Sydney Morning Herald story contrasted brain surgeon’s skill with claims of ‘exorbitant fees’ and inappropriate behaviour in the operating theatre

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The brain surgeon Charlie Teo has asked his lawyers to “review” a Sydney Morning Herald article which questioned his judgment and ethics and accused him of inappropriate behaviour in the operating theatre.

Published on Thursday, the article contrasted Teo’s skill as a surgeon with questions about his “judgment, narcissistic behaviour [and habit of] charging financially-stressed people exorbitant fees for surgeries” that could have been done in the public system.

Written by the Gold Walkley winning investigative reporter Kate McClymont, the piece was based on interviews with 14 neurosurgeons and related specialists as well as former Teo patients.

The article detailed allegations of what it called “inappropriate conduct in the operating theatre” by Teo, and referred to a 1996 sexual harassment case filed against Teo by a nurse working in the Arkansas children’s hospital in the US.

Why don’t doctors trust women? Because they don’t know much about us | Gabrielle Jackson Read more

The article quoted Teo’s comments from a 2008 book in which he said the case was dropped and the incident wiped from his record “only after he got letters of support from a senator and an oil magnate who were his patients, and from Bill Clinton’s personal physician”.

Teo – Australia’s most prominent surgeon – has made a reputation for taking on cases deemed too risky by other surgeons. In a lengthy response published on Thursday, he said he was “incredibly surprised and tremendously disappointed” by the article.

“Particularly disturbing was the evident lack of legitimate research, the use of nameless sources, the staggering number of inaccuracies and ultimate failure to provide a fair and balanced story,” he said.

The response did not address any of the allegations or detail specific inaccuracies, but Teo said he had asked his lawyers “to review the article”.

He accused Nine of having “deliberately misstated and misrepresented information in the public domain” and of failing to “fairly report information that has been conveyed to them over the last several days”.

“It’s disappointing that the publisher has chosen to report inaccurately and in such a sensational and biased manner,” he said.

“I am not the first person to be subjected to this type of reporting and I will not be the last. I am immensely proud of everything that I have achieved professionally as a surgeon in Australia and Internationally, and of the work of the Charlie Teo Foundation.”

The Sydney Morning Herald said in a statement: “Kate McClymont has spent many weeks researching this story: interviewing surgeons, other medical professionals, patients, their families and examining court files. Dr Teo has been repeatedly contacted with requests to discuss and respond to the allegations in recent weeks. The Herald stands by the story.”

It is not the first time Teo’s practices have been criticised by other surgeons. In May, Henry Woo, a professor of surgery at the University of Sydney, pointed to the extensive use of crowdfunding sites to pay for surgeries by Teo, describing it as “really disturbing”.

“Something is seriously wrong if a terminally ill girl with a brain tumour has to raise $120,000 to have surgery Dr Charlie Teo has offered to do for $60,000-$80,000,” he wrote. “If it was valid surgery, it could/should be performed in the public system under Medicare”.

Teo has rejected allegations of overcharging and said his share of fees charged for brain tumour operations that cost $120,000 are between $8,000 and $15,000.

“What you have to remember is that of that $120,000 [charged for surgery] most people think it all goes to me, and that’s not the case at all,” he told the ABC in May.

A position paper on fees published by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons last month states that surgeons must be transparent about their fees.

“There are reports of a small number of surgeons charging extremely high fees for surgical procedures – some of these procedures relate to treatment for advanced malignancy – and that patients are sometimes not given ample warning of the costs for these surgical procedures,” the paper says.