Doctor penalised for calling mushroom murderer 'disturbed sociopath' after Patterson case

A regional Victorian doctor has been sanctioned by the Medical Board of Australia for disparaging remarks about Erin Patterson, the woman convicted in a mushroom-poisoning case. The board said the physician’s statements in media interviews were inappropriate and ordered a package of training and mentoring to address professional conduct. The conditions require eight hours of training across ethics, privacy, professionalism and social media use, and mentoring by another doctor for five hours a month over the next year. The regulator’s action was taken after a flood of complaints about the doctor’s media appearances and language used in discussing the case.

Patterson, 50, was found guilty in 2023 of murdering her in-laws Don Patterson and Gail Patterson and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, and of attempting to kill Heather Wilkinson’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, by serving a toxic mushroom lunch at her home. Earlier this month she was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of release for at least 33 years. Dr. Chris Webster, who treated the Wilkinsons at a small hospital in Leongatha before they were transferred to a major Melbourne facility, was a key witness in the trial and said he knew Patterson was guilty almost immediately.

In interviews after the verdict, Webster told the BBC that Patterson was a “heinous individual” and described her as a “disturbed sociopathic nut-bag” in a separate Herald Sun piece. The regulator said his public remarks were not about patient confidentiality but were deemed inappropriate professional conduct, particularly given his status as a treating physician connected to the case. Webster told the BBC on Friday that regulators had not found any breach of patient confidentiality since his comments concerned matters already in the public trial record. “As far as my comments go, I stand by them,” he said, adding that the criticism centered on his “salty language” and use of social media while he remains a practicing GP in Leongatha.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) launched the review after a sweep of complaints about Webster’s media interviews and his explicit language. The Medical Board’s registration status for Webster lists the regulatory actions and the conditions described publicly, though the board has not publicly commented in detail beyond the registration notice. Webster said the penalties are onerous and could force him to take a day off each week to travel to Melbourne for appointments, potentially reducing time with patients. Still, he emphasized that he retains the community’s support and plans to continue practicing while complying with the training and supervision requirements.

“I’m not going anywhere. I just have to go back to school,” Webster said, stressing that he believes his clinical skills remain sound. “Ultimately, the community is getting punished as well, and that’s disappointing,” he added. “There’s never been any question about my competency and skills as a doctor. It’s all about my attitude and presentation, and maybe in this modern world, that kind of thinking might be a bit archaic. Doctors are human beings.”

The Patterson case drew national attention to the difficulty of balancing professional restraint with public-facing commentary in high-profile criminal investigations. A recording played at Patterson’s trial captured Webster’s call to police as Patterson discharged herself from hospital against medical advice, a moment that framed the ongoing debate over doctors’ roles in public discourse during ongoing legal proceedings. Patterson’s case has continued to shape discussions about medical ethics, patient confidentiality limits, and the boundaries of medical professionals when discussing outcomes that have become matters of public record.

While Webster defended his right to speak publicly about a case with wide public interest, Ahpra’s review underscored the expectation that physicians maintain a level of restraint in statements that could be seen as sensational or sensationalized, especially when those statements touch on ongoing or resolved legal matters. The regulator stressed that the sanction is designed to reinforce professional standards rather than to punish opinions or attempts to call out perceived injustices. The broader takeaway for the health sector is a reminder that medical professionals operate under a code of conduct that extends beyond the consultation room, including dialogue with the media and social platforms in the digital age.