Inquest Reveals Patient Not Informed of Safer Breast Surgery Options

An inquest has revealed that a mother of two, who underwent surgery performed by a discredited breast surgeon, was not informed that other medical professionals considered her advised treatment to be less than the safest available choice. This hearing represents the third in a series of 62 inquests concerning patients of Ian Paterson, commencing with an examination into the 2015 death of Christine Baker, a 59-year-old patient from Solihull. Stephen Baker, her husband, stated that his wife underwent a “skin-sparing” mastectomy in 2005 and was assured that the reconstructive component of the operation carried no extra risk. The court was informed that she underwent a second mastectomy in 2007, following the recurrence of her cancer. Paterson, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for wounding, previously testified at Birmingham Coroner’s Court that he ceased performing his specific “cleavage-sparing” operation immediately after hospital administrators notified him in 2007 that further investigation was required. During the hearing, it was disclosed that Mr Baker secured a loan of £12,000 to cover the cost of the 2005 operation, which was performed privately after his wife received a diagnosis of invasive cancer in her right breast. He recounted that his wife initially desired a mastectomy without reconstruction to avoid any potential risks, but was advised that reconstruction was the optimal choice, leading her to “went along with it”. Mr Baker stated that he was informed the 2005 surgery was successful, but he only discovered in 2020, through an inquiry report, a suggestion that tissue had been “left behind” during the procedure. He further mentioned that Paterson proposed reconstructive surgery again in 2007, but a multi-disciplinary team advised against this course of action, which perplexed the couple. Mr Baker commented, “I think people in the trust were starting to have concerns about Mr Paterson but we were totally unaware.” He recounted that his wife was born and raised in Stoke-on-Trent, subsequently becoming an English teacher at a secondary school in Birmingham. He added that they met in their 20s, “fell completely head over heels in love,” and maintained that affection for the subsequent 35 years. Clare Bate, a breast care nurse, informed the hearing that nurses observed Paterson’s mastectomies differed from those performed by his colleagues. She stated, “There would be cleavage and volume after the mastectomies with Mr Paterson. The other consultants would normally leave the patients with a flat chest wall.” She further noted that Paterson explained he “left behind fatty tissue so the ladies might have a better cosmetic outcome”. When questioned about any concerns she might have had, she responded, “I trusted that he knew what he was doing.” The court was informed that her perspective shifted around 2007-08, as patients began returning with recurrent tumours. The inquest remains ongoing.