Bad Surgeon: Love Under the Knife

I'll start by saying that the romance fraud was actually laughable, particularly for an intelligent, world class journalist who met the Paolo doing a story on him. She should be ashamed that she let her journalistic integrity fly right out the window because he threw romantic magic dust at her and she was in such a trance that she was unable to do even the minimum amount of background checking to see if he was who he claimed to be;not even a Google search. Yet, she thinks the real story is about her romantic entanglement with a married man and a doctor of fraudulent and criminal conduct;a murderer. Interestingly, when the New York Times story emerged concerning his scientific misconduct, her mind went to pondering whether she was still getting married.

Once the story progressed beyond Benita's shallow perspective, I realized that what at first seemed like the backstory story was really the suck, criminal and immoral tale of a mad scientist. I'm so sorry for the families who lost loved ones only to later have the pain amplified by the unconscionable acts of a mad scientist.

The heroes were obviously the scientists and doctors who called out his work and the journalists who researched and told this sordid tale. Well done.

I was utterly engrossed in this story. But the third episode, during which Dr. Macchiarini is publicly discovered as a fraud in his professional and personal life, ends abruptly and without answering most of the questions the documentary raises. Did the filmmakers run out of money, interest or time? They spent endless hours interviewing Benita Alexander and telling every detail of her personal story. They were conscientious about giving time to his peers at the Karolinksa Institute who risked their careers and reputations, and the Swedish documentarians who researched the story methodically for over a year. So then, why do they give the viewer a "wrap-up" that is neither expository nor analytical? They give us a few black screens with an epilogue that only focuses on Dr. Macchiarini's subsequent court cases in Sweden. While the results are initially disappointing (subsequent appeals make them seem more just...maybe), the viewer is sidestep giving the viewer any resolution that reflects the material presented throughout the documentary. The problem with the documentary is that Dr. Macchiarini's story, specifically the damage he did to his patients and the complicity of the medical establishment, was NOT the focus of the documentary as it should have been. He committed crimes. He was a reckless and narcissistic doctor who broke myriad rules in medicine. The tragedy of this story should have been his professional hubris and the danger that "superstardom" in medicine creates. Honestly, the documentary's focus on the women - their "shattered" lives - was a poor choice. Was it for ratings? There was certainly enough medical intrigue that the jilted lover angle wasn't necessary. And, indeed, the amount of time spent on the personal relationships angle of the documentary should have, at least for consistency, given a recap of all the individual women who were duped. I could imagine them considering a reality TV style "tell all" show. Thankfully, they did not do that. But they also failed to give the viewer something that resolved all the troubling questions they touch upon throughout the documentary when they do focus on his professional work. I found myself craving a table that listed every statement or assertion about him with a "true or not". For example, related to important medical issues, did Dr. M. have all the accreditations he said he did? Did anyone find animal research that preceded the implants in humans? What is the backstory of the development of the plastic trachea? Who signed off on it and where? Were they prosecuted? Is he still working somewhere? I realize not all of these are True/False questions but they should have been answered if the documentary makers were even remotely interested in exposing a medical charlatan. I think the documentary makers had an obligation (given the Netflix hype and surprisingly positive reviews) to deliver on more facts to complete the story.

I live in Denmark and have seen the swedish documentary that is mentioned in episode 3. And to be honest, that one is so much better. I don't understand the overwhelming focus on him cheating and lying to the women. Is it awful? Yes. But that happens every single day...

This is a surgeon who disregarded every single.. He.. I don't even have the words for what he did.

The Karolinska institute who is responsible for the Nobel price, chooses to back him up. Why is that not investigated more? Why don't they dive into that?

What was he doing before he "invented" this groundbreaking device? What were his accolades? Why did everybody just trust him?

But no.. Out of the three hours they used on this documentary, they spend half of it on his girlfriends.

They could have done SO much with this. I still want people to watch it, but if you have access to the Swedish one, watch that one instead.

9 stars for exposing this story.

This is a story about a man who is a sociopath, a highly skilled con man, who is also a surgeon. He has delusion of grandeur and his arrogance is off the scale. To summarize this all - he is mentally deviated.

Now, the main question is how his fellow surgeons and assistants and nurses and other staff had remained oblivious of the true nature of his surgeries. Not a word is said about stem cell collection and its subsequent application to the plastic tracheas. Stem cells collection is not a simple process. So was it done or not? Documentary is silent about it. That is why it is unclear how the entire team of medical professionals at Karolinska (and in Russia) went along with assisting the implantation of plastic tubes, as if they were operating on dummies, not living and breathing human beings. I refuse to believe they didn't know what was happening.

As for the women, nothing is new here.

I thoroughly enjoyed this mini documentary series and found it a well-made case study of a narcissistic psychopath.

I don't understand those reviewers who complain about there being too much focus on the women he duped. For me, that was all part of the tapestry of his character and his modus operandi. He acted in a similar way in both his professional and personal life, slowly weaving a web of lies with his narcissistic charm, and this was the point of the entire documentary.

I don't see that the journalist Benita glorified him in any way at all, she was just describing how she fell for the manipulations and lovebombing of a narcissist. This is, sadly, a very common thing, as narcissistic psychopaths can be extremely charming and fool people very well. That is the entire point.

All in all, an intriguing and well-balanced character study that is excruciatingly harrowing to watch. You can feel your gut wrench as the extent of his is scheming is slowly revealed, just like it probably was for his victims.