A CANCER surgeon "lied and lied" to a patient that he had successfully removed her brain tumour, a hearing was told.
Emmanuel Labram convinced the woman not to seek further treatment by insisting she was fine for two years after the procedure, it was claimed.
Mr Labram, who is facing a misconduct hearing, also assured the woman, Patient A, and her husband that everything was fine after she underwent an operation at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in September 2008.
The neurosurgeon knew this was untrue and continued the deception by lying to colleagues and forging documents, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service heard. Patient A was eventually forced to seek private treatment, but by that stage the lesion was inoperable.
Craig Sephton, QC, for the General Medical Council, told a misconduct hearing: "It is difficult to understand why Mr Labram initially told the patient and her husband that he had completely removed the lesion when he must have known that no such thing had happened. He then lied and lied and lied in order to cover up his initial failure."
Patient A visited her optician after becoming ill in November 2007 and was referred to the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
An MRI scan revealed a brain tumour about one inch in diameter and she saw Mr Labram to discuss her options in June 2008. She decided to go ahead with an operation and underwent surgery on September 2, 2008.
"After the operation, Mr Labram gave Patient A's husband a vivid description of how he had removed the tumour and informed Patient A the surgery had gone well," said Mr Sephton.
"In fact he had not excised the lesion at all, whether in its entirety or otherwise, and Mr Labram must have known he had not done so."
It is alleged he only removed four tiny fragments and recorded in his notes only that "biopsies" had been taken.
"The GMC does not know why Mr Labram told Mr and Mrs A the lesion had been removed but there is no doubt he did so and what he said was clearly untrue and he knew it was untrue," said Mr Sephton. "The only explanation is he was being dishonest."
Mr Labram even sent letters to the patient's GP telling him no further treatment was necessary, the panel heard. In January 2009, the surgeon is also said to have altered a pathology report and sent a forged copy to his patient in order to conceal the fact she might need further treatment.
Two months later he failed to tell Patient A another MRI scan showed the tumour was in fact unchanged. Mr Labram then changed his stance after a third MRI scan, telling Patient A and her GP that the lesion had returned.
Patient A later raised concerns and the hospital's medical director ordered an investigation.
When quizzed about his actions in January 2011, Mr Labram allegedly continued to lie to bosses.Patient A told the panel yesterday that she was "confident and calm" about going ahead with the surgery after her first consultation with Mr Labram.
After the operation Mr Labram explained to her that he had removed 100% of the tumour. She said: "He said it's all gone. He said it was just calcium deposits. That's how he described it."
Mr Labram, of Maryculter, Aberdeen, faces 11 allegations relating to his conduct surrounding the patient's treatment.
After a failed application to be voluntarily erased from the medical register Mr Labram withdrew from proceedings and is not present or represented at the hearing in Manchester.
He is currently able to work within the UK subject to six conditions on his registration that mean he is closely monitored.
The hearing continues.
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