The case of Neil Hopper, the former vascular surgeon, highlights a critical dilemma on whether an individual doctor’s choices of how to behave in his personal life, spill over into his professional life. Can these ever be truly separate?
His criminal convictions are a matter of public legal record and were for things he did as an individual – including his sexual interest in body mutilation, watching “patients” in pain and enjoying it. But his job involved surgical amputations, vein surgery, use of anaesthetic – so how can it really be said with confidence that his professional conduct was not in question?
The absence of a public, independent investigation into his medical practice means that the potential impact of his personal dishonesty and predilections on his professional clinical judgment cannot be definitively ruled out.
The personal convictions
Neil Hopper pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud by false representation and three counts of possessing extreme pornographic images. The fraud charges stem from his deliberate act of self-inflicted injury – using dry ice to cause the amputation of his legs – and then dishonestly claiming insurance payouts by misrepresenting the cause as a medical illness. The court also heard that he had a sexual interest in amputation and possessed extreme pornographic images related to body modifications, which he had purchased from a website. These convictions are a matter of legal record and speak to his personal conduct and interests.
The question of professional judgement in the Criminal case
The General Medical Council (GMC) have formally struck Hopper off the medical register. To the GMC, the criminal convictions mean he is not fit to practise as a doctor, and never will again.
The Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, where Hopper was employed, explain they have conducted a review of his work. A spokesperson for the Trust stated that their “exhaustive investigations have found no evidence whatsoever to indicate any risk or harm to patients at our hospitals.” The Trust stated that the charges against him did not relate to his professional conduct with patients.
In a sense this is correct as the police investigation was into his personal activities, and not his work as a doctor at RCHT or his professional conduct.
So it is illogical to conclude from the charges brought, that his professional life was not affected. His professional medical practice was not investigated by the Police in connection with the criminal charges brought. Our argument, and the clear concern expressed by many of his ex-patients is that the nature of the charges means that his “interests” could have spilled over from his personal life into his professional life. Just because something was not investigated doesn’t mean it has not happened.
Investigating Neil Hopper’s medical practice
The review conducted by the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust was described as “exhaustive” but no details have been given. Its not clear how much of its internal investigation was checked or led by a clinician who has worked with the Police before, but who worked at RCHT rather than elsewhere. Of course, Hopper also had a private practice at the Duchy Hospital, and no investigation of his activities there has even been mentioned.
We have not been informed by any of his ex-patients that have contacted us and whose cases we are investigating that they were consulted as part of this review and the lack of visibility around this raises concerns. Other patients have come forwards with concerns from his private practice which to our best knowledge has not been investigated at all.
There must be an investigation and it must be a fully a public and independent one.
Without a rigorous, independent public investigation into Hopper’s cases that is conducted in a transparent manner by an external body, it is impossible to definitively confirm that his personal interests had no bearing on his professional judgement as a surgeon. While the hospital’s internal findings stand, the lack of a formal, independent inquiry means that the possibility of a link between his personal conduct and his professional surgical decisions cannot be entirely dismissed.
How we can help
At Enable Law we are in the process of reviewing the cases of patients who after having been alarmed by Neil Hopper’s conviction were keen to explore if the care they received and, in some cases, medical procedures they were subjected to were in their best interests. If you or a loved one have been treated by Neil Hopper and share similar concerns, get in touch with us as we may be able to help you.
In clinical negligence cases, the standard time limit for bringing a claim is three years. However, this period doesn’t always start from the date of the medical incident itself. Instead, it can begin from the “date of knowledge.”
The “date of knowledge” is the key legal principle here. It refers to the date a person first became aware – or could reasonably have been expected to become aware – that they had suffered a significant injury, and that this injury was at least partially attributable to medical negligence.
This means that even if a medical procedure took place many years ago, the three-year limitation period only starts running once the patient has reason to believe something went wrong. To have a free, confidential discussion with a member of our team call us on 0800 044 8488 or fill in our contact form so a member of our team can call you back at a time convenient for you.
