Few medical professionals divide opinion as fiercely as neurosurgeon Charlie Teo.
The 65-year old is famous or infamous, depending on who you ask.
To his fiance and supporters, he sees the best in people and wants only to give desperate patients more time with their loved ones.
To his critics, he performs surgeries no-one should attempt and sells false hope.
In a five-day hearing before the Health Care Complaint Commission’s Professional Standards Committee, Dr Teo claimed he was among the best in the world at what he does and these superior skills allowed him to understand things other surgeons who gave evidence cannot.
Ironically, he claimed his unrivalled experience is the very reason he is in a precarious position; one where he faces complaints of alleged misconduct towards two terminal patients who died after his “catastrophic” operations.
In his view, if anyone was going to be able to save them, it would likely be him. His legal team claimed he gave a chance of prolonged life to terminal patients that other surgeons were unwilling to risk.
But devastated loved ones who gave evidence claimed that chance was far smaller than he sold.
And to rub salt in a wound, they alleged the true likelihood of a catastrophic outcome was never explained to them.
One man claimed in evidence at the hearing his late wife was rushed into agreeing to the procedure, allegedly being told by Dr Teo: “You’ll be dead by f***ing Friday” without it.
These allegations are simply false, Dr Teo claimed to the hearing. In summary, his evidence was this:
He always explained the risks and their likelihood. These patients were terminal, but his hope was not to save them, it was to prolong their life. Yes, they tragically ended up in a vegetative state and later died. If the patients were willing to take the chance – perhaps their only chance – so was he.
He claimed he never guaranteed the surgeries would not end terribly. He only “instilled hope” about one patient potentially living another eight years once they had agreed to the operation, as he did in fact have patients with similar tumours who went on to live years longer.
It is easy to see why this man sparks such emotional debate.
According to his fiance Traci Griffiths, who was a former patient of Dr Teo’s before the pair began dating 11 years later – his motives were clear.
She told news.com.au: “Charlie always likes to see the best in people. He is one of those people that gives everybody the benefit of the doubt.”
While Ms Griffiths was reluctant to speak more to the media while the hearing was ongoing, her unwavering support of her partner was clear.
Each day, the couple arrived to the hearing hand-in-hand. Sitting in the public seats, she would shake her knee nervously at times and gave her friend a relieved look when Dr Teo was finally able to take the witness stand on Thursday.
Dr Teo’s family were also a strong support presence. His daughter teared up during her father’s evidence as she rocked her baby in a pram.
She told news.com.au she did not want to comment for this story because it was about the patients and the many lives her father had saved.
And it was true many of these patients wanted to be heard.
The dozens of Dr Teo fans who arrived on the first day of the hearing with placards dwindled to a core group of loved ones and brain cancer survivors by the fourth day.
Among their stories was Scott Tomlinson’s, who shared his journey with news.com.au outside the hearing.
Thirteen years ago, the 26-year-old was diagnosed with a terminal Ependymoma – a brain tumour that begins in the cells that line the passageways where the brain is nourished. It was in a devastating spot – growing into and pushing on the brain stem.
One surgeon told him he had only ever done the operation twice. One patient died and the other was left completely paralysed except for the eyes. Another surgeon “couldn’t say where this thing is growing from,” he said.
But “within 10 minutes” of seeing Dr Teo, Mr Tomlinson said he was told exactly how it was growing, how to take it out, and that there were serious risks of paralysis and loss of certain functions.
“If you’re going to die, what do you have to lose?” Mr Tomlinson asked.
“Eventually it’s gonna get you, so you just have to do it”.
The operation cost a handsome sum, but Mr Tomlinson did not specify how much, saying his parents helped him out.
Of course, not everyone has the luxury of affording an expensive surgery – but Dr Teo told news.com.au he “did not even charge” one of the two patients who are the subject of the hearing.
A decade after the surgery, Mr Tomlinson was left with left face paralysis, double vision and balance issues, but he said this was a small price to pay for his life.
“Charlie’s my hero,” he said.
Joanna McNiven had a similar story.
When she kept losing her memory from even the most basic tasks, she discovered she had terminal Leptomeningeal disease, a cancer in the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord.
Overwhelmed and heartbroken, Ms McNiven could not come to terms with news from other neurosurgeons that nothing could be done to prolong her life. That was until she met Dr Teo, who she said told her:
“You could die during the operation, or straight after you might come out but not be able to walk, you might come out and not be able to talk or hear or move or you might not have any of that at all”.
But as she stood with her sign that read, “Teo saved me,” it was clear the surgery was a success.
“Before the surgery they were giving me two months – it has been two years,” she said.
“I feel very strongly about him (Dr Teo). People should have the choice to do the procedure and take that risk if they’re prepared to”.
As the hearing prepares to wrap up Tuesday, those who love or dislike Dr Teo will likely be anxiously anticipating the judgment.
They may be waiting weeks.
There are fewer issues more complex and high-stakes than those of life or death. And at the heart of the complex issue lie many questions. Among them:
What level of risk is acceptable for intricate brain stem surgery?
At what point do the potential benefits outweigh the risks?
How does one ensure this risk is fully understood by patients and their families before they make the most important decision of their life – one that no-one deserves to have to make?
And among the most contentious questions:
Did Dr Teo act negligently to the two patients by selling false hope for an operation that was likely to end terribly and by not conveying this clearly to them, as argued by the HCCC’s legal team?
Or was it, as given in Dr Teo’s evidence, a case of someone with more experience in brain stem surgeries than “almost anyone in the world” who pushed the boundaries most in his field would not, but who made it clear to the patients it may end in tragedy.
Some may be firmly on one side of the fence and others may be sitting hesitantly above.
But ultimately, only the judging panel can decide.