A doctor who removed the ovaries of two women without their consent has been allowed to continue practising medicine, following a decision by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) that has sparked outrage.
Dr Ali Shokouh-Amiri, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, admitted to removing the ovaries of two patients while working at Guernsey’s Princess Elizabeth Hospital between 2016 and 2019. One of the patients told the tribunal that the removal of her left ovary without her consent had “ruined her life.” Another said the removal of her ovaries had caused premature menopause.
Despite these admissions, and over 100 allegations of inappropriate behaviour—24 of which were proven—the tribunal ruled that Dr Shokouh-Amiri’s fitness to practise was not impaired. He was issued a formal warning but allowed to continue working. He is currently employed as a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at Mid and South Essex University Hospital.
The allegations against Dr Shokouh-Amiri went beyond unauthorised surgeries. Proven instances include performing intimate examinations without a chaperone, hugging patients, rubbing a patient’s leg, and touching another patient’s clitoris. One patient said he had kissed and hugged her on two separate occasions.
During the tribunal, Dr Shokouh-Amiri argued that his actions were intended as gestures of compassion and support, claiming he was being “friendly in a non-sexual way.” He completed a professional boundaries course and provided testimonials that praised his clinical skills, which the tribunal cited as evidence of his “remorse” and “insight into his failures.”
The tribunal’s decision emphasised that Dr Shokouh-Amiri had taken steps to ensure such incidents would not happen again and considered him a low risk to patients. His “otherwise unblemished career” was also factored into the ruling.
For many, the outcome has raised troubling questions about how the medical system handles breaches of patient trust and bodily autonomy. The decision to allow a doctor who removed organs without consent to continue practising undermines public confidence in the profession and reinforces long-standing concerns about the way women’s healthcare is treated.
Medical ethics emphasise the importance of informed consent, particularly in procedures that directly impact reproductive health. In this case, the removal of ovaries—without any clinical indication in at least one instance—should have triggered severe consequences. Instead, the tribunal’s leniency has sent a chilling message to patients who expect safety and respect in medical settings.
The language used during the tribunal highlighted a familiar pattern in cases involving male authority figures in positions of trust. Dr Shokouh-Amiri’s actions were framed as mistakes from which he had learned, with a focus on his remorse and willingness to improve, rather than the irreversible harm inflicted on his patients. His career trajectory and professional reputation were weighed heavily in his favour, while the trauma experienced by his patients appeared to hold less influence.
The case also exposes the inconsistencies in how misconduct is handled within the medical field. While some healthcare professionals face stringent penalties for far less serious breaches, others—particularly those with established careers—are given opportunities to “redeem” themselves despite causing significant harm.
The tribunal’s decision to focus on Dr Shokouh-Amiri’s career prospects and his so-called “insight” into his misconduct highlights a dangerous double standard. It raises concerns about how often women’s autonomy is dismissed or undermined in medical spaces and how rare it is for such violations to result in meaningful consequences.
The women affected by Dr Shokouh-Amiri’s actions now live with the consequences of surgeries they neither agreed to nor were informed about. One woman, forced into early menopause, has to cope with both the physical and emotional aftermath. Another has to live with the knowledge that a part of her body was taken without her consent.
As Dr Shokouh-Amiri continues practising medicine, these women are left with the trauma of what happened, alongside the knowledge that the system meant to protect them ultimately prioritised a doctor’s career over their bodily autonomy.
The conversation about consent in medicine, particularly in women’s healthcare, is long overdue for serious change. This case serves as a reminder that the systems meant to protect patients often fail them, especially when it comes to safeguarding women’s rights to their own bodies.
