HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SACKS, DR N.P.M.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:47): I need to inform the house today of a matter of public importance. Two weeks ago very serious allegations were made to me concerning a senior surgeon at the Lyell McEwin Hospital. These allegations concern the competence and fitness to practice of Dr Nigel Philip Michael Sacks. The allegations came from several senior members of the medical profession who have asked me to speak about this matter.

Once I was aware of the allegations, I immediately wrote to the health minister, John Hill, to make him aware of my alarm and deep concern about the allegations. The letter, dated 11 November, is addressed 'Private & Confidential' to Minister Hill. It states:

Dear John,

I have been made aware of some alarming concerns of doctors at the Lyell McEwin Hospital over one of their colleagues, Dr Nigel Sacks, a professor of surgery at the hospital.

I understand that Dr Sacks has a history of mental illness and was found unfit to face court over 19 fraud charges in England brought by the National Health Service. He was then found unfit to face charges by the General Medical Council of England because of his mental condition.

In the meantime, I understand that Dr Sacks has been employed at the Lyell McEwin Hospital by the Department of Health and has been performing surgery there, some of which I understand has caused serious injury to patients.

I also understand that Dr Sacks and the Hospital are currently being sued by a patient who alleges that Dr Sacks was going to proceed with surgery whilst under the influence of either alcohol or medication. I am told that Dr Sacks performed a botched thyroidectomy on a woman who has undertaken legal proceedings against Dr Sacks and the Hospital.

I am also told that Dr Sacks has been reported to the Medical Board of Australia under the mandatory reporting conditions of the new national registration of health practitioners by a colleague because, in his opinion, Dr Sacks is not fit to operate or be practising in South Australia.

I ask you to look into his case with the utmost urgency and to inform me as to what your intentions are in allowing Dr Sacks to continue to operate in a public hospital.

The letter continues:

I quote from the General Medical Council findings in the minutes of 11 January—5 February of the Fitness to Practice Panel that examined allegations against Dr Sacks. In that part of the conclusions a psychiatrist who had been examining Dr Sacks said 'Mr Sacks is not well enough to undergo these proceedings fairly, and never will be.'

In other words, Dr Sacks is unfit to face court proceedings and would, in my opinion, be unfit to practise as a medical practitioner, let alone as a specialist surgeon.

Shortly after handing my letter to the minister in this chamber, minister Hill told me that Dr Sacks was no longer working as a surgeon, or words to that effect. Minister Hill later came across the chamber for a second time to tell me that Dr Sacks was still employed by the Lyell McEwin Hospital but was not seeing patients. As of yesterday, Wednesday 24 November 2010, I was told that Dr Sacks is, in fact, seeing outpatients and assisting in surgeries.

The comments in the minutes of the General Medical Council of England, at their fitness to practice hearing, on 11 January to 5 February 2010, should have alerted the minister as to the serious nature of Dr Sacks' history and mental state. Dr Sacks was to be charged with 23 counts of inappropriate and/or misleading and/or dishonest conduct. At page 13 of those minutes it states:

On 16 June 2008, His Honour Judge Rivlin, sitting at Southwark Crown Court, stayed an indictment alleging offences of dishonesty which are to all intents and purposes identical to the allegations before this panel on the grounds that Mr Sacks was medically unfit to undergo the trial...the prosecution offered no evidence and not guilty verdicts were entered on all counts in the indictment.

In March 2009, Mr Sacks returned to his native Australia where he was accorded conditional registration by the Medical Board of South Australia and he took up a senior surgical post at the Lyell McEwin Hospital in Adelaide, a post he has occupied until the present time.

The minutes continue on page 16:

...the panel concurs with the broad proposition that serious allegations regarding a doctor's fitness to practise should be ventilated in the public arena.

The minutes continue on page 19:

This case and the allegations against Mr Sacks arise from his employment as a consultant surgeon by the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in particular during the period 2000-2004...he dishonestly sought...removed documentation...frustrated an investigation by lying about having done so.

On page 22 of the minutes of the General Medical Council, Dr Sacks' long-term treating psychiatrist gave evidence that in his opinion:

...that Mr Sacks is not well enough to undergo these proceedings fairly and never will be.

If Dr Sacks is mentally unwell and unable to cope with the stresses of proving his innocence on the fraud charges, then surely his ability to practise must be questioned. I think every South Australian would be vitally interested in Dr Sacks' ability to practise, as the assessment of life-threatening conditions and performing complex surgical procedures are particularly demanding and stressful.

I have spoken to a number of Dr Sacks' colleagues, who have described his current behaviour as 'he is a disaster' and 'he is a danger'. Minister Hill knows about this man, a man who should never have been employed by the Lyell McEwin Hospital. Despite minister Hill telling me that Dr Sacks is not seeing patients, this is clearly the case. I am now calling on the minister to immediately suspend Dr Sacks from all public hospitals and to conduct an inquiry into Dr Sacks' professional conduct and personal behaviour.

For the minister to not know that Dr Sacks poses a serious danger to South Australian public health patients is inexcusable, and for him not to have acted for at least two weeks is unforgiveable and he should resign.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT