Military surgeon operated on 12-year-old boy’s genitals without parental consent
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
A decorated military surgeon operated on a 12 year old’s genitals without the consent of his parents, a tribunal heard.
Commander Anthony Lambert told the boy’s parents he had taken the decision without consulting them because he was “a bit of a nosey t---” and had thought the child’s penis “didn’t look normal”.
The respected practitioner – who served in the Royal Navy for 36 years and reached the rank of Surgeon Commander – had been performing an umbilical hernia repair on the child at the time.
Now, after being hauled in front of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, he has been suspended for six months for his “deplorable” actions.
The hearing was told that on April 20, 2016, while working at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, Cdr Lambert performed an umbilical hernia repair on the boy, referred to only as Patient A, who was unconscious under general anaesthetic.
During this, he “undertook a freeing of preputial adhesions” on the child’s penis without the knowledge or consent of either Patient A or his parents.
In a comment explaining his actions afterwards, he said: “Because I am a bit of a nosey t---, I noticed that [Patient A]’s penis did not look quite normal.”
Three days after the operation, Patient A’s mother submitted a formal complaint that the procedure had been carried out ‘without Patient A, Mrs B or her husband’s knowledge or consent’.
The hearing was told in the investigation into his conduct and that comment in particular, he retorted “this is the first time in 16 years I’ve had a complaint”.
The hearing was told he had been investigated in 2014 for “expletive language” used in front of nursing staff, the patients and the patients’ parents.
In October 2018, a trainee working with Cdr Lambert submitted a complaint about his conduct, the panel was told.
Cdr Lambert admitted making comments which were “foul and abusive”, “aggressive and intimidating”, “bullying in nature and derogatory towards patients and healthcare professionals”.
He told members he was “devastated by the consequences of his actions” and had carried out the procedure “with the best of intentions”.
It was also heard the background to this “intemperate behaviour” was the stress suffered as part of his deployment to combat zones.
The panel heard that although Cdr Lambert is now retired “for the most part”, there “remains a risk” he could choose to return to practice.
The panel concluded that the decision to complete the examination and procedure “contrary to the clear expressions of no consent” was aggravated by Patient A’s young age.
“It noted that he made very limited attempts to find Patient A’s parents after he noticed the abnormality of his penis, and although he entered the waiting room, he did not call their name,” they said.
They added that Cdr Lambert was an “extremely senior and respected practitioner” and this had been a “single incident in a long and distinguished career”.
However, they continued: “The tribunal considered that members of the medical profession would find the act of a doctor operating on a child without any form of consent, or following an express refusal of consent to be deplorable.
“It determined that such actions would bring the medical profession into disrepute.
“It was of the view that the impact it had on Patient A, or some similar adverse outcome, was a foreseeable potential result of an open breach of trust.
“The Tribunal concluded that this misconduct was serious – obtaining consent before carrying out a procedure or physical investigation on a patient is a fundamental tenet of the medical profession.
“The Tribunal reminded itself that Mr Lambert was refused consent by Patient A and his parents on two separate occasions.
“It noted that the procedure was not urgent and [Cdr] Lambert could have waited to ensure that he obtained parental consent without posing any risk to the patient.”
They added that most doctors in similar circumstances would understand the imperative not to carry out the procedure, and would view his actions as “a deplorable breach of trust fundamental to the medical profession to obtain consent before operating on a patient”.
They therefore concluded it amounted to serious misconduct.
Of the “nosey t---” comment, they added: “The tribunal is in no doubt that the language used in such circumstances was entirely inappropriate.
“It determined that it showed that [Cdr] Lambert lacked full understanding of the consequences and seriousness of what he had done, and as such was relevant to his insight in that regard at that time.”
Despite this, they ruled that although his use of language was “unfortunate and unprofessional”, it “did not constitute serious misconduct”.
They concluded impairment was “required to promote and maintain public confidence in the profession”, and continued: “[Cdr] Lambert’s misconduct was a serious breach of the tenets of the medical profession and had the potential to seriously impact Patient A and other patients’ trust in the profession.”
The panel therefore concluded the “appropriate and proportionate” response to mark the seriousness of his conduct was to suspend him for six months.
