When Trust Is Broken
The recent allegations published by ABC news have raised serious concerns about patient safety, informed consent and accountability in private healthcare.
Courtney Paton, now 28, underwent seven laparoscopic surgeries performed by Melbourne gynaecologist, Dr Simon Gordon for what she was told was “severe” endometriosis. By the age of 25, both of her ovaries and her uterus had been removed. She is now medically infertile.
However, pathology reports from those surgeries reportedly showed no histological evidence of endometriosis in the overwhelming majority of procedures. Despite this, operation notes and correspondence continued to reference the condition, and Medicare item number 35641 — reserved for surgery treating severe endometriosis — was billed on multiple occasions.
This case has prompted significant public concern and an investigation by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).
Understanding Endometriosis and Surgery
Endometriosis affects approximately one in seven Australian women. It can cause severe pelvic pain and, in some cases, infertility. Laparoscopic surgery is a recognised treatment, particularly when conservative management has failed.
However, clinical guidelines emphasise:
- Careful diagnosis, supported by clinical findings and histopathology
- Consideration of non-surgical treatments
- Caution when removing ovaries in young women
- Thorough counselling about fertility implications
Removal of ovaries (oophorectomy) and uterus (hysterectomy) are life-altering procedures. In women who have not completed their families, these decisions require clear medical justification and comprehensive informed consent.
The Importance of Histopathology
Histopathology results are central to confirming the presence and severity of endometriosis. If pathology findings do not support a diagnosis, this should prompt reconsideration of the treatment plan.
In Courtney’s case, independent experts reportedly reviewed her records and expressed concern that the pathology did not support the repeated diagnosis of “severe” endometriosis. One senior gynaecologist described the surgeries as unjustified.
Where operative reports and pathology findings appear inconsistent, questions arise about:
- Clinical decision-making
- Documentation accuracy
- Billing practices
- Communication with patients and GPs
Informed Consent and Medical Negligence
Under Australian law, a medical practitioner owes a duty of care to exercise reasonable skill and care in diagnosis and treatment.
Patients must also be given adequate information to make informed decisions.
In New South Wales and across Australia, failure to properly diagnose, provide appropriate treatment, or obtain informed consent may give rise to a claim in negligence and/or battery.
To establish medical negligence, a patient must generally show:
- A duty of care was owed
- The practitioner breached that duty
- The breach caused or contributed to an injury, loss of damage
Loss of fertility, particularly at a young age, can represent significant damage, both physically and psychologically.
Regulatory Oversight and Hospital Responsibility
The case also raises broader systemic issues. There are allegations that concerns were escalated within the hospital prior to the final surgery. Questions remain as to whether earlier intervention could have prevented further procedures.
Private hospitals, while not responsible for a practitioner’s independent clinical decisions, have governance obligations. When credible concerns are raised, they must be handled appropriately and in accordance with internal policies and regulatory requirements.
AHPRA is currently investigating. The outcome of that process will be critical in determining whether professional standards were breached.
What Patients Can Do
If you have concerns about treatment you received:
- Request your full medical records, including histopathology
- Seek an independent specialist opinion
- Consider obtaining legal advice from a solicitor experienced in medical negligence
Patients are entitled to transparency, accurate records, and evidence-based care.
Courtney’s story is deeply distressing. It highlights the importance of vigilance, accountability and ensuring that trust in the healthcare system is matched by rigorous oversight and patient-centred care.
If you believe you or a loved one may have experienced substandard medical treatment, early legal advice is essential.
DISCLAIMER
This article reflects the current law at the time of publication. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The actual decisions in each case are summarised for general understanding. For specific legal guidance in relation to your situation, please consult with a qualified legal professional.