Key Points
- Neurosurgeon Charlie Teo has been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.
- It comes after an investigation into complaints regarding patients diagnosed with terminal brain tumours.
- Teo was accused of misleading patients, doing dangerous surgeries and failing to properly inform people of risks.
High-profile neurosurgeon Charlie Teo has been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and accused of having a "substantially experimental" attitude while operating on two patients at a Sydney hospital.
The star surgeon will need written support from another specialist before performing certain procedures after an investigation by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission.
The commission ordered Teo, who is known for taking on risky cases after other surgeons have declined to operate, be reprimanded and have conditions imposed on his registration.
What was Teo accused of?
The health watchdog investigated complaints relating to two patients - referred to as Patient A and Patient B - diagnosed with terminal brain tumours who had catastrophic outcomes.
Neither patient regained consciousness after surgery in 2018 and 2019 at Sydney's Prince of Wales Private Hospital.
During eight days of hearings in March, Teo faced accusations of misleading patients, conducting dangerous surgeries and failing to properly inform them or their families of the risks involved.
What were the commission's findings?
The commission's Medical Professional Standards Committee found the surgeon decided to operate on two patients "where the risk of surgery outweighed any potential benefits".
The committee found he did not obtain informed consent from either woman prior to surgery, charged an unsuitable fee of $35,000 and spoke inappropriately to the patients and their families.
In its 112-page report, the committee concluded Teo "did not exercise appropriate judgement" in proceeding with what it deemed to be a "high risk and inappropriate" surgery on a 41-year-old Perth woman.
"Surgery in this situation is not recommended or carried out by a majority of the practitioner's peers, nor a responsible minority of surgeons," it read.
"The procedure was not supported by the literature (and) the practitioner in his professional capacity had an overriding ethical duty to refuse surgery."
The committee found Teo's attitude to and rationale for conducting the surgery was "substantially experimental" and it was the type of operation which should be conducted in a clinical trial setting or subject to other ethical scrutiny.
When operating on a 66-year-old patient, he was found to have "carried out surgery which was different to that proposed" by performing a right frontal lobectomy instead of a resection of the tumour.
The surgery ultimately "led to unwarranted and excessive removal of normal functional brain".
During consultation with the woman, Teo used inappropriate language, telling the patient: "If you don't have this operation by Tuesday, you'll be f***ing dead by Friday".
The woman was also told: "What the f*** are you crying about? I'm here to fix you, you should be happy" and "Brain tumours are the best f***ing way to die".
While the woman was unconscious and in the presence of her family, Teo is also alleged to have slapped her across the face.
What's next for Teo?
During the hearing, Teo admitted his actions were responsible for the women's poor outcomes, but rejected any suggestion he was negligent.
"I haven't been able to save lives that I know I can save," he said.
Teo will have to obtain a written statement from a Medical Council-approved neurosurgeon to support him in performing recurrent malignant intracranial tumour and brain stem tumour surgical procedures.
"If the written statement does not support Professor Teo performing the procedure(s) he cannot perform the surgery," the commission said on Wednesday.
During the inquiry, there were 47 letters of support from former patients and their families and more than 100 pages of social media messages backing the surgeon.
His lawyer Matthew Hutchings told AAP he had not yet read the commission's full decision and no decision had been made about an appeal.
Teo has the right to appeal the decision to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal within 28 days.
