Surgeon ‘needlessly butchered patients after claiming their lives were in danger from non-existent cancer and tricking them into having healthy breasts removed’
Ian Paterson raked in private fees for the 'needless' mastectomies over 14 years
A LYING surgeon butchered patients in ops after claiming their lives were in danger from non-existent breast cancers, a court heard yesterday.
Ian Paterson, 59, raked in private fees for the needless mastectomies over 14 years in the West Midlands, it was claimed.
His first victim was a woman GP who was tricked into having a cancer-free breast removed, a court heard.
Rosemary Platt, 47, was referred to Paterson by her own doctor over a growth but a mammogram suggested there were no cancerous cells.
Her tests were sent to leading specialist Professor Christopher Elston, who recommended regular check-ups but not surgery because there was no sign of cancer.
Carole Johnson, who was mentioned in court today, is among the alleged victimsBut Paterson ignored that and carried out invasive surgery that eventually “justified” a full mastectomy, the court heard.
Prosecutor Julian Christopher said: “It was unlawful because as Mr Paterson will have known it was quite unnecessary.
“The harm done, quite intentionally, consisting in the removal of Dr Platt’s right breast, was on any reasonable view really serious.”
SIX OPS... JUST ONE NECESSARY
BETWEEN October 2000 and May 2007, Carole Johnson had six breast operations but only the first was perhaps necessary, it was claimed.
After the first, when she was 48, there was no sign of malignancy, though Paterson failed to record his findings.
After a series of repeat scans, Paterson misreported the results to her GP, which was an excuse for more surgery, the jury heard.
When she found a new lump in the central part of the breast in 2003, she told her husband but kept it secret from the rest of the family so as not to spoil Christmas.
The surgeon even tried to persuade Dr Platt to have her left breast removed, though she had suffered no problems.
The court was told Dr Platt was the first of ten patients — nine women and a man — upon whom Paterson performed “completely unnecessary” mastectomies over a 14-year period.
GP ‘SUFFERED POINTLESS OPS’
GP Rosemary Platt was referred to Paterson by her own doctor over a lump in her right breast in 1997, the court was told.
An earlier mammogram suggested there were no malignant cells, but showed a build- up of cells in the 47-year-old’s milk glands that could indicate an increased cancer risk.
One cancer expert suggested regular check-ups.
But Paterson insisted on removing extra tissue from her armpit area.
The “unecessary” procedure left her in pain, it was said.
When Dr Platt found another lump, Paterson recommended a full mastectomy, which she later had.
But the prosecutor said the surgeon should have checked with a biopsy.
It was claimed Paterson, 59, lied to patients, “exaggerating or quite simply inventing risk of cancer.”
Mr Christopher said the operations carried out by Paterson were ones which “no reasonable surgeon would have considered justified”.
He added: “Shockingly, Mr Paterson was lying to patients, and to their GPs.
‘CANCER’ LUMP WAS SIMPLY FAT
MARION Moran’s mammogram results were inconclusive, though Paterson removed a wart-like growth that showed no signs of malignancy, it was alleged.
However, the surgeon wrongly told her further lumps found in 2001 and 2003 were pre-cancerous and cancer in her left breast was inevitable, the court heard.
In 2004 she had a needless mastectomy, and three years later removed another lump from the same reconstructed breast.
Prosecutor Julian Christopher said: “In fact, this lump was merely fat, the result of damage caused by the previous surgery.”
“Exaggerating or quite simply inventing risk of cancer in order to justify carrying out serious operations which were 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.”
94 FOLLOW-UPS AFTER REMOVAL
JUDITH Conduit had lumps removed from both breasts in 2000 aged 47, and was told she might have Dercum’s disease, a painful gristle condition he had only seen twice.
Next year she had both breasts removed. She was in hospital for a week due to wounds caused to her back during reconstruction, and developed a blood clot.
Mr Christopher said: “She counts 94 hospital appointments in the ensuing 12 months.
“No reasonable body of breast surgeons would have recommended bilateral surgery even in early 2000. Despite Dercum’s being so rare, he did not seek a second opinion.”
The court was told following the needless operations Paterson submitted receipts for more complex procedures to earn inflated fees.
He also allegedly invented complications to prolong consultations that brought in more fees. Paterson’s other alleged victims include:
- A 25-year-old woman who was devastated when told unnecessary operations had profoundly affected her ability to breastfeed.
- A woman of 47 who had a mastectomy and then surgery to remove a second lump, caused by a bungled first operation.
- A second woman of 47 who had both breasts removed after Paterson told her she might have a rare disease which causes gristly lumps. He failed to seek a second opinion that was likely to have deemed surgery unnecessary.
- A 48-year-old woman who had six operations when only the first might have been necessary, the jury was told.
- A second woman aged 48 who was warned by Paterson she was a ticking time bomb in need of a preventative mastectomy.
- A man aged 42 who had both breasts removed. His mother had died from breast cancer in her 40s but reports allegedly showed no justification for his surgery.
Outwardly, Paterson appeared the consummate professional.
Mr Christopher said the surgeon displayed “an excellent bedside manner” at two Spire Healthcare private hospitals in Little Aston, Birmingham, and Solihull.
He said: “He instilled complete confidence in his patients.
MAN’S NEEDLESS MASTECTOMY
WHEN John Ingram, 42, went to Paterson with a lump in his right breast, the surgeon told him it was “pre-cancer”, the court heard.
As Mr Ingram’s mother had died from breast cancer in her 40s, Paterson recommended a double mastectomy to save his life.
Mr Ingram had a scan after he found a lump while he had gynaecomastia, the medical term for “man boobs”.
Paterson later warned him that he was “on the road to cancer”, with breast removal safest.
Another specialist has suggested keeping the lump under review would have been right. Tests showed “no justification” for surgery.
“He was extremely experienced and knowledgeable in his field, breast surgery, which makes what happened in this case all the more extraordinary and outrageous.
“We suggest Mr Paterson was carrying it out not because he thought it was in the best interests of the patients, but for his own, perhaps obscure, motives.
“They were to maintain his image as a busy successful surgeon in great demand and at the top of his game.
BREASTFEED MUM’S AGONY
ULTRASOUND on future mum Leanne Joseph came back clear when she complained of a discharge from one of her nipples.
But the surgeon said the 25-year-old’s milk ducts had pre-cancerous cells, it was said.
And he said removing them was a small price to pay for her life, even though it would leave her unable to breastfeed on one side.
The entire duct system of one breast was removed in 2006, the court was told.
Paterson then said it was common for both breasts to have the condition and, despite a clear scan, insisted on another op.
Mr Christopher said: “She was devastated. It would mean that she could not breastfeed at all.”
“Or to earn extra money by doing extra operations and follow-up consultations, all these being private patients, some funded by insurance, some finding the money themselves.”
Mr Christopher said Paterson revelled in his power to help people who believed their lives were in his hands.
Nottingham crown court was told that the needless operations could not be explained by differing medical opinions, or mistakes, or even incompetence.
The prosecutor said Paterson deliberately “misinterpreted” breast lumps to make them seem more serious.
After surgery he insisted his action had averted cancer.
Paterson, of Altrincham, Greater Manchester, denies wounding with intent during surgery carried out on nine women and one man between 1997 and 2011.
The trial continues.