Inquest Hears Patient Received ‘Unnecessary’ Surgery from Disgraced Surgeon Ian Paterson

An inquest has been informed that a woman, diagnosed with advanced breast cancer, underwent “unnecessary” surgical procedures performed by the discredited doctor Ian Paterson. Rosemarie Blake passed away in July 1997 at the age of 56, following the metastasis of her breast cancer to her liver, bone marrow, and brain. This inquiry into Mrs. Blake’s death represents the sixth among 62 investigations concerning the medical care provided by Paterson. Paterson, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for wounding patients following a 2017 conviction, disputed the claim that an open breast biopsy and double mastectomy he performed on Mrs. Blake were unnecessary. Days prior to her death, Mrs. Blake, a former care worker residing in Erdington, had been hospitalized due to anaemia, nosebleeds, hypovolemic shock, and hematemesis. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, tasked with assisting coroner Richard Foster, determined that “unnecessary surgical intervention” in March 1996, specifically Mrs. Blake’s open breast biopsy, postponed the initiation of chemotherapy and bisphosphonates and “caused” pulmonary embolic disease. Paterson dismissed these assertions as “nonsense,” stating that the team’s examination of Mrs. Blake’s medical records was “shoddy.” When questioned by Jonathan Jones KC, counsel to the inquest, about whether he agreed that the biopsy and double mastectomy were unnecessary procedures given that earlier tests, including a bone scan, indicated potential metastasis of her cancer, Paterson responded negatively. He stated: “We still don’t have a diagnosis, we have a lot of maybes. You need a tissue diagnosis, that’s why she had an open biopsy.” He further remarked: “Mrs Blake had advanced local disease at diagnosis. She had bilateral cancer which was underestimated clinically and radiologically.” “She didn’t have unnecessary surgical intervention, it was for diagnosis. And I still don’t believe the mastectomies were unnecessary.” “This lady had mastectomies on April 6 1996, and had her first dose of chemotherapy 18 days post-op.” Paterson asserted that he did not consider an 18-day delay sufficient to have altered Mrs. Blake’s prognosis. When Mr. Jones inquired whether a mastectomy constituted appropriate treatment for a patient whose cancer had already metastasized, Paterson replied: “Yes, in certain circumstances.” “She had an operable disease which is always an important indication. It would suggest it wasn’t completely out of control but you don’t want to let it get out of control. You want to try and intervene when the situation is still salvageable.” Paterson stated his belief that Mrs. Blake’s death resulted from “spontaneous bleeding,” which he attributed to “poorly managed” treatment with blood thinners for pulmonary embolic disease. He denied that any of the operations he performed led to pulmonary embolic disease, asserting that Mrs. Blake evidently already suffered from this condition when she initially consulted her GP about chest pain in February 1996, prior to her cancer diagnosis. During the commencement of the inquest, Mrs. Blake’s daughter, Katrina, characterized her mother as “loved by all.” She remarked: “She had a zest for life. She was strong and resilient and had a great sense of humour. She was a fighter.” “She had an infectious laugh that could be heard for miles and a uniqueness that shone for all to see.” The inquiry is ongoing.