All boards ignored warnings
Dr. Paterson worked in five hospitals in the period between 1993-2011, when he was finally suspended.
In 2004 an internal report in one of the hospitals drew attention to the possible danger of unnecessary surgical procedures.
It was only in December of 2007 when the superiors ordered Mr. Paterson to stop conducting improper operations. However, there is evidence that he continued with this practice until 2010.
In addition to the judicial process for granting compensation to injured patients, the British public was shocked by the slow reaction of the hospital where Paterson worked.
Therefore, an independent investigation was launched to determine why the hospital did not react to the warning about the possible consequences of those operations.
"He took away our femininity"
The police are investigating possible grounds for charges of assault on 450 patients he operated on, although they did not have cancer.
"If someone attacked me on the street and cut me with a knife, he would go to jail," remarked one patient.
Women treated by Paterson said that wrong diagnosis and surgery caused them mental pain.
One patient even planned her own funeral.
"I suffered an attack on my body and spirit," complained Paula Gelsthorpe from Birmingham, who has undergone two unnecessary lumpectomies.
"Put him in a room with a thousand of us, so that we can cut into his flesh," said another victim of unnecessary lumpectomies.
Some patients added that Paterson took away their femininity.
Was it all about the money?
According to British media, the police are probing into allegations that Paterson claimed compensation from insurers for more operations than he had performed.
A native of Scotland, Paterson is married with three children and lives in a house worth 1.2 million euros. At the trial he is represented by the Medicinal Staff Defenders Syndicate.
According to a Syndicate spokesman, "Paterson is not allowed to make any statements due to doctor-patient confidentiality, and because the investigation is still ongoing."
Due to his silence it is not known yet why he performed such unnecessary and improper operations.
It is hard to imagine that this was a case of incompetence or ignorance.
Was he perhaps motivated by the need to cause harm and pain to his patients? Or he had financial incentives to perform so many unnecessary surgeries?
Due to the secrecy of the British NHS, we will maybe never know the true reasons for his acts.
Liked the article?
Share it with your friends!
