A Consent Form Cannot Excuse Surgical Negligence -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Caring for a patient should never require somebody famous to validate their experience of medical suffering. As the lawsuit filed against Mark Feehily suggests (Joe has learnt to live with the pain, but it raises an awkward question: How can patients compel answers when a surgery is followed by years of suffering?

He claims in a lawsuit that weight-loss surgery resulted in a leak, sepsis and eventually having his stomach removed. On 26 September 2026, The Times claimed this. This version merits careful examination as does the case objected to proving culpability.

Citing the details of the proceedings, Feehily’s case relates to a sleeve gastrectomy carried out by bariatric surgeon Nick Carter at Spire Portsmouth Hospital in Hampshire on August 1, 2020. Feehily claims they left stomach tissue behind fused to his liver, leading to infection and leakage, which led to repeat sepsis and a total gastrectomy in May 2023. Carter denies negligence. These are disputed claims, not established judicial determinations.

And the human toll is much greater than one operating room. Feehily revealed in February 2024 he was taking a break from touring while he recuperated after having more surgery. He described the rigorous therapy, isolated from his family and suffering health issues during lockdown. You are able to recognize a stripped down concert but never the behind-the-scenes, work-a-day reality of managing an illness.

Precision matters here. This is a previously mentioned complication of this procedure (gastric leakage). Only one of these proves negligent. Hell, the fact it is classified as an “accepted complication” does not make it inevitably preventable or manageable. Risk of leaking and a serious bowel disease from the procedure

The crucial question must explore the surgery performed: surgical technique, operative notes, imaging, postoperative findings and response to deterioration. The alleged link between the two health-related events should be tested by independent experts. Celebrity sympathy or professional prestige should not replace the need for evidence.

However, this is more than a dispute over one operation of public interest. An intelligible account of possible harm, realistic alternatives and the real life support to be offered should recovery collapse is what patients entering surgery require. A signature does not suffice to respresent the entire moral might of informed consent. It must also never turn into an institutionally accepted reason to stop asking.

Four reforms deserve urgency.

First, regulators must mandate that all public and private providers of bariatric procedures are independently audited with regard to reporting outcomes – including leaks, emergency transfers, repeat operations and deaths. Comparisons have to control for the complexity of patients, but telling consumers who is safest will better reward safe care without making people avoid challenging patients.

Secondly, every surgical provider should be responsible for ensuring a clear emergency pathway: 24-h day clinical contacts with specific warning criteria; rapid assessment and documented ownership of the escalation. Funding and organizing the aftercare must be done before making the first incision.

Third, patients claiming serious injury should be granted immediate access to full documentation and cost-free independent evaluation. By the time data become available, memories would still be fresh and treatment decisions could still be reconstructed.

Fourth, rehabilitation should commence while liability is confirmed. Litigation may be able to stall the legal process, but nutritional care, psychological support and assistance getting back into the workforce can address fundamental needs.

These proposals neither pre-judge Carter’s defense nor establish failings at Spire. They should be the gold standard by which every provider is measured against.

Feehily’s fame may attract attention. The test of time, however, is whether a mystery patient would receive that same degree of scrutiny, support and answers. We have failed at patient safety when accountability is determined by the need to draw a crowd.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia