A coroner has insisted that a decision by doctors not to operate on a Basingstoke man who died following a medical procedure “has to be respected”.
Michael Kearney, of Glamis Close in Oakley, suffered a fatal tear to his small intestine and passed away at Basingstoke hospital on October 17 last year.
The 53-year-old had initially been admitted to hospital with abdominal pain, with a scan then discovering that he had gallstones in his gallbladder.
To examine the problem, doctors then completed a procedure involving feeding a tube with a camera down Mr Kearney’s throat and into the small intestine on October 13.
Unbeknownst to those completing the Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio Pancreatography (ERCP) examination, the procedure resulted in a 5mm tear to the duodenum, causing fatal damage to Mr Kearney’s abdomen lining.
Gastroenterologist consultant physician Dr Michael Reynolds completed the procedure and admitted that he had relived what happened “countless times” in his head.
“I’ve done more than 1,250 ERCP procedures over the last 10 years and this is the first case of this kind that I have seen,” said Dr Reynolds.
“He had no symptoms of abdominal abnormalities, and so I felt this was the best approach to take.
“I have relived this procedure countless times and I still wonder if this was caused by my moving the scope or the dilation of the duodenum wall.”
Mr Kearney’s brother Paul asked why surgery hadn’t been used to address the problem during yesterday’s inquest at Basingstoke Law Courts.
But Basingstoke hospital colorectal general surgeon Dr Faheez Mohammed insisted that surgery “would not have helped” however, with doctors instead choosing to treat Mr Kearney more conservatively and put him on a ventilator.
And North East Hampshire coroner Andrew Bradley agreed with the physicians’ decision.
He said: “From the examination it’s clear that there was a perforation to the small bowel and this has led to him developing peritonitis and dying.
“I know there is the argument ‘why not give him an operation’, but there is a clinical reason for not doing it.
“This is a level of professional judgement that has to be respected, because it’s the judgement that’s been taken in Mick’s best interests.”