Why can't a highly celebrated brain surgeon operate in his own country? | 60 Minutes Australia
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: 60 Minutes Australia
Views: 563,855
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes Australia, Liz Hayes, Tara Brown, Liam Bartlett, Tom Steinfort, Sarah Abo, karl stefanovic, 60Mins, #60Mins, charlie teo, neurosurgeon, surgeon, surgery, medical, medicine, brain, tumour, science, doctor, australia, celebrity, botched, terminal, kate mcclymont
Id: ZX8i_nhDRvM
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 54min 26sec (3266 seconds)
Published: Sun Oct 23 2022
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
So I’ve made it maybe half way. The title really undersells what he was doing. The specific tumor is literally inoperable, incurable, and operating will only make things worse. He says he would never operate on that kind of tumor because it’s useless and would lower quality of life. And he did it twice.
At best, Teo is a pioneer and extremely skilled surgeon willing to take risks that no one else will take.
At worst, he is a rogue so in love with himself (and the money he was making) that he misled families into sacrificing their loved one's little remaining health early and throwing away the financial security of the survivors.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
He can operate but under conditions. Those conditions are in place because he has been lying to his patients and colleagues about the surgeries he performs. And then he dumps the uncured patients on the public system to manage and someone has to explain that the cancer hasn't been removed, they aren't cured, because the cancer was inoperable and Charlie was lying all along. His conduct is so so far from what is considered acceptable.
Read about this in r/australia and the most popular comments explained just how slim the chances are of complete successes are. You either die from cancer or roll the dice under the knife, although it's a last resort after chemo/immuno/radio. Unless there's an instance of actual negligence then it's pretty much luck of the draw.
I don't want to go too much into this, but I've worked in the neurosurgery field for over 10 years and there are certain surgeons who prefer working on "inoperable" tumors because they can be as aggressive as they want with virtually no risk of malpractice because the pt would have died anyway. These types of operations also tend to attract surgeons with little experience who are fascinated by the rare tumor and intricate exposure technique, regardless of whether it will truly help the patient or add to their quality of life. By and large, the resulting neurological outcomes are negative and profoundly disable the patient with little to no added relief from symptoms. A surgeon operated on my grandmother under these circumstances as well and it ended up adding lots of horrible recovery time to a demented patient with many other medical conditions to manage and she died before even fully recovering from the surgery itself.
In Australia, brain surgeon. Number one. Steady hand. One day, Mafia boss need tumor removed. I do operation. But, mistake! Mafia boss die! Mafia very mad. I hide in fishing boat, come to America. No english, no food, no money. Darryl give me job. Now I have house, American car, and new woman. Darryl save life. My big secret: I kill mafia boss on purpose. I good surgeon. The best!
Why can’t he operate in Australia?
Because we have a rigorous and compassionate regulator that actually cares about patient outcomes. Dr teo is more than welcome to operate in Australia, however he medical registration currently has some conditions on it. Teo would need to meet these conditions to operate - no one is stopping him from operating other than his own refusal to comply with these conditions:
b) The written statement is to advise whether the Council-approved Neurosurgeon is satisfied that prior to the procedure, the practitioner has: - explained to the patient all material risks associated with the procedure(s) and obtained consent - obtained informed financial consent from the patient - complied with the use of systems and plans implemented into his practice for managing any interstate patients
c) The practitioner must maintain a log listing all patients for whom he has obtained the written statement referred to in this condition. The log is to include: - the full name and date of birth of the patient - whether the patient travelled interstate for the procedure - the nature of the surgical procedure(s) - the name of the Council-approved Neurosurgeon who provided the written statement - a copy of all written statements obtained as an appendix to the log, regardless of whether the Council-approved Neurosurgeon supported or did not support the procedure(s) - if the Council-approved Neurosurgeon supported the procedure(s) the log is to also include; the date and time of the procedure(s), all MBS item number(s) billed for the procedure(s); and any complications arising as a result of the procedure(s).
d) The practitioner must forward to the Council a copy of the log within seven days of the end of each calendar month. Before forwarding the log to the Council the practitioner must forward the log to the Council-approved Neurosurgeon to verify the contents of the log.
e) To authorise the Medical Council of NSW to provide the Council-approved Neurosurgeon a copy of the decision which imposed this condition and any other decision or report as determined by the Council.
c) To authorise the Medical Council of NSW to provide the approved supervisor(s) with a copy of the decision which imposed this condition and any other decision or report as determined by the Council.
b) Prior to the audit the practitioner is to provide the Council with the full name and date of birth of all interstate patients who have undergone surgery by the practitioner from 24 August 2021 and subsequently from any date as determined by the Council. c) The auditor(s) is to assess his management of interstate patients, compliance with good medical record keeping standards, legislative requirements and compliance with conditions. The auditor(s) should pay particular attention to: · patient selection · consent processes · post-operative and post-discharge care and handover · use of systems and plans introduced into his practice in relation to managing interstate patients, pre and post-surgery d) To authorise the auditor(s) to provide the Council with a report on their findings.
e) To meet all costs associated with the audit(s) and any subsequent reports.
There’s also a misconception in the public about what inoperable means.
Sometimes it means “you’ll literally die mid operation”. Charlie isn’t operating on these patients.
Sometimes inoperable means “the side effects of this surgery will be so profound there is no point.” For example, if the tumour is deeply involved in the broca or wernicke’s region, significant damage from the surgery will result in the patient being unable to speak/write (broca’s) or comprehend language (wernicke’s). In the broca example the patient could talk, but they wouldn’t make any sense. It would just be word salad. In the wernicke’s example, they wouldn’t be able to understand anything they heard or read.
For a patient who is going to gain 1-6 months from this surgery, the risk of destroying their ability to speak or communicate is not worth the timed gain. This is an inoperable tumour. No one should be congratulated for operating on this patient, let alone taking tens of thousands of dollars from them for doing so.
I remember watching a documentary on him a long time ago and was inspired by his story for years. It's sad to see that he is not what I'd always thought but actually pretty dangerous.