Surgeon Tony Dixon has been permanently removed from the UK medical register after performing unnecessary bowel operations on more than 200 patients. Many were left in long-term pain, with investigations concluding that surgeries were carried out without proper justification – and, crucially, without informed consent.
Read the full story in this BBC article: Bristol surgeon struck off after bowel patients left in agony – BBC News
What surgery was Tony Dixon responsible for?
Between 2007 and 2017, Mr Dixon routinely used a surgical technique called mesh rectopexy to treat bowel conditions. However, it later emerged that many of these procedures were not necessary and that there were alternatives. In several cases, patients had not given informed consent.
Key findings from two medical tribunals included:
- Failure to properly inform patients of risks and alternatives
- Conducting surgery where non-surgical options were appropriate
- Falsifying patient records to mislead future reviews
- Inadequate post-operative care
Mr Dixon denied wrongdoing, but the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found that he showed a persistent lack of insight into the harm caused, and prioritised protecting his own reputation over patient welfare.
What does the law say about Surgical Consent?
This is another case which highlights the importance of informed consent, and what it includes. It is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the law on consent, drawing on the judgments in the cases of Montgomery and Chester:
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015)
A Supreme Court ruling established that doctors must ensure patients are aware of any material risks involved in a proposed treatment, and of reasonable alternatives. It marked a clear move away from the old paternalistic model, where doctors decided what was best for the patient.
In Montgomery, a diabetic mother was not warned of the risks of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery. The court found that the doctor’s failure to disclose those risks denied her the opportunity to make an informed choice.
- Chester v Afshar (2004)
A neurosurgeon failed to warn a patient of a small but serious risk associated with spinal surgery. The patient suffered injury – and although the risk was not due to negligence in the surgery itself, the House of Lords ruled in favour of the patient, reinforcing the doctor’s duty to inform.
Has Tony Dixon been struck off?
As a result of the findings, the MPTS struck Tony Dixon off the medical register. Despite some former patients and colleagues defending his past reputation, the tribunal ruled that the seriousness of his misconduct – including dishonesty and disregard for patient autonomy – demanded the strongest possible sanction.
Why this matters
This case underscores a critical lesson: Patients are not passive recipients of care; they are decision-makers in their own treatment. They should be consulted before any treatment is provided, and have all information they need to make an informed decision about their own care. Informed consent is not just a checkbox – it’s a fundamental ethical and legal requirement.