Notorious breast surgeon, Ian Paterson, was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in May 2017 for carrying out unnecessary and unapproved surgery on a number of patients. However, the Nottingham Court of Appeal found that his current sentence was “not sufficient” and have consequently increased his sentence from 15 years to 20 years.
The news has been welcomed by victims, many of whom have claimed or are claiming compensation as a result of his actions.
The prosecution in the case demonstrated the clear evidence of medical experts that confirmed that the work he carried out for some patients was totally unnecessary, and for others he had intentionally failed to follow protocol as part of what appeared to be some form of “experimental surgery” he was conducting.
Conviction
Mr Paterson was found guilty of 17 counts of wounding with intent and three counts of unlawful wounding when he carried out unnecessary cancer operations on thousands of victims.
Mr Paterson worked for the NHS and another private medical establishment, Little Aston and Parkway hospitals in the West Midlands, where he operated on victims between 1997 and 2011. Mr Paterson told some victims they would have to undergo surgery or risk suffering from cancer, but jurors at Nottingham Crown Court were told that Mr Paterson had exaggerated or invented such risks of cancer in some cases.
It’s not 100% clear as to why Mr Paterson would do such a thing, but there are grounds to infer that he urged patients to undergo the surgery for “obscure motives“; that may have been financially motivated, or motivated by a need for personal recognition.
Trial accounts
During his trial in April 2017, the court heard accounts from ten victims who underwent surgery privately. The general consensus of his potentially irreversible actions have left the victims feeling “violated and vulnerable” – both psychologically and physically.
The specialist prosecutor reiterated this by saying:
“…he knew the procedures were not needed but carried on regardless… the impact of Paterson’s actions on his victims has been devastating from the unnecessary distress of undergoing procedures they did not need, to the scars that will always serve as a physical reminder of what their doctor, Ian Paterson, did to them.”
Victory for victims
One victim, Patricia Welch, hailed victory over his sentencing:
“…over four years of trauma and stress and trying to bring this man to account, no amount of prison sentence will compensate… There was no attempt to show remorse through his actions, and maybe revealing his true character rather than the charming professional man we all thought he was.”
Another victim, Gill Dallow, recalls the physical impact that the surgery has had on her life:
“Apparently he went in so hard that he bounced off the spine and hit the bone. No wonder he went through everything.”
The procedure Ms Dallow undertook was a laparoscopy, which is a low-risk procedure, but Mr Paterson reportedly tore a hole in her artery. Ms Dallow says she is scarred for life by the surgery:
“I was told that I did have my heart pumped by somebody with their hand.”
Ms Dallow was given 11 pints of blood and was taken into intensive care as a result of the botched surgery. Mr Paterson blamed equipment failure and claims he saved her life.
Compensation and costs
The Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust revealed the amount that Mr Paterson has cost the NHS, having so far paid out a total of £17.8 million in damages and legal costs.
Of the hundreds of patients wounded, some 256 NHS patients have been compensated. The same statistics revealed that Mr Paterson underwent “cleavage-sparing” operations on 1,207 of 4,424 patients seen on the NHS. This “experimental” procedure which goes against guidelines for mastectomy procedures has potentially left people at risk of further cancer because tissue has been dangerously left behind.
Some 500 private patients are seeking compensation in the High Court in October.
