Passionate public and professional support for controversial brain surgeon Charlie Teo may hold little weight in the decision whether to impose a professional reprimand and conditions on him.
Dr Teo faced a final hearing in Sydney on Wednesday over his alleged conduct during and around two surgeries that left patients with catastrophic brain damage.
Allegations include that Dr Teo failed to properly inform his patients of the risks involved with surgery, failed to gain proper patient consent, slapped one of his patients in the face and used unprofessional language during consultations.
Letters of support for Dr Teo from ten overseas-based neurosurgeons and 47 former patients and their families were tendered to the board, along with three emails and one letter of support from Australian medical professionals.
No formal statements of support were provided by Australian-based neurosurgeons despite Dr Teo reaching out to two of his colleagues, the hearing was told.
Commission junior counsel, Megan Caristo submitted the expert panel give "little weight" to the material as they don't relate specifically to the complaints facing Dr Teo.
"There is not anything in those letters or statements on their face to show the authors...were aware of the complaints and their particulars" Ms Caristo said.
Dr Teo has previously admitted he did something during surgery that caused the injuries to the women, but firmly rejected suggestions he was negligent.
"I also want to try to understand why the patient had a bad outcome," Dr Teo told the inquiry on Tuesday.
"Clearly I've gone too far somewhere.
"I think that I've probably gone across the midline, one to one and a half millimetres ... but that's enough to damage a patient when you're doing surgery in this area."
On Tuesday, the Commission's counsel Kate Richardson accused Dr Teo of deliberately lying in his evidence about how much he told one of the patients and her husband about the risks involved with surgery.
Ms Richardson told the hearing Dr Teo had initially admitted to disclosing just a five per cent risk of death or other serious complications, which he later tried to suggest included telling them there was a 100 per cent chance of paralysis.
Expert neurosurgeon witnesses, including one called in Dr Teo's defence, told the inquiry the risk of paralysis, death or locked in syndrome was likely about 60 per cent.
"He was being untruthful with this committee and he was deliberately being untruthful in order to sidestep the evidence of his own witness," Ms Richardson said.
The husband claims Dr Teo gave the couple no indication the procedure could go badly and convinced them to consent to the operation with less than 24 hours notice.
Ms Richardson said Dr Teo lacked the empathy and insight to understand why the man had lodged a complaint against him, having told media he was likely "hoodwinked" into doing so.
The hearing is expected to wrap up on Wednesday before a decision is made by a four-person Professional Standards Committee.
