Un chirurgien qui vous veut du bien ?

I feel horrible for these families . I also have personal experience with the bad docs . However - the laws are built to protect docs and patients go unheard .

There are many patients out there with silent voices who are alive but harmed in many ways with no one to compensate them for their loss. Laws need to change to better protect patients . This is why medical malpractice patient boards or groups exist . Very few lawyers are interested in malpractice law for a reason depending on the state . It's because they know it's an uphill battle with very money return for them .

I agree with another reviewer about other docs knowing what was happening and saying nothing . It wasn't only him .

"Bad Surgeon" does one thing above all - shock.

Throughout the entire documentary, you ask yourself how Paolo Macchiarini was able to kill patients negligently for so long with a clear conscience and shamelessly lie to their faces, and how he was able to manipulate the people around him so that he was still highly praised for his "innovative medicine".

The picture of Paolo Macchiarini, who is nothing more than a narcissist who was completely indifferent to the lives of his patients, is painted very nicely here.

Even after his cruel deeds were exposed, Paolo was not aware of any guilt and always took the position that innovations in medicine would require sacrifices.

For my taste, however, they spent too long on Paolo's private life. Yes, it is certainly important to emphasize that Paolo not only deceived people in his job as a surgeon, but also lied to and manipulated people in his private life, but I don't need to know the entire course of his relationships for that.

However, other aspects, such as how Paolo achieved this high status in medicine or how he concealed and falsified everything, are neglected.

Nevertheless, the documentary series is good and serves its purpose.

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.

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.