Gynaecologist Under Fire: Questions Mount Over Unnecessary Surgeries and Loss of Fertility
A Melbourne gynaecologist is facing intense scrutiny over allegations of performing multiple surgeries for severe endometriosis on a young woman, Courtney Paton, whose pathology results consistently showed no evidence of the condition. The case raises disturbing questions about medical practice, patient trust, and the oversight of surgical procedures within Australia’s healthcare system.
Courtney Paton, now 28, has been left medically infertile after undergoing seven surgeries for endometriosis performed by Dr Simon Gordon between 2019 and 2023. By the age of 25, both her ovaries and her uterus had been removed. The federal health minister has described the allegations as “physically sickening,” and Ms Paton herself expressed feeling “completely betrayed” by Dr Gordon and the healthcare system.
A Trail of Surgeries and Conflicting Diagnoses
Ms Paton’s medical journey began in 2018 with a laparoscopic surgery performed by a different Melbourne surgeon. This initial procedure was the only one of her eight surgeries that definitively confirmed the presence of endometriosis, a debilitating condition affecting approximately one in seven Australian women, characterised by severe pain and often infertility.
Seeking relief from persistent pelvic pain, Ms Paton, then 21, consulted Dr Gordon in 2019. She was drawn to his practice, branded as “Endo Health,” and his online reputation as a laparoscopic surgery expert. Her parents ultimately paid over $32,000 for the surgeries Dr Gordon performed on their daughter.
A significant point of concern is the discrepancy between Dr Gordon’s surgical notes and correspondence with Ms Paton’s GP, which repeatedly cited endometriosis, and the actual histopathology results from the excised tissues. A review of these results for six of the seven surgeries performed by Dr Gordon revealed “no evidence of endometriosis” or “no histological evidence of endometriosis.”
One surgery in February 2020, billed under the Medicare item number for “severe endometriosis,” initially showed no signs of the condition. However, a supplementary report identified “small foci,” or tiny deposits, consistent with “focal endometriosis.” A gynaecologist reviewing this report for the ABC described the finding as a “probably clinically insignificant amount of possible endometriosis,” suggesting it was the only instance where any evidence, however slight, of the condition was noted in post-operative pathology for these procedures.
Despite these findings, Dr Gordon’s operation reports often described symptoms and surgical findings consistent with “recurrent disease deep in the pelvis.” In one instance, following a surgery in February 2021, Dr Gordon removed one of Ms Paton’s ovaries, stating it was adhered to her pelvic wall. A gynaecologist who reviewed the histopathology report from this surgery described the removed ovary as “a normal, young ovary” that “didn’t need to be removed.” This surgery occurred after a six-month trial of Zoladex, a medication used to manage pelvic pain by mimicking hormonal effects of ovary removal.
Loss of Fertility and Unnecessary Procedures
The removal of Ms Paton’s ovaries marked a critical turning point in her fertility. By the age of 23, she had not had children and was facing the loss of her reproductive capacity. Multiple medical guidelines suggest that removing ovaries from young women who may wish to have children is not appropriate.
Surgeries five and six followed a similar pattern, with Ms Paton being informed of endometriosis and Dr Gordon’s reports indicating biopsies consistent with the condition. It was after surgery six that Dr Gordon removed Ms Paton’s second ovary, again with no evidence of disease found in the subsequent histopathology.
Professor Thierry Vancaillie, a respected gynaecologist and pain specialist, reviewed Ms Paton’s surgical records, photographs, histopathology, and billing. He expressed shock, stating he could find no justification for the removal of Ms Paton’s ovaries and that, in his opinion, none of the seven surgeries performed by Dr Gordon were necessary. “The treatment or rather the mistreatment received by this poor patient is unbelievable. How on earth could anyone justify this?” Professor Vancaillie remarked. He described the situation as “sickening to look at” and “totally unnecessary.”
Red Flags Ignored?
Concerns about Ms Paton’s treatment began to surface among other medical professionals. In June 2022, a clinician escalated concerns to Epworth Hospital management regarding the removal of Ms Paton’s second ovary. This led to internal communication involving hospital directors. Despite these internal discussions, the medical regulator, AHPRA, which is now investigating Dr Gordon following separate complaints, was not notified at the time.
Another specialist who saw Ms Paton was so disturbed by the removal of her second ovary that she reportedly left a consultation in tears. Ms Paton herself was unaware of the growing concerns among medical professionals about her treatment.
“It’s unacceptable, really,” Professor Vancaillie stated, commenting on the perceived failure of the hospital and medical regulators to intervene sooner. He suggested that a lack of clear responsibility and a need for closer monitoring of certain practices were evident.
An Epworth HealthCare spokesperson acknowledged the distressing nature of the experiences described, stating, “For any patient who feels harmed, unheard or let down, we acknowledge how significant that experience may be.” The hospital confirmed it referred the matter to the regulator after concerns were raised with senior management in October.
A Hysterectomy and Legal Action
By 2023, Ms Paton, aged 25, was advised by Dr Gordon to undergo a hysterectomy to remove her uterus to address ongoing pain. However, she sought a second opinion from another Melbourne gynaecologist who deemed the hysterectomy unnecessary and suggested alternative treatments like physiotherapy and naturopathy, options Ms Paton stated Dr Gordon had never discussed with her. Despite her reservations, Ms Paton underwent the hysterectomy, with the subsequent histopathology again showing no evidence of endometriosis.
Ms Paton has since engaged solicitor Emily Hart to pursue legal action against Dr Gordon. Ms Hart highlighted the profound impact of losing fertility at a young age, particularly when it could have been managed with fertility preservation options like egg or embryo freezing. She stressed that the lack of action following clinicians’ concerns warrants a “very, very serious investigation,” stating, “this goes beyond simple human error.”
Ms Paton now resides in Thailand, grappling with the aftermath of her experiences. She expressed devastation at the betrayal of trust, stating, “He’s taken the trust of a young, vulnerable woman and completely betrayed it.”
Dr Gordon’s Retirement and Statement
Dr Simon Gordon retired from Epworth Hospital in early November, days after being informed of the investigation. Epworth’s Chief Medical Officer requested he go on leave, and the hospital’s CEO informed the board. Dr Gordon subsequently cleared out his rooms and cancelled patient appointments.
Dr Gordon declined an interview but issued a statement asserting that he never performed surgery unless convinced it was in the patient’s best interests. He acknowledged that conditions like adenomyosis and endometriosis can compromise fertility and stated his commitment to alleviating pain and restoring quality of life for female patients, a group he felt had been historically neglected. He maintained that he had always acted ethically and responsibly throughout his career.
Federal Health Minister Mark Butler described the allegations as “incredibly distressing” and “one of the worst cases” he had encountered within Australia’s otherwise strong healthcare system.
The full investigation into Dr Gordon’s practice and the treatment of endometriosis was scheduled for broadcast on Monday, February 23.
