A doctor was not held criminally responsible for the loss of a patient’s testicle after a forensic expert cast “serious doubt” on the causal link between the first surgery performed by the doctor and the resulting “catastrophe.” 

The court instead concluded that Mater Dei Hospital staff had failed to adequately treat the man when he was urgently referred there for treatment. 

It all started in July 2014 when the patient was admitted to a private hospital for a relatively minor surgical intervention - to remove the cyst that the doctor had discovered during a previous clinical examination. 

Since the growth was beneath the superficial layer of skin, it could be removed by the doctor himself. 

But during the medical procedure, the doctor realized that the cyst was more deeply embedded.

In the process of removing it, the testicle was perforated, causing internal bleeding which the doctor remedied through suturing. 

Following the surgery, the patient returned home.

But that was when his condition took a complicated turn. 

The man began to experience pain which grew increasingly worse. He called the private clinic to speak to his doctor who had since left.

Later that day, the doctor visited the patient at home and sensing that matters called for immediate treatment, he wrote a ticket of referral for urgent admission to Mater Dei Hospital. 

He explained in great detail the circumstances of the case and why the patient needed immediate attention. 

But when the patient turned up at Mater Dei, “he was not given adequate treatment for the condition which developed as a result of the initial surgery,” observed the court when delivering judgment.

Three years later, the patient filed a police report against the doctor who had operated on him to remove the cyst. 

The doctor, now in his fifties, was charged with causing grievous harm to the patient through professional negligence.

The man ultimately needed further surgery to remove the testicle. 

Throughout the criminal proceedings, a medico-legal expert testified that the doctor acted properly when carrying out the procedure at a private clinic.

It was not a complicated procedure calling for some particular degree of specialization. Nor did the doctor handle the surgery without being competent to do so. 

When admitted to Mater Dei Hospital, the patient was examined by a female doctor.

“Obviously following that examination…..he did not get adequate treatment,” said forensic doctor Mario Scerri. 

A second intervention was performed but the situation was not “addressed in a professional manner.”

Had the second surgery been done properly “the catastrophe would not have occurred,” concluded Scerri. 

The court presided over by Magistrate Jean Paul Grech, found no reason not to abide by the expert’s reasoning and evaluation of the case. 

Although had the first surgery been done properly the testicle would not have been impacted, that did not automatically mean that the doctor was negligent. 

Citing case law, the court observed that the doctor had taken all necessary steps to stop the bleeding and did not ignore the patient’s complaint when his condition took a turn for the worse. 

In fact, he visited the patient at home and referred him to Mater Dei in urgency, giving full details of his condition.

There was no negligence in that regard and it was doubtful whether the doctor could be held criminally responsible. 

Moreover, in light of what the court expert reported, there was “serious doubt as to whether the surgery performed by the defendant was the actual cause of the loss of the testicle.”

“Had the second surgery been conducted in a clinically correct manner, that loss could have been avoided,” said the court.

Since the causal link between the doctor’s medical intervention and the damage suffered by the patient was lacking, the court pronounced an acquittal. 

The court ordered a ban on both parties’ names. 

Lawyers Joe Giglio and Mattea Giglio were defence counsel.