I've read most of the recent autobiographies by top British doctors (including Henry's) and they all have sour stories to tell around facing panels of bureaucrats (full on courtroom sagas, no - they're not a common feature of British medical justice).

It never seemed to be lawsuits that soured them on the profession, though, but targets and bureaucracy. Even amongst doctors I know, most woes are pinned down to the NHS's modern addiction to statistics to judge everything.

I believe it was Henry himself who lamented that he was always happy to take on complex, last ditch "you might as well operate, they're dying anyway" cases and he frequently pulled off miracles. In a statistics driven system, though, it looks very bad and you can lose funding (or even your job) if a certain percentage of your patients die, so why perform such risky operations when you can let them die naturally? This is hugely demoralizing to the sort of people who become high end surgeons and early retirement is common.

This, I think, was the most poignant passage of the article:

"She would be added to the list of my disasters – another headstone in that cemetery which the French surgeon Leriche once said all surgeons carry within themselves."

The unfortunate situation is that the more transparent the medical system, the easier it is to lose faith in it - yet ultimately you get better outcomes with such transparency.