Wuhan man loses stomach after cancer misdiagnosis
SingTao · 2 SOURCESabout 2 hours ago5 MIN
Summary
A Wuhan man identified as Mr Wu (吳先生) sought help after saying he was wrongly diagnosed with stomach cancer and underwent surgery that resulted in the removal of his entire stomach. Initial findings reportedly pointed to a gastric ulcer, and one pathology report stated that no cancer cells were seen, but a specialist at the second hospital still suspected cancer and recommended major surgery. Seven days after the operation, post-operative pathology found no cancer cells in the removed stomach or in 15 lymph nodes, leaving Mr Wu with long-term complications and a level-five disability rating. A court later ruled that the hospital should bear 60% responsibility and pay 201,083 yuan in losses plus 20,000 yuan for mental distress.
Key Points
- Mr Wu said he was rushed to hospital in Wuhan after severe abdominal pain began suddenly after drinking cold water, with the first diagnosis recorded as a gastric ulcer
- His wife, a nurse at another hospital, showed the gastroscopy report to a gastroenterology professor there, who suspected stomach cancer and advised transfer.
- Although one tissue biopsy report stated that no cancer cells were seen, the second hospital's attending doctor still recommended removing three-quarters of the stomach
- Four hours into surgery, nurses told relatives the plan had been changed from partial removal to total gastrectomy because cancer was strongly suspected.
- Seven days later, pathology found no cancer cells in the entire removed stomach or 15 lymph nodes, and judicial appraisal later found clear medical fault.
Why It Matters
For Hong Kong readers, the case underscores how life-altering treatment decisions can turn on disputed interpretations of scans, endoscopy and pathology, and why informed consent and second-opinion procedures matter in cross-hospital referrals. The relatively modest court award, despite a level-five disability finding and permanent digestive complications, is also likely to fuel debate over whether compensation mechanisms adequately reflect long-term harm after serious medical error.