A minor nit, but it's not a permanent body modification. The marking is supposed to heal. He was caught because he marked a liver and it didn't heal because that patient was ill and another surgeon found the mark.
He was prosecuted and convicted for a minor offence ("assault by battery" is almost the lowest level of this offence) and because he pled guilty the more serious charge ("assault causing actual bodily harm" (ABH)) was dropped.
Some doctors in UK have been convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence (a far more serious criminal charge) and were able to return to practice after a time of suspension, so he might be able to return to work.
He's been through a hearing at MPTS (the independent medical tribunal service) after a complaint to the GMC (the regulatory body for doctors in UK). I think it was an interim hearing, and they're waiting for the criminal trial to finish.
But here's the warning he got:
> In August 2013 and on more than one other occasion Mr Bramhall initialled patients’ livers using an argon beam coagulator. This conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated. The required standards are set out in Good Medical Practice and associated guidance. In this case, paragraph 47 and 65 of Good Medical Practice are particularly relevant. 47. You must treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity and privacy. 65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession. Whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on Mr Bramhall's registration, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning.
They had several options: they could have prevented him from working; they could have required him to take action to prevent re-occurance.
I know enough about medical ethics that this guy is lucky to get away with just losing his license, being convicted of a crime would be a nice touch.
Keep in mind that you're on an operating table, passed out and 100% dependent on those working on you. To treat you like a graffiti wall is not only disrespectful, it wastes time under narcosis which carries some minimal risk, and potentially could lead to complications (though not related, complications were the reason this was discovered in the first place).
Let's say that treating this guy like a trendsetter would definitely not have my vote. I've been operated on a couple of times in my life and I'm pretty sure that the surgeons that did that would be far more angry about this than a patient ever would be because this guy damaged all of the medical profession for his personal gratification.
Yes, it is definitely improper to say the least. It also brings the profession into disrepute. I agree that it breaks trust as well as insulting dignity; and I should also clarify that my aim was not to defend the actions of the surgeon. I'm not a doctor but I don't find the complications argument convincing in this case though (unless it took a long time and resulted in prolonged anaesthesia; then I believe there are added risks). I still maintain that something like being drunk at work, especially as a doctor, is significantly more dangerous and reprehensible - lives are put at risk. By contrast, I think having initials on my liver, especially if I don't know about it, is less of a hardship.
To me this is really no big deal. Honestly I think people are overreacting because they have absolutely no idea of anything about everything that's inside bodies. Having used coagulators and seen hundreds of livers (pathologist) and the eventual macroscopical but benign scars they get because of ("naturally occurring") small infarctii or such, this has really no consequences whatsoever. I don't know how it worked in this case, but there's a reason doctors are disciplinally judged by their peers in some countries.
But it's really dumb, and should lead to disciplinary consequences (although his reputation is already badly damaged) because of the paranoia it triggers in people about doctors.
What I wonder is why the surgeons who discovered it got the problem out in the public. What was possibly their goal ?
>> "This case is similar to one where a doctor with hepatitis accidentally cuts himself while operating on a person to save his or her life. That person's life is saved, but now he has hepatitis. The doctor should not be held responsible for an accident and should be given credit for saving a life..."
Is this even allowed? Why would a doctor with hepatitis be allowed to operate?
I'm surprised this is a thing, given a student (in the UK at least) would very likely be referred to a professionalism tribunal for doing this. See also paragraphs 77 to 80 of Good Medical Practice.
The doctor was wearing a mic. I think it would be very hard to argue he wasn't involved in the production. He also has at least a moral obligation to protect the privacy of his patients. It's a shame these things end in lawsuits, but he does deserve some kind of punishment or reprimand. Maybe suspend his license for a few months.
Actually malpractice in the name of virtue signalling. He's a medical doctor in a regulated profession. He only has the ability to diagnose people with medical conditions. He should be brought before a board and censured.
GP probably meant indefensible in the context of the law, not as a moral opinion. Defendant wasn't a doctor, customer wasn't a patient, and magic incantation was not uttered, therefore it was illegal under current laws.
Reminder of a doctor who had a patient denied for recommended treatment at the insurance getting a second opinion from... a doctor who installed a hip fucking backwards, a fuckup so bad he was banned from performing surgery for the rest of his life. Yep, banned-from-surgery-forever doctor is still working and is working in denying recommended treatments from other doctors for insurance pockets!
He was prosecuted and convicted for a minor offence ("assault by battery" is almost the lowest level of this offence) and because he pled guilty the more serious charge ("assault causing actual bodily harm" (ABH)) was dropped.
Some doctors in UK have been convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence (a far more serious criminal charge) and were able to return to practice after a time of suspension, so he might be able to return to work.
He's been through a hearing at MPTS (the independent medical tribunal service) after a complaint to the GMC (the regulatory body for doctors in UK). I think it was an interim hearing, and they're waiting for the criminal trial to finish.
But here's the warning he got:
> In August 2013 and on more than one other occasion Mr Bramhall initialled patients’ livers using an argon beam coagulator. This conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated. The required standards are set out in Good Medical Practice and associated guidance. In this case, paragraph 47 and 65 of Good Medical Practice are particularly relevant. 47. You must treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity and privacy. 65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession. Whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on Mr Bramhall's registration, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning.
They had several options: they could have prevented him from working; they could have required him to take action to prevent re-occurance.
reply