The admission by the Cyprus Medical Association (CMA) that it had previously examined a case linked to allegations against a gynaecologist accused of medical negligence, unnecessary procedures and delayed diagnoses has renewed scrutiny over how patients are protected while legal proceedings remain unresolved.
The issue follows revelations published by Politis involving five women who have raised concerns about medical treatment provided by the same doctor. The first civil lawsuit was filed in 2024, yet the hearing is not expected to begin until mid-2027. During that period, additional complaints emerged.
The cases go beyond disputed surgeries. One involves a 37-year-old mother who died from cervical cancer in January 2025, with her family alleging that symptoms were attributed to infection and cervicitis for 14 months before another doctor diagnosed stage-three cancer. Another concerns a 26-year-old woman who, following a laparotomy in 2026, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer by a second gynaecologist less than 20 days later and ultimately lost an ovary.
Three other women have questioned the necessity of surgical procedures, alleging inadequate information, inconsistencies in test findings and discrepancies in medical records. None of these allegations constitutes proof of medical negligence. Collectively, however, they raise questions about oversight and accountability.
Complaints dating back to 2024
Complaints had already been submitted to authorities before the latest revelations.
Alongside the civil claim filed in 2024, a complaint was lodged with the Health Insurance Organisation (HIO), while another patient approached the Cyprus Medical Association.
In early 2025, the family of the deceased woman filed a complaint with the CMA and also contacted police. In 2026, the 26-year-old woman submitted complaints both to the CMA and to the hospital where she underwent surgery.
While the sequence of events does not prove that later cases could have been prevented, it raises legitimate questions about what actions were taken and when.
What exactly did the CMA investigate?
Commenting on the allegations, Dr Michalis Anastasiades, chairman of the CMA's Medical Ethics Committee, told state television that the association had previously examined a case which he believed was connected to the matter.
However, he did not specify which complaint had been reviewed or what conclusions were reached.
Anastasiades cited the presumption of innocence and the need to await judicial findings, while acknowledging that disciplinary proceedings can, in exceptional circumstances, proceed alongside court cases.
The article points to Section 5 of the Medical Practitioners Law, which allows for the appointment of an investigating officer when a possible disciplinary offence is reported and does not generally require a final court judgment before an inquiry begins.
The distinction, the article argues, is between disciplinary investigation and the far more serious step of suspending a practitioner's licence.
The question facing the CMA is therefore not only whether it can act, but how it has used the powers already available to it.
Debate over legislative gaps
Anastasiades said the CMA had previously sought legislative amendments that would allow courts to order the temporary suspension of a doctor's licence in exceptionally serious cases.
According to him, the Legal Service raised constitutional concerns about such a proposal.
The debate, however, is not about automatically suspending every doctor who faces a complaint. Rather, it centres on whether sufficient safeguards exist to protect patients while serious allegations are being assessed.
Delays are not a new problem
The article notes that delayed disciplinary action is not unprecedented.
It highlights the case of gastroenterologist Pavlos Antoniou, who was convicted in March 2024 and sentenced to four months' imprisonment for indecent assaults against a patient.
Although he had already served his sentence, his medical licence was not suspended until September 2025, approximately 18 months after the conviction and only after his appeal had been dismissed.
The three-year suspension remains in force.
That case, the article argues, raises broader questions about the speed and effectiveness of disciplinary procedures.
While legislative reform may be needed, it suggests that discussions about legal gaps should not obscure a separate issue: whether existing powers are being fully utilised to safeguard patients while investigations and court proceedings remain ongoing.
