Controversial neurosurgeon Charlie Teo is reportedly considering an appeal against a professional inquiry finding that has effectively ended his career in Australia.
A Professional Standards Committee delivered its findings on Wednesday over two surgeries performed by Dr Teo that had ‘disastrous’ outcomes, placing restrictions on the star doctor’s registration in its decision.
Dr Teo, who had faced serious complaints over his professional conduct at the Prince of Wales Private Hospital in Sydney in 2018 and 2019, was told of the findings via email.
He denied the complaints and allegations of unprofessional conduct and is weighing up an appeal, Seven News reported.
‘In terms of the complaints, if they found me guilty then I have to take that on the chin,’ he told Seven’s Spotlight program.
Charlie Teo has broken his silence on the findings by the Medical Tribunal. Spotlight/7 News.
The committee has placed restrictions on Dr Teo, which include a requirement to obtain written permission from a Medical Council-approved neurosurgeon with at least 15 years’ experience as a registered specialist in neurosurgery before he performs any ‘malignant intracranial tumour and brain stem tumour surgical procedures’.
Dr Teo said he was ‘happy’ the tribunal had not imposed more conditions and made it easy for him to get a supervisor.
But he may struggle to find a hospital to allow him to perform surgery, Seven said.
Dr Teo is currently in Spain, weighing up an appeal to the Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal
The Medical Professional Standards Committee found that Dr Teo (pictured) spoke inappropriately to a patient’s daughter post-surgery
Dr Teo faced a lengthy hearing in Sydney earlier this year before the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).
He was joined by crowds of supporters, including high-profile boxing great Anthony Mundine.
Both patients were ‘vulnerable women’ who faced the prospect of death from their respective brain tumours.
The committee found Dr Teo ‘did not exercise appropriate judgment in proceeding to surgical resection’ in the case of the first woman, titled Patient A.
‘It was high risk and inappropriate surgery by reason of the nature and location of the tumour, its genetic type, and it was diffuse,’ the committee’s judgment states.
The committee also found the surgery’s possible detriments ‘far outweighed’ any potential benefits, was not supported by medical literature and that Dr Teo had an ‘overriding ethical duty’ to refuse surgery required by the code of conduct for surgeons.
Dr Charlie Teo (pictured left with his partner Traci Griffiths) has been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in a landmark ruling
‘We have found his judgment was flawed in offering surgery to Patient A,’ the committee’s judgment states.
‘His answers in both his written material and his oral evidence, while disclosing a willingness to examine and take responsibility for bad outcomes, demonstrated a lack of nuanced appreciation of the vulnerability of his patients and likely flaws in their consent or patient autonomy.’
For the second woman, Patient B, they found Dr Teo ‘carried out surgery which was different to that proposed to the patient’.
‘The surgical strategy led to unwarranted and excessive removal of normal functional brain,’ the committee’s judgment states.
‘A number of elements relative to informed consent were lacking.’
Dr Teo also charged Patient B $35,000 for the surgery – something found to be ‘inappropriate’ and constituting improper conduct in the circumstances of the woman being in a state of ‘vulnerability’.
He also used inappropriate language, telling Patient B’s daughter in a phone call: ‘You’re asking the wrong f**king question’, and ‘Would I do it all over again? F**king oath I would. You should be grateful. I’ve given the family extra f**king time.’
Banned neurosurgeon Charlie Teo (pictured with girlfriend Traci Griffiths) said in February that the media and medics who ‘destroyed’ him have blood on their hands – and allowed children to die who he could have saved
The committee further found Dr Teo had shown a ‘lack of reflection’ in his judgment in offering surgery ‘without supporting statistical data or peer support which, in his own experience, may or may not be proved to have been in error in 10 years’ time.’
‘While the practitioner expresses sorrow and takes responsibility for bad surgical outcomes, he does not express any remorse for offering surgery to Patient A or Patient B,’ the judgment states.
‘This lack of insight into his judgment causes us concern.’
