A breast cancer surgeon was exonerated by a court yesterday of accusations of neglect and committing a medical error that led to the death of a patient.
The High Criminal Court highlighted that the mother had refused medical treatment for her metastatic cancer, allowing it to fatally spread to other organs.
The leading medic previously testified that her patient had been trying to keep her diagnosis a secret, out of fear that she could lose custody of her young son, who she had given birth to in her late 40s after years of fertility issues.
In their ruling, judges completely dismissed the allegations against the consultant, who owns a breast cancer clinic, as ‘dubious’ and ‘based on guesses’.
Judges also dismissed a report by the National Health Regulatory Authority (NHRA) which found that the care provide by the defendant contributed to the 53-year-old mother’s death.
“The court cannot assert with confidence that the defendant’s actions are what led to the victim’s death,” read the verdict. “She (the patient) refused, out of her own free will, procedures to treat her condition.
“The victim was the one who denied a core biopsy and referral to oncology, and refused to undergo a PET scan, to receive chemotherapy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy.
“These refusals were documented in her medical files, as she signed a statement to confirm that it was her choice.
“The court is, furthermore, not confident in the results of the NHRA medical errors committee or the witness statements on which it based its conclusion.”
Judges added that a patient cannot be forced to receive treatment or undergo a procedure without their consent, especially in the private medical sector, in which the patients must pay for these interventions.
The verdict highlighted that the defendant runs a private clinic, which does not have the power to oblige individuals to agree to any procedures.
“There is no compelling or reliable evidence to definitively conclude that the defendant committed the allegations of which she was accused, which leads the court to declare her innocent,” the verdict added.
The Public Prosecution had alleged that the 48-year-old doctor did not perform the right type of breast biopsy, did not evaluate the disease before surgical intervention and did not administer radiation therapy to the patient after her tumour was removed. She was further accused of removing healthy lymph nodes from the patient’s underarm, without conducting a biopsy to see if the tissue was diseased.
The defendant was also accused of not referring the case to the National Tumour Board – a step she told the court was not taken because the patient declined the referral.
According to the NHRA and the Public Prosecution, these alleged shortcomings contributed to the patient’s deterioration and eventual death in May 2024.
The GDN previously reported that the late patient’s brother, who had gone to some of her doctor’s appointments with her, lodged a complaint against the defendant which spurred the investigation and the trial.
In early 2021, the woman discovered a lump in her breast and sought treatment at her local health centre. According to her brother, she was told that it was a swollen mammary gland as she was breastfeeding her one-year-old son at the time.
In November 2021, she visited the defendant’s clinic, where the lump was diagnosed as a malignant tumour. She subsequently underwent surgery to have the tumour removed. The following year, a new mass was detected, which was diagnosed as Stage 3 invasive ductal carcinoma, and was also removed.
In 2023, the patient began experiencing pain in her chest, back, neck, pelvis and right arm, and was diagnosed with a heart condition. She later had to be hospitalised, and a tumour was discovered in her lung.
She left the hospital, and in 2024, the cancer had spread throughout her body. In May of that year, she contracted a virus which led her condition to deteriorate, then suffered a cardiac arrest and died.
In court hearings, the doctor appeared and defended herself, stating that she signed an Against Medical Advice (AMA) document to confirm that she was aware of the risks of her refusal of treatment.
She previously testified before the court that the late patient was ‘adamant’ that her husband did not know about her illness, because she ‘could not risk losing her financial support or custody of her child’, who she conceived after multiple IVF attempts.
Her attorneys also stated that the report against her was issued by a committee of which the defendant’s ex-husband was a member, claiming that it is biased.
zainab@gdnmedia.bh
&uuid=(email))