Royal Navy surgeon operated on boy’s genitals without parental consent

A highly decorated military surgeon has been given a six-month suspension after performing an unauthorized procedure on a 12-year-old boy’s genitals during what was supposed to be a routine hernia operation. Commander Anthony Lambert, who had a distinguished 36-year career in the Royal Navy rising to the rank of Surgeon Commander, was carrying out an umbilical hernia repair at Derriford Hospital in Devon on 20 April 2016 when he decided to intervene.

The stunt surgeon admitted to the boy’s parents that he had carried out the procedure without their consent because he was “a bit squeamish” and thought the boy’s penis “didn’t look normal”. A tribunal was told that while the patient was under general anaesthesia, Dr Lambert “undertook a release of the foreskin from the penis of Patient A without the knowledge or consent of Patient A or his parents and that his tongue when taking informed of what he had done was inappropriate.”

As Plymouth Live reported, the boy’s mother filed a formal complaint three days after the operation, outraged that the operation on her son’s genitals was carried out without her or her husband’s consent. During the hearing, it emerged that Dr. Lambert’s frank admission to the boy and his mother as to why he proceeded with the additional surgery was: “…because I’m a bit of a nosy, I noticed that (patient A’s) penis didn’t look normal enough.”

Read more:

Commander Lambert said this was “the first time in 16 years I’ve had a complaint” during his court interview. However, it emerged during the court hearing that he had previously been investigated in 2014 for using “profane language at the Children’s High Dependency Unit in front of medical staff, patients and patients’ parents”.

Furthermore, the tribunal heard about the ongoing impact of the surgery on the youngster as it “still affects him now”. It was brought to the attention of the president of the tribunal that “the psychological effects were such that they damaged his confidence in the medical profession.”

Other complaints were raised against Cdr Lambert, one of which was from a Year 1 Foundation trainee who worked under him at the Trust, lodged at the hospital on 20 October 2018.

Ultimately, Cdr Lambert – who received an OBE in the 2013 New Year’s Honors list for his charity work – admitted making comments labeled as “offensive and abusive”, “aggressive and intimidating”, “bullying in nature and derogatory’ to ‘patients’. , other health professionals and women, resulting in other health professionals being prevented from approaching him, the court heard.

Paul Williams, acting as counsel in the tribunal against Cdr Lambert, said his actions “would be seen as deplorable by fellow members of the profession both in relation to Patient A (the boy) and the schedule 1 allegations “. He added: “members of the public would be shocked to learn of such behavior and that Mr Lambert’s actions have brought the medical profession into disrepute and therefore constitute serious misconduct.”

He argued that “the mere passage of time does not remedy the seriousness of the charges and that it was a fair comment to suggest that his understanding has not yet been fully developed, that he is not rehabilitated, has not fully remedied his actions and remains a risk of repetition if in a clinical setting”. He noted that Dr Lambert had now retired but said “there remains a risk that Mr Lambert may choose to return to practice and the risk of recurrence arising from his incomplete perception and reflection should lead the Tribunal to conclude that Mr. Lambert is currently affected. “

James Leonard KC, appearing for Cdr Lambert, said his client was “devastated by the consequences of his actions, although they were clinically indicated and carried out with the best of intentions”. He also reiterated that this incident happened eight years ago, that the General Medical Council was aware, along with what was admitted in 2016, but took no action.

He noted that Cdr Lambert offered an apology at the time. He expressed remorse for Dr Lambert’s language and behavior towards patients and colleagues, saying he “remains mortified that he made the individuals concerned feel the way they did”.

He added that Dr. Lambert “sought only to teach, encourage learning and strive for excellence in his clinical practice” and “remains deeply troubled that his actions discouraged any of these based on the manner in which the conduct his was perceived”. He attributed this “untimely behavior” to the stress experienced during his deployment to combat zones.

The panel concluded that the decision to proceed with the examination and procedure “contrary to clear expressions of non-consent” was exacerbated by the young age of Patient A. Furthermore, the panel noted that Dr. Lambert “made very limited attempts to locate the parents of Patient A after he noticed the abnormality of his penis and, although he entered the waiting room, he did not call out their names”.

They admitted Cdr Lambert was a “highly senior and respected practitioner” and this was “a single incident in a long and distinguished career”. However, they added: “The tribunal considered that members of the medical profession would consider it deplorable that a doctor operates on a child without any form of consent, or following an express refusal of consent. 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 a similar adverse outcome, was a potentially foreseeable result of an open breach of trust.” They concluded: “This misconduct was serious – obtaining consent before performing a procedure or physical investigation on a patient is a fundamental principle of the medical profession.”

“The Tribunal recalled that Dr Lambert was refused consent by Patient A and his parents on two separate occasions. He noted that the procedure was not urgent and (cdr) Lambert could have waited to ensure he had obtained parental consent without posing any risk to the patient.”

They added that most doctors in similar circumstances would understand the imperative not to perform the procedure and would see his actions as “a deplorable breach of the fundamental trust in the medical profession to obtain consent before operating on a patient”. They therefore concluded it was serious misconduct – and he was suspended for six months.

In 2017, Plymouth Live reported that in a letter of apology, Cdr Lambert said: “Why I didn’t call your name when I left the theater to find you, I don’t know,” he told the family. I apologize unreservedly for the lapses in care I provided to your son.

“Dr. Phil Hughes, chief medical officer of Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, sent a letter to the family saying the operation “should not have taken place without consent”. He assured that an “organizational development intervention” would be implemented to prevent such incidents in Following the incident’s publicity, several people took to social media to support Cdr Lambert.

One man was quoted by PlymouthLive as saying: “This man is amazing at his job, he goes above and beyond as he did in this case… if he had spoken to the parents they would hopefully have told him to move forward (.. .)”. Others chimed in with praise such as: “One of the most genuine, trustworthy and dedicated people I know….he lives and breathes his work. So appreciated by so many people….he has saved so many lives, his own life is at risk in some of the worst war zones on the planet”.