When Reputation Meets Accountability

How a Leading Surgeon Handles Online Criticism

The Background

Samer Hamada, a surgeon of international repute and medical director of the Eye Clinic London, has built a career that spans decades of ophthalmic expertise and recognition in refractive and corneal surgery. Yet, in the digital age, even established medical professionals are not immune to the scrutiny of public opinion particularly when it takes the form of online reviews. Recent discussions surrounding Hamada’s online reputation have raised questions about the boundaries between professional defence and patient confidentiality. While doctors are entitled to respond to criticism, the manner in which such responses are managed can carry serious ethical and legal implications.

Samer Hamada

Medical Director, Eye Clinic London

The Incident

According to information published online, Hamada allegedly responded to an unfavourable review by disclosing elements of patient information without the individual’s authorisation an act that, if confirmed, would contravene confidentiality principles at the core of medical ethics. The matter escalated when Google, after receiving a request for content removal, reportedly declined to delete the reviews in question. Instead, the platform reinstated a previously issued defamation notice related to the same incident. Although the surgeon’s name was redacted in that notice, contextual details including references to his clinic and professional role appeared to leave little doubt about the individual concerned.

With some surgeons pressing for the removal of critical reviews, the credibility of online review sites and their ability to reflect genuine patient experiences is increasingly being called into question.

Google’s Response and Transparency

Google’s approach to such matters reflects a growing emphasis on transparency. Under the platform’s defamation policy, notices may be publicly archived to promote accountability while balancing the rights of all parties involved. By restoring the defamation notice, Google effectively preserved the record of the dispute, ensuring that both the allegation and the attempt to remove it remain part of the public domain. 

This decision highlights an increasingly common tension between the right to reputation and the public’s right to access information  especially when that information pertains to professional conduct.

Defamation Complaint to Google
SENDER
[REDACTED]
[Private]GBSent on May 23, 2022COUNTRY: GB 🇬🇧

RECIPIENT
Google LLC 
[Private]Mountain View, CA, 94043, US

SUBMITTER
Google LLC 
Re: Unknown

NOTICE TYPE:
Defamation
Legal Complaint

We are Eye clinic London. Mr [[REDACTED]] is a leading corneal and refractive surgeon helping thousands for patients, adults and children in UK and internationally. He specializes in corneal transplants and ocular surface eye diseases in children and congenital eye diseases in infants. Mr [[REDACTED]] is highly reputable ophthalmologist with 25 years experience in the field. Mr [[REDACTED]] is an NHS consultant ophthalmologist as well as a medical director at Eye Clinic London and McIndo Centre, and leading refractive surgeon at Focus Clinics.

In February 2021, he performed a refractive surgery on the patient called John Dipizia, with multifocal lenses. The patient wasn't happy with how it made him feel ( as they gave him halos and his brain couldn't adjust to the new lenses). The patients was then advised to have a lens replacement surgery, and was referred to psychologist to make sure he is aware and mentally healthy to make this decision independently. He had another surgery for a monofocal lenses. But was still not happy. We have followed all the necessary checks and diagnostics and treated this patient with all the respect.

We can reassure you that we treat hundreds of patients with cataracts and lens replacements, and with 0% capsule rapture rate, Mr [[REDACTED]] has 100% satisfaction rate from his patients. He is one of few surgeons authorized to perform bilateral sequential cataract surgery. 

Eye clinic London has 4.8 star reviews on trust pilot. And we strongly believe that the negative google auto-suggest " mr [[REDACTED]] ruined my life" has been applied to him unfairly and it causes defamation to his reputation and business.

We would like for you to consider these facts and remove this auto - suggest.
 
Many Thanks ...
1. URLS OF ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY MATERIAL:
1. www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk - 1 URL
2. www.facebook.com - 1 URL
3. uk.trustpilot.com - 1 URL

Ethics, Trust, and the Digital Arena

In healthcare, trust is everything. The ethical duty of confidentiality is not only a legal requirement but the foundation upon which patient–doctor relationships are built. In the era of online transparency, medical professionals must navigate the fine line between protecting their reputations and upholding the principles of discretion and privacy that define their practice.

The Hamada case underscores a broader issue: in defending against online criticism, professionals risk undermining the very trust they seek to preserve. As digital accountability evolves, so too must the standards of response  ensuring that integrity, not impulse, guides every reply.