Circumcision doctor accused of ‘amputation’ fails to have ban lifted amid appeal

A prolific circumcision doctor has lost his battle to perform operations while he appeals a medical board decision, as new details emerge about one of his newborn patients suffering an “amputation or partial amputation” of his penis and another needing a blood transfusion.

Dr Hershel Goldman, who estimates he has performed 20,000 circumcisions, has sought to overturn an April ban imposed by the Medical Board of Australia that prevents the Melbourne doctor from performing circumcisions. His appeal remains ongoing, and Goldman applied to have the ban lifted until the appeal concluded.

Dr Hershel Goldman.

But the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rejected the 63-year-old’s request to delay the ban ahead of a full appeal hearing and decision this year.

In a May 30 decision published by the tribunal this week, it was alleged that Goldman performed a circumcision on a seven-day-old baby “where amputation or partial amputation of the penis occurred”.

The baby’s family claims that Goldman “pressed on with the ritual prayers for several minutes and delayed providing care to the infant” after their baby bled more than usual after the operation.

“Further, once confirming the amputation, concerns have been raised that Dr Goldman had no procedures in place to manage the complication, with management of the emergency being undertaken by guests at the party who were also medical practitioners,” the family told the Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action committee.

Goldman’s clinical records do not detail when he phoned an ambulance.

In another case considered by the board, another of Goldman’s seven-day old patients required sutures and a blood transfusion after a circumcision in a family home.

It is alleged that after the procedure, Goldman applied a bandage to the baby boy and instructed the parents to keep his nappy on for four hours.

Goldman then advised the family he was travelling interstate and provided no on-call coverage after he left their home, they told the committee.

When the parents removed their son’s nappy four hours later, they said they discovered “significant bleeding”. They said they contacted Goldman and he advised them to travel to a hospital 40 minutes away for a review. The baby required stitches and a blood transfusion at the hospital.

The family in the second case also raised concerns about Goldman’s hygiene practices and claimed he washed his hands in the kitchen sink and used a tea towel to dry them before performing the procedure.

Goldman told the committee that bleeding requiring sutures was not a sign of any error, but that sutures were required in a small number of circumcision cases.

He denied telling the infant’s parents that they should not remove his nappy for four hours after the circumcision.

Goldman said he told the parents to check the infant during routine nappy changes within four hours of the procedure.

He also denied he had poor hygiene and submitted that he used surgical antiseptic after washing his hands with soap and water and dried them on a clean tea towel supplied by the baby’s parents.

In the first case, Goldman maintains that a partial amputation – not full – occurred but acknowledged the seriousness of this complication. He also denied the parents’ claims he performed the circumcision in poor lighting.

The doctor submitted to the tribunal that he should be allowed to continue performing circumcisions in clinical settings only, and not in people’s homes, while the appeal process was ongoing.

Goldman told VCAT he had performed circumcisions for 40 years, and that what he referred to as the partial amputation was his first major complication in that time.

He argued he would suffer a “devastating financial impact” if he was banned from performing circumcisions. It would also have a detrimental impact on the Jewish and non-Jewish community, as half his clients were Muslim, he said.

But VCAT deputy president Ian Proctor said the evidence did not give him confidence that the serious risk posed by Goldman could be satisfactorily reduced by banning only in-home religious procedures.

“The paramount principle of the protection of the public and public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners outweighs Dr Goldman’s personal interest in continuing his circumcision practice and community interest in him being able to do so,” Proctor said.

The substantive appeal will be heard at a later date.

Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.