A SURGEON who removed a woman's ''entirely normal'' ovaries without her permission during a routine hysterectomy, was reprimanded by a disciplinary committee yesterday.
Dr Hasiba Hamoud, a registrar at the Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary, Dumfries, was guilty of ''a terrible mistake'' which left the 29-year-old patient with menopausal symptoms, it was claimed.
Miss Patricia Robertson, barrister to the General Medical Council, told its professional conduct committee that the patient, Mrs Karen Gibson, had given her written consent to a hysterectomy to be performed by Dr Hamoud on November 16, 1993 and to ''any further or alternative operative measures as might be found necessary during that operation''.
However, said Miss Robertson, she had given no consent whatsoever for her ovaries to be removed at the same time.
On admission, Mrs Gibson had had a small cyst on her right ovary but on examination before the operation they were found to be ''entirely normal''.
Mrs Gibson's medical notes had the word hysterectomy in capitals and underlined.
Miss Robertson said that during the operations on Mrs Gibson, consultant gynaecologist Mr Adrian McCullough had been present but Dr Hamoud had failed to seek his advice.
Miss Robertson added that ''simply, the wrong operation was performed and a terrible mistake was made, resulting in the removal of the patient's ovaries. It is perhaps the most basic mistake a surgeon can make, to do the wrong operation.''
Dr Hamoud admits performing a bilateral oopherectomy (removal of ovaries) on Mrs Gibson on November 16, 1993 without her consent and with no, or no sufficient reason, to do so without the patient's consent.
She does not admit failing to seek advice from Dr McCullough.
Mrs Gibson, from Dumfries told the committee that as she recovered from the anaesthetic after the operation Dr Hamoud assured her that it had gone well, and then told her she had removed her ovaries.
''I was thinking 'what were they doing, when my ovaries were all right?' '' she added.
Mrs Gibson said despite her ''surprise and concern'' about what had happened it was only when she got home and began having problems with her hormone replacement therapy transplant that she went to her GP, who wrote to Mr McCullough.
Mr McCullough had replied that he could not explain why an able surgeon such as Dr Hamoud could have done what she did with no reason.
Under cross-examination Mr McCullough denied telling Dr Hamoud that she should ''do the same as the last one on the list'', which was a pan-hysterectomy (involving removal of the ovaries).
Dr Hamoud told the committee she had been told to perform the hysterectomy on Mrs Gibson at two minutes notice, without being able to see her consent form. This would have revealed that the patient had consented only to a hysterectomy and would have stopped her making the mistake, for which she was ''truly sorry''.
Dr Hamoud said she was working at the infirmary as a doctor on the South-east Scotland rotating registrar scheme, where she worked at various hospitals in the region, gaining experience before obtaining her membership of the Royal College of Gynaecologists.
Dr Hamoud had performed or helped in three operations before Mr McCullough told her: ''Come on, do the other one the same as the first one, how long is it going to take?'' She said she was left with two minutes before the operation.
Before performing the operation she had believed that was ''to take out the whole lot''.
No-one questioned her until an assistant nurse came up and said: ''I think the patient consented to a hysterectomy only.'' Dr Hamoud said: ''I was very concerned, distressed and upset.''
The committee found Dr Hamoud, 35, guilty of serious professional misconduct and decided to give her a severe reprimand.
In deciding not to take more serious action against the doctor, the committee had taken into account her admission of the serious error she had committed, her apology to the patient and the particular circumstances surrounding the case.
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 hereComments are closed on this article