Disgraced Scots surgeon blasts claims patient’s death was linked to his operation

In a recent inquest, disgraced Scots breast surgeon Ian Paterson defended his actions regarding the death of a patient, Christine Baker, and refuted claims that her death was linked to his operation. The inquest, which is the third of 62 being conducted for patients of Paterson, heard that Christine Baker passed away at the age of 59 in 2015 after following Paterson’s advice to undergo a “skin-sparing” mastectomy in 2005.

During the proceedings, Paterson asserted that the possibility of him not removing some of the procedure was extremely small. He disagreed with the opinions of two experts who suggested that Ms. Baker’s death was associated with him leaving excess breast tissue. The inquest revealed that Mrs. Baker underwent a second mastectomy in 2007 after her cancer returned, and her husband highlighted that they were never fully informed about the risks involved in the reconstructive surgery recommended by Paterson.

Paterson, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for wounding, maintained that he advocated for Mrs. Baker to have the treatment she desired. He also claimed that there was a disagreement within the medical team over the best course of action, which he believed was not solely based on clinical grounds. Paterson, originally from Glasgow, but residing in Altrincham during his trial and conviction, worked at multiple healthcare facilities including Solihull Hospital.

Throughout the inquest, Paterson reiterated that his intentions during the 2005 mastectomy were to remove all the breast tissue and that he did not purposely leave any behind. He disputed claims that the weight of tissue removed during the procedure was insufficient, stating that the completeness of the operation was confirmed by subsequent pathology reports. Paterson also rejected allegations that Mrs. Baker’s death was a result of excess breast tissue left during the surgery, citing evidence that disproved this theory.

Despite the ongoing controversy surrounding his surgical practices, Paterson continues to defend his actions and maintain his stance regarding the treatment of his patients.

In conclusion, the inquest into Ian Paterson’s surgical practices has shed light on the complexities and challenges within the medical profession. It serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency, communication, and patient advocacy in healthcare settings to ensure the best possible outcomes for patients. The case also highlights the need for robust oversight and accountability to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.