Lets hope this scumbag rots inside his cell. 15 years is nothing!

You can be sure as eggs is eggs the wonderful NHS do NOT EVER Pay out any compo, let alone Millions unless it is absolutely  irrefutable !!!!

They have the best lawyers, and the investigations go on to the ‘unth’ degree.

They simply could not afford not to !!!

Just saying…… 

Ge wrote:

 He carried out unnecessary operations in his “private” practice FOR THE MONEY and the procedures he should have done in the NHS where there is NO MONEY, he didn’t perform. HE DIDN’T DO THEM.

Would like to see the proof, do you have it, besides the various media coverage that seems to change depending on what paper one reads?

Reason for which I said, I’d have liked to have been  part of the jury …or even better his defence.

Ge wrote:

Sweet Pea wrote:

If you read the article (not sure if it was in The Independant or another online paper ) you’ll find it also says that the type of cancer that re-occured in one of the claimants(liver) cannot be proven to have occured as a consequence of the breast cancer.

Blossom hundreds of people were involved. The NHS paid out 10 million in compensation.

I’ve decided to give you a longer answer to this.

From The Independant:

The Scottish-born surgeon was suspended by the General Medical Council in 2012 amid claims he carried out cleavage-sparing mastectomies (CSMs), which led to the recall of more than 700 patients.

A Freedom of Information request revealed that 68 women who underwent a CSM – in which part of the breast tissue is not removed, and can increase the risk of the disease returning – by Paterson on the NHS had gone on to develop a recurrence of breast cancer.

I now ask you :

Why did only 68 out of these 700 develop a re-occurance  of breast cancer?

Is it because he left too much tissue or is it becasue our DNA is unique and each of us react differently to cancer?

Ge wrote:

Gerry wrote:

He carried out unnecessary operations in his “private” practice FOR THE MONEY

No Gerry, I think he carried them out as he could choose to do what was the best thing to do for the patients , whereas, as you claim below

Gerry wrote:

the procedures he should have done in the NHS where there is NO MONEY, he didn’t perform. HE DIDN’T DO THEM.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – –

Ever considered that he didn’t perform the right surgeries under  the NHS because  he wasn’t allowed to, as there is a lack of money ?

Of course they’re compensating the patients, they can’t refuse to do so,  the surgeries took place under their premises under possibly THEIR RULES  and he was perhaps only operating under these RULES.

I have personal experience of both – I know how they  work, Gerry.

mooosey88 wrote:

who the fcuk gives a flying fcuk what you think ?

It’s a message board dear, people post threads in order for other members  to add input.

Oh,  and stop swearing   – it doesn’t make you look clever…far from it.

Thanks. And I’m not a He