A decision that deemed a Guernsey doctor who removed the ovaries of two patients without their consent fit to practise medicine is set to be appealed.
The General Medical Council is appealing the ruling that allowed Dr Ali Shokouh-Amiri to continue working as an obstetrician and gynaecologist because it “could not be assured that, without restrictions on the doctor’s registration, there would not be a risk of repetition”.
The doctor was a given a formal warning by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service earlier this year after he admitted and was found guilty of a number of serious failings – including removing the ovaries of two women without their consent, carrying out intimate examinations without a chaperone on multiple women, and failing to arrange treatment for another patient.
These incidents all occurred when Dr Shokouh-Amiri was a consultant at the Medical Specialist Group in Guernsey – with six of his patients making more than 100 complaints between them about his work and behaviour.
But the tribunal found that that the doctor’s “fitness to practise” was “not impaired”, and he was allowed to continue working.
The General Medical Council today told Express that it has “decided to exercise its powers to issue an appeal in the case of Dr Ali Shokouh-Amiri on grounds including that the tribunal erred in a number of their factual findings, and the tribunal was wrong to conclude that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired”.
If the appeal is successful, Dr Shokouh-Amiri could be struck off.
The obstetrician and gynaecologist currently works as a consultant at Southend University Hospital in Essex.
The Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust – which employs Dr Shokouh-Amiri – told Express that it has “full confidence in his ability to provide safe, high-quality care to our patients” following the tribunal earlier this year.
But General Medical Council has said that it doesn’t share that confidence.
“The GMC’s position was that based on the allegations found proven, the doctor’s fitness to practise should be found impaired for protection of the public, because there was not sufficient evidence of insight, and the tribunal could not be assured that without restrictions on the doctor’s registration, there would not be a risk of repetition,” the council explained.
“In this case the GMC has decided to exercise its powers to issue an appeal. Any sanction is subject to a 28-day appeal period.”
