A victim of Glasgow-born breast surgeon Ian Paterson looked like she had been in "a car crash" after having an unnecessary mastectomy, a court heard.
Marian Moran said "charming" Paterson carried out the procedure after warning her lumps she had noticed on her left breast were pre-cancerous.
She had the operation at his private Spire Healthcare hospital in Solihull, West Mids., on February 21, 2004, when she was 55.
Subsequent tests revealed Mrs Moran had just been suffering from benign "little warts".
Mrs Moran, from Solihull, told Nottingham Crown Court: "I had found a small lump in my left breast so I went to my doctor and he recommended Ian Paterson.
"Mr Paterson took the biopsy and he said he would need to remove the lump.
"He said it was a pre-cancerous lump.
"I am in no way a medical person and Mr Paterson led me to believe that if these lumps kept occurring then they would eventually become cancerous.
"Mr Paterson was charming.
"I had a second operation, he said he should remove the lumps.
"This, in my mind, meant that these lumps could be cancerous."
She told the court how she finally had her left breast removed in 2004.
She told the court: "Obviously, it was on his recommendation that I had it done.
"Whatever Mr Paterson said I would have gone along with.
"He was at the top of his profession, why wouldn't I?
"Mr Paterson gave me the impression that it pre-cancerous cells led to cancerous cells.
"There were no alternative options discussed other than having a mastectomy.
"I had reconstruction carried out by the plastic surgeon and she used skin from my abdomen.
"I was quite badly stitched up, I had a new job to go to so I probably went back to work earlier than I needed to but life goes on."
Mrs Moran, now 68, told the jury she went to another surgeon who reviewed all her notes and told her the lumps were benign.
She said: "He referred to the lumps as little warts.
"I had not heard that sort of description with Mr Paterson.
"I would not have had these operations if I knew they weren't necessary.
"Mr Paterson said it would be in my best interests to have the mastectomy done, so on his recommendation, that's what I ended up doing.
"It was a bit of a shock to hear there was something untoward going on."
Mrs Moran's husband of 35-years, Eamon, 73, said he was so shocked at the condition of his wife after the operation he refused to let his family see her.
He said: "Mr Paterson was very charming and had a good bedside manner, I could see why my wife spoke highly of him.
"He said it was possible that it was a pre-cancerous lump.
"I remember one time we went for consultation and he mentioned a mastectomy.
"We both felt that this was the best cause of action and he led us to believe it was the best cause of action.
"This was very vivid as we had just lost a friend to breast cancer.
"It seemed like the best option.
"I was shocked and horrified at the state of her after the operation.
"She looked like she had been involved in a car crash.
"I didn't let my parents or my daughter see her, it would have been too much for them to witness.
"I shed a tear for her and I felt guilty that she had to have it done.
"I had trusted what Mr Paterson told us and what he recommended to us without question as everybody would."
Paterson, 59, of Altrincham, Greater Manchester, denies 20 counts of wounding with intent.
A medical expert told a court "no reasonable group of surgeons" would have performed a mastectomy on Mrs Moran.
Consultant Oncoplastic Breast Surgeon Professor Philip Drew, told Nottingham Crown Court: "Based on all the evidence so far, it is more likely than not that she would not
have developed breast cancer.
"No reasonable group of surgeons would have resorted to a mastectomy in these circumstances.
"Apart from the evidence of previous surgery, the breast was entirely normal for someone of her age."
The trial 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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel