A UK surgeon struck off after a catastrophic bowel operation left a patient facing death had also failed to act on repeated warnings during recovery, according to reports of the disciplinary case. The ruling concerns not only what happened in the operating theatre, but how serious concerns from nurses and relatives went unanswered for roughly three weeks.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service erased Dr Yasser Adly Abdel Rahman from the medical register on July 22, 2026, over misconduct linked to the surgery and a separate employment matter. Erasure means he can no longer practise medicine in the UK.
What happened during the emergency operation?
Patient A, who has not been publicly identified, was admitted to Royal Oldham Hospital with severe abdominal problems and underwent emergency surgery on August 25, 2020. Abdel Rahman was working there as a locum consultant rather than as a permanent member of the hospital’s consultant staff.
During the procedure, he incorrectly joined the patient’s stomach and small bowel, creating a closed loop. Bowel contents could not move normally through the digestive system and could only return toward the stomach.
Published accounts differ on one anatomical detail. The original reporting described Abdel Rahman as making a second incorrect connection, while Doctors.net.uk and Fletchers reported that another section of small bowel was left unattached inside the abdominal cavity. The central finding is consistent: the reconstruction could not function safely and placed the patient’s life at immediate risk.
Consultant colorectal surgeon Anthony Blower, who provided expert evidence for the General Medical Council, described the errors as being at “the extreme end of surgical error” and “as bad as it gets for a consultant surgeon.” He also called the procedure “not known to man.”
In a report cited during the case, Blower said the operation was “totally unconventional” and “not compatible with life,” adding that it would have led directly to the patient’s death without further intervention.
Why did corrective surgery take three weeks?
The danger did not end when the first operation was completed. The tribunal found that Abdel Rahman failed to respond adequately as Patient A experienced worsening pain and other signs that the recovery was going badly.
Nursing staff and the patient’s family repeatedly raised concerns, but another consultant did not take over the case until about three weeks after the August 25 procedure. That surgeon, identified in tribunal reporting only as Mr D, performed emergency corrective surgery and discovered the original errors.
Blower concluded that Patient A would have died during the post-operative period without Mr D’s intervention. The second operation therefore became more than a correction. It was the point at which a preventable surgical disaster was finally stopped from becoming fatal.
The available reporting does not explain why the warnings failed to trigger earlier action. The tribunal’s findings focused on Abdel Rahman’s failures, but the delay also leaves an important hospital-governance question: how concerns from staff and relatives could be raised repeatedly without producing an effective response sooner.
Francesca Paul, a partner at Fletchers, said the findings showed “repeated failures” in both the patient’s treatment and aftercare. She also questioned how Abdel Rahman had been allowed to continue caring for patients.
How did work in Ireland affect the case?
The disciplinary proceedings also examined Abdel Rahman’s employment while he was subject to professional restrictions. The General Medical Council register had previously shown that he did not hold a licence to practise and was working under conditions from July 15, 2025.
Those restrictions required him to:
- Work below consultant level and under close supervision
- Avoid locum contracts lasting less than four weeks
- Notify the General Medical Council before accepting posts or applying to work abroad
- Obtain approval before carrying out non-NHS work
Fletchers reported that Abdel Rahman breached the restrictions by working in Ireland without the required notification and was dishonest when questioned about that employment.
That part of the case was not a minor administrative addition. Professional restrictions depend on employers and regulators receiving accurate information, particularly when a doctor moves between countries. The Irish employment raised a broader patient-safety concern about how a doctor facing limits in the UK was able to obtain work elsewhere without the required notice reaching the regulator.
The tribunal concluded that Abdel Rahman had shown no meaningful insight into his conduct and had not demonstrated adequate remediation. Combined with the severity of the surgical failures and the later dishonesty, that left the panel unconvinced that lesser sanctions could protect patients or maintain confidence in the profession.
What is the surgeon’s status now?
As of August 5, 2026, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service continued to record the July 22 outcome as erasure for misconduct. Its full written decision had not yet been published, although the service says detailed findings are normally released within 28 days.
The confirmed outcome is that Abdel Rahman’s name has been removed from the UK medical register. For Patient A, the lasting fact is more personal: survival depended on another surgeon recognizing and reversing an operation that expert evidence said could never have sustained life.
