Controversial neurosurgeon Charlie Teo is considering an appeal against a professional inquiry that effectively ended his career in Australia.
A professional standards committee on Wednesday delivered its findings on two surgeries performed by Dr Teor that had ‘disastrous’ results, imposing restrictions on the star doctor’s registration.
Dr Teo, who faced serious allegations over his professional conduct at Sydney’s Prince of Wales Private Hospital in 2018 and 2019, was told of the findings by email.
Seven News reports that he has denied allegations of unprofessional conduct and is looking into an appeal.
‘In terms of the allegations, if they find me guilty I have to take it on the chin,’ he told Seven’s Spotlight programme.
Charlie Teo breaks his silence on the medical tribunal findings. Spotlight/7 News.
The committee imposed restrictions on Dr. Teo, including the requirement to obtain written permission from a Medical Council-approved neurosurgeon to have at least 15 years’ experience as a registered specialist in neurosurgery before performing any ‘malignant intracranial tumor and brain stem tumor surgery. procedure’.
Dr Teo said he was ‘glad’ the tribunal had not imposed more conditions and made it easier for him to get a supervisor.
But he may struggle to find a hospital to allow him to undergo the surgery, Seven said.
Dr. Teo is currently in Spain, pending an appeal at the Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The Medical Professional Standards Committee found that Dr Teo (pictured) spoke inappropriately to the patient’s daughter after surgery.
Dr Teo faced a lengthy hearing before the Healthcare Complaints Commission (HCCC) in Sydney earlier this year.
He was accompanied by a crowd of supporters, including high-profile boxing great Anthony Mundine.
Both patients were ‘vulnerable women’ who faced the possibility of death from their respective brain tumors.
In the case of the first woman titled Patient A, the committee found Dr Teo ‘did not exercise appropriate judgment to proceed with surgical resection’.
The committee’s verdict said, ‘It was a high-risk and inappropriate surgery due to the nature and location of the tumour, its genetic makeup and its spread.
The committee also found that the potential harms of the surgery ‘far outweighed’ the potential benefits, were not supported by the medical literature, and that Dr Teo had a ‘moral duty’ to refuse the surgery as required by the Code of Conduct for Surgeons.
Dr Charlie Teo (pictured left with his partner Tracy Griffiths) has been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in a landmark ruling.
“We found that his judgment was flawed in recommending surgery to Patient A,” the committee’s verdict said.
‘His answers in both his written material and his oral evidence, while expressing a willingness to test for and take responsibility for poor outcomes, demonstrate a lack of understanding of the vulnerability of his patients and the potential flaws in their consent or patient autonomy.’
For the second woman, Patient B, they said Dr Teo ‘performed surgery that was different from the surgery recommended to the patient’.
The committee’s verdict stated, ‘The surgical technique led to the unnecessary and excessive removal of a normally functioning brain.
‘Some elements relating to informed consent were lacking.’
Dr Teo charged Patient B $35,000 for the surgery – something that was found to be ‘inappropriate’ and constituted inappropriate behavior in circumstances where the woman was in a ‘protected’ state.
He used inappropriate language, telling Patient B’s daughter in a phone call: ‘You’re asking the wrong question’, and ‘Would I do it again? F**king swear I will. You should be grateful. I gave extra time to the family.’
Banned neurosurgeon Charlie Teo (pictured with girlfriend Tracy Griffiths) said in February that the media and doctors who ‘destroyed’ him had blood on their hands – and allowed children he could have saved to die.
The committee also found that Dr Teo had shown a ‘lack of reflection’ in his judgment in proposing surgery ‘without statistical data or peer support which in his own experience over 10 years could not be proven wrong’. time.’
‘Although the practitioner expressed regret and took responsibility for the poor surgical outcome, he expressed no remorse for offering the surgery to either Patient A or Patient B,’ the judgment said.
‘This lack of insight in his judgment is a cause for concern to us.’