It is alleged that after the procedure, Goldman applied a bandage to the baby boy and instructed the parents to keep his nappy on for four hours.
Goldman then advised the family he was travelling interstate and provided no on-call coverage after he left their home, they told the committee.
When the parents removed their son’s nappy four hours later, they said they discovered “significant bleeding”. They said they contacted Goldman and he advised them to travel to a hospital 40 minutes away for a review. The baby required stitches and a blood transfusion at the hospital.
The family in the second case also raised concerns about Goldman’s hygiene practices and claimed he washed his hands in the kitchen sink and used a tea towel to dry them before performing the procedure.
Goldman told the committee that bleeding requiring sutures was not a sign of any error, but that sutures were required in a small number of circumcision cases.
He denied telling the infant’s parents that they should not remove his nappy for four hours after the circumcision.
Goldman said he told the parents to check the infant during routine nappy changes within four hours of the procedure.
He also denied he had poor hygiene and submitted that he used surgical antiseptic after washing his hands with soap and water and dried them on a clean tea towel supplied by the baby’s parents.
In the first case, Goldman maintains that a partial amputation – not full – occurred but acknowledged the seriousness of this complication. He also denied the parents’ claims he performed the circumcision in poor lighting.
The doctor submitted to the tribunal that he should be allowed to continue performing circumcisions in clinical settings only, and not in people’s homes, while the appeal process was ongoing.
Goldman told VCAT he had performed circumcisions for 40 years, and that what he referred to as the partial amputation was his first major complication in that time.
He argued he would suffer a “devastating financial impact” if he was banned from performing circumcisions. It would also have a detrimental impact on the Jewish and non-Jewish community, as half his clients were Muslim, he said.
But VCAT deputy president Ian Proctor said the evidence did not give him confidence that the serious risk posed by Goldman could be satisfactorily reduced by banning only in-home religious procedures.
“The paramount principle of the protection of the public and public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners outweighs Dr Goldman’s personal interest in continuing his circumcision practice and community interest in him being able to do so,” Proctor said.
The substantive appeal will be heard at a later date.