Human and Financial Cost of Medical Negligence

Sir




Why, given the high number of unnecessary mastectomies performed
by Ian Paterson, did his life-changing surgical interventions did not 
result in earlier action by the two Spire clinics and Heart of England
NHS Trust and suspension by the General Medical Council?

Times article (Comment, April 29) quotes The Kings Fund:"Surgery is not a 
solitary act." In this case it clearly was with the key imperative of the Hippocratic
Oath: "Do no harm", completely ignored. The article goes on to state that
"safe effective surgery is team-based, with accountability and empowerment
distributed across the team".

Instead, events clearly point to a rogue surgeon practising with reckless
arrogance, unconstrained by a complete systemic lack of supervision. Public 
confidence in healthcare professionals is affected. Human misery is compounded
by the fact that, to date, £18 million has been paid to Ian Paterson's victims, part 
of the £56 billion - almost half of the NHS budget - set aside to meet future
claims for medical negligence, at a time of existential crisis. As always, the 
lawyers are main beneficiaries. In 2016 they received £418 million.