Dr Charlie Teo says he’d operate again despite woman being left in a vegetative state

Dr Charlie Teo says he stands by his decision to operate on a mother’s stage-four brain tumour despite the “bad outcome” that left her in a vegetative state.

Dr Charlie Teo says he stands by his decision to operate on a mother’s stage-four brain tumour despite the “bad outcome” that left her in a vegetative state.

The neurosurgeon had his first opportunity to respond to two complaints of “unsatisfactory conduct” on Thursday, after the families of two of his patients claimed to the Health Care Complaints Commission that he did not appropriately explain the risks of surgery to them.

The West Australian woman – known as Patient A – had been diagnosed with a high grade brain stem glioma and sought help from Dr Teo in 2018 after other neurosurgeons refused to operate on her.

While the hearing before the HCCC’s Professional Standards Committee heard other neurosurgeons believed the surgery was “futile” and “of no benefit”, Dr Teo offered to operate saying he could give her extra time with her young children.

The woman’s husband claimed Dr Teo did not explain the serious risks, and only said there was a 50 per cent risk of wonky eyes, double vision and tingling down one side.

Charlie Teo and his fiance Traci Griffiths, arriving at the Health Care Complaints Commission Professional Standards Committee Inquiry in Sydney today. Picture: Tim Hunter.

He said Dr Teo explained death and other devastating neurological impacts were unlikely – about a five per cent risk.

When the woman went into surgery the following day, she was “cognitively sharp” and could walk unassisted. However, she was left in a vegetative state following the operation and died some months later.

On Thursday, Dr Teo defended his decision to offer surgery, saying he would “do it again today” and that his definition of the tumour was different to other surgeons.

“When you judge a tumour as being surgically resectable, you have no one to blame but yourself (if it goes wrong), so of course you reflect on rationale, technique, a blood vessel you may have sacrificed,” he said.

Charlie Teo and Traci Griffiths. Picture: Tim Hunter.

“There are many things you can learn from a bad outcome. Of course I went through the entire thing from start to finish to see if I can improve and not make a tragic mistake.

“My rationale is sound. I stand by it. I’d do it again today.”

“I have more experience than almost everyone in the world (when it comes to these rumours). If you look at the literature on brain stem tumours the largest series is written by me.”

He also said he did in fact tell the woman of the risks, contrary to her husband’s evidence, and that for him, a five per cent risk of death was “very high”.

“If you look at my outcomes from standard brain tumours, my devastating outcome and death percentages are .012 per cent,” he said.

“I think the five per cent risk of devastating outcome is very high – I consider that extremely high, that’s a high incidence compared to normal run of the mill right frontal tumour.”

After the consult for the surgery, the hearing heard Dr Teo introduced the woman to another one of his patients in the waiting room, saying she was a “good example” of someone who had been through a similar surgery and recovered well.

Ms Richardson questioned why he made the introduction, which visibly upset the neurosurgeon.

“Please do not ever imply I tried to coerce them into surgery,” he said.

“It just so happened the patient in the waiting room had almost the same tumour that I had operated on eight years earlier … I was trying to instil some hope in their decision, not to coerce them.”

He denied breaching the woman’s privacy in introducing her to Patient A, saying he had “implied consent”.

“She’s a friend, she’s on social media, she’s done interviews with newspapers, she’s told the whole world I saved her life,” he said.

“I didn’t name her, I felt like I had a good enough relationship with her to say it.”