Charlie Teo case must be about medicine alone

Whether Dr Teo is a nice guy or plays well with other surgeons is not the point. It is incumbent on the Health Care Complaints Commission deliberate on medical practices only, writes Weekend Telegraph Editor Mick Carroll.

When it comes to high-stakes experimental medicine, it is not unusual for emotions to run high.

If the procedures are successful the sense of relief and elation is euphoric — for both the medicos and the patient.

Alternatively, a negative outcome hits all parties hard.

It is not surprising then that the level of anxiety surrounding the Dr Charlie Teo case currently being argued before a professional standards committee of the Health Care Complaints Commission is extremely heightened.

Inside the hearing, the families of two patients who died retold their stories of despair, alleging Dr Teo had not properly informed them of the risks and had behaved rudely and dismissively.

Neurosurgeon Charlie Teo and his fiance Traci Griffiths are greeted by supporters as they are arrive at the Health Care Complaints Commission hearings. Picture: Tim Hunter

Outside the hearing, enthusiastic supporters of Dr Teo – many of them surviving patients of his risky operations – criticised the hearing and some media coverage of the case.

For his part, Dr Teo also told a waiting media pack the hearing was the work of jealous colleagues with a vendetta against him.

The matter is further complicated when you throw in the almost evangelical, dogged and, it has to be said, not always balanced pursuit of Dr Teo by some sections of the media.

All of this makes for explosive headlines and effective TV sound bytes but is not necessarily conducive to dispassionate decisions about the conduct and practices of a highly skilled, well-respected surgeon, who is loved by the thousands of patients whose lives he has saved.

Alan Suy with Tammy Thompson show their support for Dr Teo outside the hearing.

As the allegations were aired in the hearing this week, the details of the two cases were harrowing and the genuine despair displayed by the families was difficult to digest.

The same can be said for some of the other cases that have been recounted publicly over recent months.

But Dr Teo has never resiled from the fact that some of his surgeries have had horrible outcomes.

He has also repeatedly stated he is open and transparent with his patients about the risks involved and the high possibility of further injury and even death.

Dr Teo has defended his medical decisions. Picture: NCA NewsWire

However, Dr Teo is so often the last stop for terminally ill patients who are going to die regardless.

So many other surgeons aren’t as prepared to take the chances he is. He backs his skill and he frequently refers to his higher skill levels – a fact many in the profession accept to be true – but this unfortunately means the odds of complications is high.

But what does the treatment of aggressive brain tumours look like without Dr Teo in the operating theatre? The thousands of surviving patients who were left untreated by other surgeons are probably best placed to answer that question.

What is the endgame?

Perhaps it will just be the extension of temporary restrictions already in place that require supervision of Dr Teo’s cases, although that does seem a bit like asking Todd Woodbridge to keep an eye on Roger Federer.

One of the issues arising from this case is that it has seemingly become, at least in part, a clash of personalities and Dr Teo’s persona is on trial.

He is the first to admit his brash and frank bedside manner and his surgical arrogance can be unsettling at times. But whether or not Dr Teo is a nice guy or plays well with other surgeons is not the point and should not be a consideration here.

It is incumbent on the HCCC to make sure its deliberations are only about the medicine.