Cancer patient Paul Catmur on why he’s rejecting apology for flawed care
After being diagnosed with prostate cancer, Paul Catmur underwent a radical prostatectomy, but then found out the cancer had already spread and the better treatment would have been radiation. Photo / Getty Images
‘The equivalent of being savaged by a dead sheep” is Paul Catmur’s reading of the Health and Disability Commissioner’s findings in the case of a urologist who carried out what Catmur maintains was unwarranted cancer surgery, which delayed appropriate treatment by six months.
Catmur, a regular Listener contributor, target="_blank">wrote late last year about his battle to get his prostate cancer treated, having complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC), the watchdog role established by the government to protect patient rights.
After being diagnosed with prostate cancer, Catmur underwent a radical prostatectomy in August 2022 at a private hospital, but then found out the cancer had already spread, and the better treatment would have been radiation.
But he would have to wait another six months after surgery until that could happen. Not only had the correct treatment been delayed, but he also found out the disease spread was already evident on a PSMA PET-CT scan he had before the operation. Disease spread means surgery alone cannot “cure” the cancer, but unfortunately, Catmur was unaware of that until after surgery.
“Dr B [as the urologist is referred to in the HDC decision] failed to share the results of a scan, which showed the spread of cancer beyond the prostate,” Catmur says. “Once this happens, radiation is deemed preferable, as removal of the prostate would not be curative and further treatment would be automatically required. Despite this, Dr B proceeded with surgery, which, as might have been predicted, failed to clear all the cancer and has necessitated two subsequent periods of radiation treatment so far. I am currently waiting to see if they’ve been successful.”
Eighteen months after his complaint was lodged, the commissioner, Morag McDowell, has released her decision: the urologist was found to have contravened Catmur’s rights on three separate counts, which seemed like a significant vindication, says Catmur.
“I read on [in the report] to see what steps would be taken against a doctor for withholding information and carrying out an intrusive operation for which, in the HDC’s words, the patient ‘did not give informed consent’.
“I was astonished to discover that all that was required of Dr B was that he send me a letter of apology and promise to change his ways, at which point the commissioner announced that ‘no further recommendations are necessary’. Really? A surgeon had sliced me open unnecessarily and without consent, leaving me with lasting side effects, yet the only sanction he would receive was for him to shrug and say, ‘Whoops’?
“The report shows a clear example of a surgeon breaking the code and going on to perform a harmful operation yet does nothing about it other than a gently wagging finger.”
Catmur says his experience of the HDC system shows it is inadequate in seeking redress for the aggrieved patient, and in providing consequences for any wrongdoing. “It was supposedly set up to protect the consumer from the health sector, yet it serves to protect the health industry from being taken to task by the consumer. I know I am not the only one to feel these frustrations.”