Throughout my career as a board-certified colorectal surgeon, I have prided myself on my commitment to providing high-quality patient care and upholding professional integrity. As a long-standing member of a major surgical society, I have always believed in the mission to foster excellence in the field of surgery. However, my relationship with that organization took a challenging turn when I was placed on probation after testifying in a medical malpractice case. This experience not only tested my professional ethics but also highlighted the complex interplay between medical societies, individual rights, and organizational loyalty.

The case: a clear breach of standard of care

The medical malpractice case in question involved a surgeon who had misplaced a central venous catheter (CVC), leading to a devastating stroke for the patient. The misplacement of the CVC was a clear breach of the standard of care in the procedure, and I was called upon to testify as an expert witness. My review of the case, including patient records, medical imaging, and the testimonies of both the treating neurologist and a second surgeon who removed the misplaced catheter two months later, led me to the conclusion that the stroke was a direct result of the central line misplacement.

The neurologist confirmed that the stroke was caused by the misplaced catheter, and the second surgeon, who was brought in to remove the CVC, supported this view. Together, we concluded that the surgeon who had originally placed the line had not adhered to the established protocols for central line placement, which directly led to the patient’s stroke. My testimony was based on these facts and the well-established medical guidelines that govern such procedures.

The defense: a jury verdict in favor of the defendant

Despite the clarity of the medical evidence supporting my position, the defense team for the surgeon being sued struggled to find a credible expert witness to support the argument that no breach of care had occurred. Nevertheless, the defense attorneys were able to present an alternative theory, suggesting that other factors could have led to the patient’s stroke. Ultimately, the jury sided with the defendant surgeon, who was acquitted of negligence, despite the overwhelming medical evidence supporting the breach of care.

This outcome was particularly frustrating for me, given the strength of the medical facts and expert testimonies. As a medical professional, it is always challenging to accept a verdict that runs counter to the truth, especially when it involves a clear breach of standard practice that resulted in patient harm.

The formal complaint and the disciplinary review

Following the trial, the surgeon involved in the case filed a formal complaint against me, claiming that I was the “driver of the lawsuit” and accusing me of providing “circular” opinions that were not “data-driven.” This accusation was both unwarranted and frustrating, as my testimony was based on solid clinical evidence and widely accepted medical standards.

When I was summoned to appear before a disciplinary committee, I knew the situation would be difficult. During the hearing, it became apparent that the committee members were not particularly receptive to my testimony, despite the strength of the evidence I presented. Their questions, tone, and body language all suggested an underlying discomfort with the idea of one member being openly criticized by another. It was clear that there was a strong bias in favor of supporting the surgeon involved, regardless of the merits of my testimony.

Despite my best efforts to explain the medical facts and the rationale behind my expert opinion, I could sense that the committee was not fully engaged with the substance of my testimony. Instead, their focus seemed to be on the professional implications of testifying against a fellow colleague. This sense of institutional bias made it clear that the organization prioritized internal cohesion over an impartial review of the case.

The outcome: probation and ongoing professional challenges

Without any formal explanation, I was placed on probation for a year. I was allowed to retain my membership and fellowship status, which was a relief, as those statuses are typically revoked when there is evidence of deceit or dishonesty in expert testimony. However, the probation served as a public reprimand, and the experience left me feeling disillusioned with the institution I had long respected.

The lack of clarity regarding the reasons for my probation and the absence of a formal explanation during the hearing only added to my frustration. While I was grateful not to lose my fellowship status, the lack of transparency in the organization’s decision-making process made it difficult to understand the rationale behind the disciplinary action. This left me with the sense that institutional interests—namely, preserving the image of the organization—had taken precedence over a fair and ethical review of the facts.

Observing the larger issues: organizational dynamics and professional integrity

This experience forced me to confront the complex relationships between medical societies, professional ethics, and the legal system. As a surgeon, my primary duty is to my patients and to the truth, not to any individual or institution. However, it became clear that organizations designed to support surgeons and elevate the profession sometimes struggle when their members are involved in legal disputes.

In this case, the decision to place me on probation seemed to be driven not by the merits of my testimony, but by the desire to protect a fellow member. This kind of conflict of interest presented a moral dilemma. Should I have prioritized the truth and the patient’s well-being, or allowed professional loyalty to determine my actions? My decision to testify truthfully led to personal consequences that were difficult to bear.

The handling of the situation also exposed a broader issue in how professional societies navigate internal complaints. Rather than promoting transparency and objectivity, the process appeared focused on shielding reputations. This left me questioning whether such organizations can truly balance advocacy for their members with the responsibility to uphold high standards of care.

Moving forward: a renewed commitment to truth and integrity

Despite the challenges I faced, my commitment to professional integrity remains unchanged. I continue to advocate for honesty, transparency, and accountability in both clinical care and expert testimony. This experience underscored that the legal and medical systems do not always align, and that truth does not always prevail, even when supported by facts.

Looking back, the disciplinary action reinforced the importance of standing by my convictions—even when doing so results in professional and personal hardship. While I respect the role professional organizations play in supporting physicians, I also believe our foremost duty is to our patients and to the truth.

My experience

My journey through this ordeal was transformative. It revealed the often unseen tensions between personal ethics and institutional loyalty. Although I was placed on probation, I remain steadfast in my commitment to data-driven, honest expert testimony and prioritizing patient safety. As medical professionals, we must maintain our standards—even under pressure—and defend truth and justice in all settings.

At the conclusion of my probationary period, I chose not to renew my membership with the organization. This decision was influenced in part by the reporting of the event to the National Practitioner Data Bank, a record with potential long-term implications for my career. While I understand the importance of such institutions, I could not ignore the impression that the organization was, in some ways, discouraging honest surgeons from testifying in support of patients. The handling of my case suggested a greater interest in protecting reputations than cultivating a culture of accountability. For me, that realization was critical.

I remain committed to my duty as both a surgeon and expert witness—focused on advocating for patients and speaking the truth, regardless of the personal or professional consequences. The legal and medical systems are not always in sync, but as health care professionals, our obligation is to protect those in need, especially when they are most vulnerable.

Stephen M. Cohen is a surgeon.