Charlie Teo responds to story questioning his behaviour and ethics by referring it to attorneys | Australia information

The mind surgeon Charlie Teo has requested his attorneys to “assessment” a Sydney Morning Herald article which questioned his judgment and ethics and accused him of inappropriate behaviour within the working theatre.

Printed on Thursday, the article contrasted Teo’s ability as a surgeon with questions on his “judgment, narcissistic behaviour [and habit of] charging financially-stressed individuals exorbitant charges for surgical procedures” that would have been performed within the public system.

Written by the Gold Walkley profitable investigative reporter Kate McClymont, the piece was primarily based on interviews with 14 neurosurgeons and associated specialists in addition to former Teo sufferers.

The article detailed allegations of what it known as “inappropriate conduct within the working theatre” by Teo, and referred to a 1996 sexual harassment case filed towards Teo by a nurse working within the Arkansas kids’s hospital within the US.

The article quoted Teo’s feedback from a 2008 e-book during which he stated the case was dropped and the incident wiped from his file “solely after he received letters of assist from a senator and an oil magnate who have been his sufferers, and from Invoice Clinton’s private doctor”.

Teo – Australia’s most distinguished surgeon – has made a fame for taking up circumstances deemed too dangerous by different surgeons. In a prolonged response revealed on Thursday, he stated he was “extremely stunned and tremendously dissatisfied” by the article.

“Notably disturbing was the evident lack of reliable analysis, using anonymous sources, the staggering variety of inaccuracies and supreme failure to supply a good and balanced story,” he stated.

The response didn’t tackle any of the allegations or element particular inaccuracies, however Teo stated he had requested his attorneys “to assessment the article”.

He accused 9 of getting “intentionally misstated and misrepresented info within the public area” and of failing to “pretty report info that has been conveyed to them over the past a number of days”.

“It’s disappointing that the writer has chosen to report inaccurately and in such a sensational and biased method,” he stated.

“I’m not the primary particular person to be subjected to this kind of reporting and I cannot be the final. I’m immensely pleased with the whole lot that I’ve achieved professionally as a surgeon in Australia and Internationally, and of the work of the Charlie Teo Basis.”

The Sydney Morning Herald stated in an announcement: “Kate McClymont has spent many weeks researching this story: interviewing surgeons, different medical professionals, sufferers, their households and inspecting court docket information. Dr Teo has been repeatedly contacted with requests to debate and reply to the allegations in current weeks. The Herald stands by the story.”

It’s not the primary time Teo’s practices have been criticised by different surgeons. In Could, Henry Woo, a professor of surgical procedure on the College of Sydney, pointed to the in depth use of crowdfunding websites to pay for surgical procedures by Teo, describing it as “actually disturbing”.

“One thing is critically improper if a terminally sick woman with a mind tumour has to lift $120,000 to have surgical procedure Dr Charlie Teo has supplied to do for $60,000-$80,000,” he wrote. “If it was legitimate surgical procedure, it may/must be carried out within the public system underneath Medicare”.

Teo has rejected allegations of overcharging and stated his share of charges charged for mind tumour operations that value $120,000 are between $8,000 and $15,000.

“What it’s important to bear in mind is that of that $120,000 [charged for surgery] most individuals assume all of it goes to me, and that’s not the case in any respect,” he instructed the ABC in Could.

A place paper on charges revealed by the Royal Australasian School of Surgeons final month states that surgeons should be clear about their charges.

“There are experiences of a small variety of surgeons charging extraordinarily excessive charges for surgical procedures – a few of these procedures relate to remedy for superior malignancy – and that sufferers are typically not given ample warning of the prices for these surgical procedures,” the paper says.