Exclusive: Dr Emil Shawky Gayed allegedly operated on women without realising they were pregnant and removed one patient’s healthy ovary

A New South Wales obstetrician and gynaecologist has been accused of performing an unnecessary hysterectomy and other irreversible surgeries on women without their consent, a tribunal has heard.

Dr Emil Shawky Gayed allegedly carried out multiple procedures that fell “significantly below” professional standards, including in cases where women could have been treated with painkillers and bed rest.

The case, which was heard before the NSW civil and administrative tribunal this week, was told that Gayed allegedly failed to detect a patient was pregnant before performing surgery on her that could have affected her foetus. When he discovered her pregnancy after the surgery, he paid for her to fly to Sydney to have an abortion.

It was also alleged that he unnecessarily removed another woman’s healthy right ovary after she miscarried.

The Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) alleged that Gayed was guilty of multiple counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct and that he practised medicine “significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience”.

Gayed was first registered in 1994 and holds a speciality in obstetrics and gynaecology. For a period he worked as a visiting medical officer at Manning Rural Referral hospital in Taree, NSW. He resigned from the hospital in February 2016.

The biggest lesson from the transvaginal mesh saga? Doctors must listen to women | Melissa Davey Read more

While working at the hospital, the HCCC alleged, Gayed failed to consider conservative treatment to a woman, identified in tribunal documents only as Patient A.

The woman had a complex medical history and presented to the emergency department in January 2016 complaining of severe abdominal and pelvic pain. The HCCC alleges she could have been offered treatment of rest and painkillers but instead Gayed recommended a hysterectomy as the only option to treat a fibroid.

However, the woman only consented to a myomectomy, a less severe surgical procedure sometimes performed to remove fibroids without removing the uterus. Gayed did not record this instruction on her consent form and also failed to properly outline possible complications. He then performed a hysterectomy.

Gayed recommended another woman complaining of a vaginal polyp undergo surgery despite the condition often being treatable without surgery and with a contraceptive intrauterine device. The woman, named as Patient B, had a consultation with Gayed in July 2015. The HCCC alleged Gayed failed to properly examine her. Instead, in November the same year, he performed endometrial ablation on her, a procedure that surgically destroys the lining of the uterus and is done to remove fibroids. Gayed performed the surgery despite there being no evidence of fibroids, the HCCC alleged. Before and during the procedure, Gayed also failed to detect Patient B was pregnant.

Upon discovering her pregnancy almost two months later in January 2016, Gayed did not consult specialists about any risks to the foetus the prior surgery might have caused. The pregnancy should have been reported to a medical director and triggered an investigation under NSW Health guidelines, but the HCCC alleged Gayed did not report the pregnancy.

Instead, it is alleged Gayed paid for the woman to have an abortion in Sydney on 18 January, including paying her travel expenses.

In another case, Patient F was taken to the Manning Rural Referral hospital emergency department in March 2013 complaining of abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding after childbirth. Gayed performed a procedure on her known as a suction curettage, which involves opening the cervix and removing the contents of the uterus, and which is usually performed after a first-trimester miscarriage. The HCCC alleged the procedure was not appropriate and should have only been offered if bed rest, painkillers, and antibiotic treatment had failed. Gayed allegedly did not explain to the woman the risks of performing the procedure post-partum or discuss alternative treatment options.

In October 2015 Gayed saw a patient complaining of severe pain in the right side of her abdomen following a miscarriage. The woman, patient G, underwent a suction curettage at the hands of Gayed, though the HCCC alleges he had not made a diagnosis. Given she had earlier miscarried, Gayed should have been reluctant to perform surgical procedures. Instead, he allegedly removed her healthy right ovary, before inappropriately discharging her. When the woman returned to hospital with pain around her wound, Gayed failed to recognise these symptoms as a possible sign of an injury to her ureter, the HCCC alleged.

In many cases, Gayed failed to refer to medical history, conduct adequate clinical examinations, or take adequate notes, the regulator alleged.

The tribunal will deliver its decision at a later date.