IAN Paterson apparently sobbed as the verdicts were read out. The Scottish breast surgeon was found guilty a few days ago of 17 counts of wounding with intent against nine women in the West Midlands. But make no mistake, this monstrous man, like all bullies, was crying only for himself.
As I imagine for most women, a horrifying shudder went through me as I read about this case; there but for the grace of God go any of us.
“Wounding with intent” is legal jargon, of course, and the reality of Paterson’s crimes is far more grotesque, bloodthirsty and damaging than simple words can describe. Making a mockery of the oath taken by all doctors to “first do no harm”, he performed countless unnecessary and botched operations, exaggerating or inventing the risk of cancer. In this age of fake news, this was the ultimate lie: if you cannot trust your doctor, who can you trust?
And these cases are only the tip of the iceberg. A report into his actions following a review of cases over many years at both NHS and private hospitals revealed he had likely harmed hundreds, possibly thousands of women. According to Thompsons Solicitors 350 are waiting to take cases against Paterson, who has already cost the NHS £18.5m, a figure likely rise exponentially in the months and years to come.
Behind each one of these statistics, of course, is a human tragedy. Frances Perks, whose mother and sister had both died of breast cancer, underwent nine unnecessary procedures. She also lost her career and home through the distress of it all. And the harm doesn’t end at unnecessary operations. Ironically, perversely, Paterson also under-performed when the need was real, refusing to do a double mastectomy on police officer Marie Pinfield, who did have breast cancer, leaving so much tissue behind that her cancer returned and killed her. An independent report found she could have lived for 10 more years if she had been treated properly.
It’s the pure betrayal at the centre of this case that is most disturbing. Paterson hasn’t even had the decency to explain his actions to his victims. So they are left dangling, unable to find closure or move on, sometimes blaming themselves for being “too trusting”, for not confronting him, their faith in the medical profession, humanity itself, now shattered beyond repair. One young woman mutilated by Paterson says she can no longer bring herself to touch her breasts, so cannot, will not, now check them for cancer.
Money has been suggested as a motivation, as Paterson racked up the private work and often over-claimed for operations, building himself a luxury lifestyle in the process. The police force who investigated also said he had “played God” with his victims’ bodies, and more than one of them, no doubt so desperate in the context of his consultation room, fearing the worst, said he was indeed “like God”.
One can only assume he got some sort of perverted thrill from playing the all-powerful big man in front of vulnerable women;in the medical profession such God complexes are catastrophically dangerous, as Paterson and Harold Shipman attest. The former’s colleagues talked of an arrogant man who worked alone and became aggressive when questioned about his actions. As to what can be done to prevent such sociopaths from operating in the NHS, there are no easy answers. The health service relies on the trust and power we put in the hands of doctors - it simply could not operate otherwise. If we investigated every arrogant surgeon, the service would grind to a halt.
No, as a society surely we must choose to believe that the likes of Paterson and Shipman are freaks, the horrific exceptions that prove the rule that most doctors are, if not saints, at least functional and effective. Without that belief, the NHS - and the human instinct to care - is finished.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here