A mother-of-two operated on by breast surgeon Ian Paterson was not told that other medical experts believed treatment he recommended was not the safest option, an inquest has heard.
The third of 62 inquests being held on patients of Paterson, who is serving a 20-year sentence for wounding, was told Christine Baker died aged 59 in 2015, after putting her trust in his advice to have a “skin-sparing” mastectomy in 2005.
Her husband Stephen Baker told the inquest on Monday that his wife, an English teacher at a Birmingham secondary school, had been advised that there was “no additional risk” to a reconstructive element of the procedure, but saw her cancer “return” in 2007 and underwent a second mastectomy.
At the start of his evidence, Mr Baker, a retired automotive design engineer from Balsall Common, near Solihull, described Mrs Baker as someone who was passionate about education and did her best to give her pupils the best chance in life.
Paterson, 66, told Birmingham Coroner’s Court last week that he stopped performing his version of the “cleavage-sparing” operation as soon as he was informed by hospital chiefs in 2007 that more research was needed.
Giving evidence to the judge-led inquest, Mr Baker said he and his wife, who was also an assistant headteacher, had borrowed £12,000 to pay for the 2005 operation to be carried out privately.
Mr Baker told the court Mrs Baker, who was diagnosed with invasive cancer in her right breast in February 2005, was adamant that she wanted a mastectomy without reconstruction as “she didn’t want to take any risks”.
He told the inquest: “She wasn’t really keen to have immediate reconstruction.
“It was just that she had been advised that that was the best option so she just went along with it.”
A nurse, who appeared to be a “big devotee” of Paterson, also helped persuade Mrs Baker to have the reconstructive procedure, Mr Baker said.
Answering questions from counsel to the inquests Jonathan Jones KC, Mr Baker added: “We were pushed really down the route of having a skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and also we were persuaded to use the private sector as well.
“I think in hindsight now we would have gone for a straightforward mastectomy without a reconstruction in the private or NHS sector, whichever was the fastest.”
The inquest heard pathology tests were conducted after the first mastectomy took place in March 2005 and Mrs Baker was told the operation had “gone well”.
Mr Baker said he only found out after a 2020 inquiry report into Paterson’s malpractice that it was suggested tissue had been “left behind” during the operation.
His wife was diagnosed with cancer for a second time in July 2007 and was again seen by Paterson, who again suggested reconstructive surgery, while she “wanted to do whatever was the safest”.
Mr Baker said of Paterson: “He just said unfortunately this sometimes happens. Chris was very concerned with it being a recurrence and she wanted it removed as quickly as she could.”
The inquest heard a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) discussed the course of action which should be taken, leaving the couple puzzled.
“There was this exalted breast surgeon advising us to take one course of action and the MDT suggesting that wasn’t the right course of action,” Mr Baker said.
He added: “I think people in the Trust were starting to have concerns about Mr Paterson but we were totally unaware of those concerns.
“So really we were being asked to make a decision without all the facts.
When Chris was diagnosed with breast cancer, she was so calm and had already started to think about the implications on the journey home from hospital. Her main concern was how to break the news to our girls so that they wouldn’t be worried.
“We were still of the belief that Mr Paterson was the best surgeon available.”
A letter presented to the inquest suggested that members of the MDT believed delaying reconstruction until after the second mastectomy was the safest option, and Mr Paterson’s recommendation had a “higher risk” of local recurrence.
Mr Jones asked Mr Baker: “Were you aware of that higher risk?”
Mr Baker answered: “No. It was never fully explained to us what the difference of opinion was.”
In his statement paying tribute to his wife, which was read to the court on his behalf by the coroner, Mr Baker said: “When she had to take early retirement through ill health, she received so many letters and cards from pupils, ex-pupils and staff, thanking her for all the help, support and encouragement she had given them.
“When Chris was diagnosed with breast cancer, she was so calm and had already started to think about the implications on the journey home from hospital. Her main concern was how to break the news to our girls so that they wouldn’t be worried.
“People were amazed by Chris, she was so courageous, uncomplaining and stoical.”
Paterson, originally from Glasgow, who was living in Altrincham in Greater Manchester when he was tried and convicted, was employed by the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust and practised in the private sector at Spire Parkway and Spire Little Aston.
He was appointed as a consultant at Solihull Hospital in 1998 and practised there until May 2011.
The inquest continues.
