A CONSULTANT PLASTIC SURGEON THOUGHT A HIGHLY DANG

A CONSULTANT PLASTIC SURGEON THOUGHT A HIGHLY DANGEROUS

OPERATION WHICH KILLED A SEVEN YEAR OLD BOY WAS AS SIMPLE AS REMOVING

TONSILS.

LITTLE JIM MCALPINE DIED OF BRAIN DAMAGE THE MORNING AFTER

A PRIVATE OPERATION ON FEBRUARY 23 LAST YEAR TO REMOVE A LESION ON

HIS LOWER LIP BY BLOCKING OF THE BLOOD SUPPLY.

USING A PROCEDURE CALLED EMBOLISATION, MATERIAL IS INJECTED

INTO THE BLOODSTREAM TO BLOCK OFF MINOR ARTERIES.

PLASTIC SURGEON MARTYN WEBSTER TOLD THE GENERAL MEDICAL

COUNCIL’S DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE TODAY (FRI) THE OPERATION CARRIED A

RISK OF BLINDNESS, PARALYSIS OR DEATH.

THE COMMITTEE HEARD WEBSTER WAS A ‘MAJOR SHAREHOLDER’ IN THE

PRIVATE ROSS HALL HOSPITAL IN GLASGOW WHERE THE OPERATION WAS

PERFORMED.

AT THE TIME HE OWNED 27,000 OF 200,000 SHARES IN THE

#10 MILLION CLINIC.

WEBSTER AND RADIOLOGIST GEORGE VAUGHAN, WHO ACTUALLY

PERFORMED THE OPERATION, BOTH DENY SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

DR WEBSTER IS CHARGED WITH DISGUISING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE

OPERATION AND NOT EXPLAINING POTENTIAL HAZARDS OR THAT A COLLEAGUE

WOULD PERFORM THE OPERATION.

HE FURTHER DENIES PERSUADING THE PARENTS TO GO TO ROSS HALL,

WHERE HE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST AND WHERE ANOTHER

RADIOLOGIST HAD REFUSED TO PERFORM THE EMBOLISATION.

HE ALSO DENIES

FAILING TO ENSURE CAREFUL SUPERVISION OF THE PATIENT TO OBTAIN AN

EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF BRAIN DAMAGE AFTER THE OPERATION.

DR VAUGHAN DENIES FAILING TO EXPLAIN THE RISKS OF THE

PROCEDURE AND FAILING TO EXAMINE JIM BEFORE THE OPERATION.

HE ALSO

DENIES FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE AFTERCARE AND TO ATTEND THE

PATIENT WHEN BRAIN DAMAGE HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED.

WEBSTER SAID: ‘I FELT AT THAT TIME THE RISK WAS EQUAL TO

THAT OF SURGERY AND NO MORE.

THAT IS THE RISK OF A GENERAL

ANAESTHETIC AND ACTUALLY GOING UNDER THE SCALPEL.

‘I CERTAINLY DID NOT THINK THE RISK WAS LIFE THREATENING.

I

THOUGHT IT WAS EQUAL TO A MINOR OPERATION LIKE A TONSILECTOMY’.

THE CHILD’S PARENTS, JAMES AND LINDA MCALPINE, OF HAZEL

AVENUE, BEASDEN, GLASGOW, CLAIM THEY WERE NEVER WARNED OF THE

OPERATION’S RISKS – AND IF THEY HAD KNOWN THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE

AUTHORISED IT.

WEBSTER TOLD THE HEARING HE EXPLAINED THREE OPTIONS TO THE

PARENTS: TO LEAVE THE MARK ALONE AND RISK IT GROWING, OR TO HAVE

SURGERY – BOTH OF WHICH COULD PERMANENTLY DISFIGURE – OR TO HAVE THE

EMBOLISATION.

HE SAID THE PARENTS WANTED THE OPERATION PRIVATELY AND HE

OFFERED TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOY TO BE ADMITTED TO ROSS HALL.

‘I ASSUMED BY THAT THEY REALISED A COLLEAGUE WOULD ACTUALLY

PERFORM THE OPERATION.

I DIDN’T MAKE IT CLEARER, SOMETHING I HAVE

REGRETTED EVER SINCE’.

AND THE COMMITTEE HEARD THAT WEBSTER EXPLAINED THE PROCEDURE

IN ‘SIMPLE TERMS’ AND THE MINOR RISK OF A GENERAL ANAESTHETIC.

THE PLASTIC SURGEON FELT THE RADIOLOGIST WOULD EXPLAIN IN

DETAIL.

‘DR GEORGE VAUGHAN IS AN EMMINENT PRACTIONER IN THIS

PIONEERING FIELD,’ HE SAID.

ADD OPERATION.