Charlie Teo shames himself with an offensive slur

In his quest to salvage his tarnished reputation, controversial neurosurgeon Charlie Teo has deployed nearly every trick in the public relations handbook. He has urged patients to speak on his behalf, sent legal threats to colleagues who publicly question his conduct, and orchestrated a string of sympathetic hearings with high-profile media mates.

Teo is a complex figure who has saved many lives during his career. But as the Herald’s chief investigative reporter Kate McClymont has revealed during investigations spanning nearly four years, he has also left several patients and their families emotionally and financially broken.

Dr Charlie TeoCredit: Peter Rae

In 2019, McClymont wrote that the neurosurgeon had charged families extraordinary amounts of money for ultimately futile operations. Two years later, in August 2021, serious complaints about Teo’s practices resulted in the NSW Medical Council invoking restrictions that prevented him from operating without the approval of another doctor who verified the patient was aware of the risks and was financially informed. A joint investigation by the Herald and 60 Minutes last year revealed more examples of the horrendous price families were paying for futile and catastrophic operations that no other neurosurgeon in the world would have undertaken.

A professional standards committee last week found Teo guilty of unsatisfactory conduct, saying he lacked insight, empathy and judgment and had failed to properly explain the risks of the operations to patients and relatives. The committee also ruled he could not carry out brain surgery unless he obtained written approval from an independent neurosurgeon of 15 years’ standing who had to be approved by the Medical Council, a modification of the earlier condition imposed on Teo’s practitioner’s registration. The requirement makes it near-impossible for Teo to operate in Australia because no neurosurgeon will vouch for him.

His latest media endeavour – an hour-long soft interview with Seven’s Spotlight program on Sunday night – was in many ways textbook Teo. Airing less than a week after the medical review committee’s damning findings, the episode featured the 65-year-old blaming everyone but himself for his woes, insisting he was the victim of industry bullying, and claiming racism has been a factor in the tension with colleagues.

The racism claim was highly questionable given one of the first surgeons to publicly air concerns about the high financial cost of Teo’s surgeries was Professor Henry Woo. Woo also happens to be a urologist specialising in prostate surgery, so cannot be accused of having any competitive motives in questioning Teo’s conduct.

Teo’s Spotlight performance was consistent with the evidence he repeatedly offered up at this year’s hearings brought by the Health Care Complaints Commission; that someone else was to blame.

The truth is Teo cannot operate in Australia because of his own actions. He is prevented from conducting surgery because a committee of experts found that Teo can’t be trusted to operate without conditions. Arrogance and hubris appear to prevent him from acknowledging these comprehensive findings. And now, instead of accepting responsibility, Teo has merely moved to point the finger at the media.

Discussing McClymont’s reporting, Teo told Spotlight’s Michael Usher: “If she wants validation in what she’s done, I can tell you now that you’ve been very, very successful in killing a lot of people if that’s what you wanted to do.” Usher barely raised an eyebrow, simply responding to Teo that the claim sounded extreme. Teo went on to insist that “hundreds if not thousands of people have died” due to negative publicity generated by McClymont’s investigative journalism.

Later in the program, Teo watched on as doctors performed brain surgery on a two-year-old boy in India. Teo claimed he had been banned from operating in the country and could only watch and give advice. He offered no evidence to support his claim that Indian authorities had banned him but believed negative publicity in Australia was the primary cause.

Tragically, the two-year-old Indian boy died during post-operative recovery. Teo then effectively accused McClymont of killing the child because her coverage meant he was unable to control the boy’s treatment.

Teo’s slur against McClymont – one of Australia’s most experienced and respected investigative journalists – is highly offensive. But even more revolting is his calculated decision to use the death of a two-year-old boy to take potshots at those who dare question him.

Bevan Shields sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.