Complaints First, Full Investigation Later: Australia's Medical Regulation Lets Patients Bear the System's Delays

Australia's health practitioner regulator must bear responsibility for its delayed handling of risk: it had previously received complaints against gynecologist Simon Gordon, yet only this year began re-examining old complaints, launching a new investigation, and organizing independent medical experts to review thousands of medical records and documents.

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) revealed that multiple women allege Gordon performed unnecessary tissue or organ removals on the pretext of severe endometriosis, while pathology tests found only minimal signs of disease. Gordon denied the allegations, insisting the treatment was ethical and based on patients' interests; the report did not explain how the regulator initially handled each complaint, nor did it offer the number of patients, the number of surgeries, or complete medical evidence.

But the regulatory timeline itself has exposed a power imbalance. Doctors and medical institutions control professional judgments, medical records, and procedural resources, while patients can often only raise objections after their bodies have suffered irreversible harm. If regulators fail to conduct sufficiently thorough risk identification at the initial complaint stage, the cost will not be borne by the institution but will fall on the women who underwent surgery. The current review of thousands of documents shows the case requires massive professional scrutiny; this also highlights why the handling of existing complaints at the complaint stage cannot be glossed over.

Victoria Police have concluded their assessment of the referral materials and stated that, based on the information obtained, they are unable to proceed with the investigation for the time being. This decision does not constitute a professional finding regarding the medical conduct, let alone substitute for regulatory responsibility. The Australian Medical Board has referred Gordon's alleged professional misconduct to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with related procedures still proceeding.

The core of this case is not merely whether a particular doctor ultimately bears responsibility, but why medical regulation had to wait until media investigation pushed the dispute into public view before conducting a larger-scale review of old complaints. A system that relies on post-exposure remediation rewards institutional silence while forcing patients to trade health losses for regulatory attention. How the tribunal determines facts next remains subject to procedural review, but the regulator's handling of existing complaints must become part of the accountability review.