In a first letter dated 16 December, the Medical College noted what the Minister described as relatively serious facts and indicated that this was not an isolated case. At that stage, the College had already begun its investigation, hearing from two orthopaedic surgeons and a radiologist. The College told the Minister that it would follow up once all necessary information had been collected.
By then, the panel had warned Minister Deprez that, due to the invasive and irreversible nature of the procedures and the risk of recurrence, patient health and safety could be seriously compromised if Dr Wilmes continued practising. A second letter from the College also included correspondence from doctors at the CHL, which RTL had previously reported. Based on the two letters, the Minister decided to provisionally suspend Dr Wilmes. The letters referred to mutilations, with the second letter noting that the scale of the alleged acts was being confirmed.
The Ministry said all procedures were followed and that Dr Wilmes’ defence rights were respected. He was heard and able to review the file with his lawyer, which had been received from the Medical College.
Minister Deprez said that, without the decision to temporarily suspend Dr Wilmes, she would not have correctly applied Article 16, paragraph 2, of the law on the medical profession. “If I had not taken that decision, I would, firstly, not have been respecting Article 16, paragraph 2, and secondly, we would have exposed all the patients who were operated on in the interim period to the suspicions raised by the Medical College once again”, she told the committee.
Deprez added that the Medical College is a serious body and is not known for making frivolous accusations. She emphasised that the presumption of innocence applies and that it is not yet known whether a prosecution will follow. The matter could be clarified in the coming days and weeks. The Minister also highlighted that Luxembourg has various mechanisms in place to guarantee quality in healthcare. She emphasised: “It is not due to a procedural flaw that the case is fundamentally incorrect.”
