Australia's health regulator AHPRA has dismissed multiple women's complaints against an endometriosis surgeon, even refusing to accept concerns from senior medical colleagues, in a case that exposes systemic failures in protecting patients from potentially harmful practitioners.
An ABC Four Corners investigation reveals that AHPRA told doctors their medical opinions about Dr. Simon Gordon's questionable surgeries didn't matter — only patient complaints counted. Then the regulator dismissed those patient complaints too.
Mate, this is how regulatory capture works in Australian healthcare. When the body meant to protect patients won't listen to doctors or patients, you have to ask who they're actually protecting.
The case centers on Dr. Simon Gordon, an endometriosis surgeon whose treatment of multiple patients has raised serious concerns among medical colleagues. According to a professor interviewed by Four Corners, "The patient comes back with more pain, and Dr. Gordon does an operation again to excise scar tissue that he created" — then tells patients it was "very severe endometriosis" he removed.
This is a pattern that should trigger immediate regulatory attention: repeat surgeries to fix complications from previous surgeries, with patients experiencing worsening outcomes. Yet AHPRA appears to have shown little interest in investigating.
Even more troubling, when a senior medical colleague attempted to raise concerns about Dr. Gordon with AHPRA, the regulator reportedly said it "did not want doctor-led complaints" and insisted complaints had to come from patients themselves.
This is backwards. Medical professionals are often the first to recognize when a colleague's practice falls below acceptable standards. Dismissing doctor-led complaints means AHPRA is willfully ignoring one of its most important sources of information about practitioner competence.
So the professor advised patients to contact AHPRA directly. They did. And AHPRA effectively dismissed their complaints as "your word against his."
The phrase captures the impossible position patients are placed in. They lack medical training to prove their surgeon made errors. They're often vulnerable, in pain, and desperate for treatment. When they report concerns, they're told it's a matter of opinion — despite multiple patients reporting similar experiences and medical colleagues confirming the concerns.
For women with endometriosis, the stakes are particularly high. The condition is frequently dismissed and poorly understood, leaving patients to navigate a medical system that often doesn't take their pain seriously. Finding a surgeon who claims expertise in treating endometriosis can feel like salvation — making the betrayal even more severe when treatment causes harm.
The Four Corners investigation raises systemic questions about AHPRA's effectiveness. If the regulator won't accept complaints from doctors, won't properly investigate complaints from patients, and defaults to protecting practitioners over public safety, what exactly is it regulating?
Patient safety depends on robust professional oversight. When regulators are more concerned with protecting practitioners from complaints than protecting patients from harm, the system has failed its fundamental purpose.
The case also highlights the particular vulnerability of patients seeking treatment for conditions that mainstream medicine has historically ignored or minimized. Endometriosis affects roughly 10 percent of women, yet research and quality care remain inadequate. That creates opportunities for practitioners to operate without proper scrutiny.
AHPRA's handling of this case suggests the regulator needs regulatory oversight itself. Until it takes complaints seriously — from both patients and medical colleagues — Australians cannot trust that the health system is effectively protecting them from dangerous practitioners.
