Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:Simon Bramhall pleads guilty to two counts of assault after using argon gas to sign ‘SB’ on patients’ organs 
  
 A surgeon has pleaded guilty to marking his initials on the livers of two patients while performing transplant surgery. 
  
 In a hearing at Birmingham crown court on Wednesday, Simon Bramhall admitted two counts of assault by beating relating to incidents on 9 February and 21 August 2013. He pleaded not guilty to the more serious charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 
  
 The renowned liver, spleen and pancreas surgeon used an argon beam, used to stop livers bleeding during operations and to highlight an area due to be worked on, to sign his initials into the patients’ organs. The marks left by argon are not thought to impair the organ’s function and usually disappear by themselves. 
  
 The 53-year-old was first suspended from his post as a consultant surgeon at Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital in 2013 after a colleague spotted the initials “SB” on an organ during follow-up surgery on one of Bramhall’s patients. 
  
 The following summer, while an internal disciplinary investigation into his conduct was ongoing, Bramhall tendered his resignation. Speaking to the press at the time, he said marking his initials on to his patients’ livers had been a mistake. 
  
 “I had a disciplinary meeting on 15 May. I was not dismissed,” he said. “I made the decision on 16 May I would hand in my notice. It is a bit raw and I have to move on.” 
  
 Speaking after Bramhall’s suspension, Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern, said: “This is a patient we are talking about, not an autograph book.” 
  
 Sitting at the back of the court on Wednesday, Bramhall, wearing a pink shirt and dark suit, spoke to confirm his name and to confirm to the judge that he understood the proceedings. He was granted unconditional bail and will be sentenced on 12 January. 
  
 Prosecuting, Tony Badenoch told the court that it was a “highly unusual and complex case, both within the expert medical testimony served by both sides and in law. It is factually, so far as we have been able to establish, without legal precedent in criminal law. 
  
 “The pleas of guilty now entered represent an acceptance that that which he did was not just ethically wrong but criminally wrong. They reflect the fact that Dr Bramhall’s initialling on a patient’s liver was not an isolated incident but rather a repeated act on two occasions, requiring some skill and concentration. It was done in the presence of colleagues.” 
  
 Badenoch concluded: “It was an intentional application of unlawful force to a patient whilst anaesthetised. His acts in marking the livers of those patients were deliberate and conscious acts … It will be for others to decide whether and to what extent his fitness to practise is impaired.” 
  
 Ordering new victim impact statements and a pre-sentencing report, the judge Paul Farrer QC said the case concerned the “damage that was done to the surface of the liver” and not the emotional damage caused to the patients. 
  
 Elizabeth Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said Bramhall’s actions were an abuse of the trust placed in him by the patients. 
  
 “It was an intentional application of unlawful force to a patient whilst anaesthetised,” she said. “His acts in marking the livers of those patients, in a wholly unnecessary way, were deliberate and conscious acts on his part.” 
  
 In February 2017, Bramhall was issued with a formal warning by the General Medical Council, which said his conduct had not met the standards required of a doctor. 
  
 “It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated,” it said at the time. “Whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on Mr Bramhall’s registration, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning.” 
  
 On Wednesday the GMC said it was standard practice to look into any criminal conviction handed to a doctor. 
  
 Bramhall received media attention in 2010 when he successfully performed transplant surgery using a liver that had been salvaged from a plane that crashed in foggy conditions at Birmingham airport. 
  
 Following reports of Bramhall’s suspension, his former patient Tracy Scriven told the Birmingham Mail that the surgeon should be immediately reinstated. “Even if he did put his initials on a transplanted liver, is it really that bad? I wouldn’t have cared if he did it to me. The man saved my life,” she said. ||||| We Regret To Inform You That A British Surgeon Was Branding His Initials On Livers 
  
 Enlarge this image toggle caption Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images 
  
 The liver is a fascinating thing. 
  
 If you want to read a thought-provoking story about the liver, you might like to learn about the challenges of building a fairer system for allocating access to liver transplants. 
  
 Or the history of efforts to grow "liverettes" in petri dishes. 
  
 Interested in an international, culinary angle? What about Turkey's annual Liver Festival? 
  
 How about a heartwarming story from member station WBUR about a 6-year-old boy who had a bright idea for helping his friend with a rare liver disease? 
  
 The New York Times ran a strange and beautiful essay this summer, about the history of the human liver (the "seat of the human soul" to Mesopotamians) and its strange "inventory of talents. "The liver "sprawls like a beached sea lion," Natalie Angier writes, "likes its bloodlines leaky," keeps track of time through mysterious oscillations. 
  
 It's a great essay. You could go read it now, if you like. 
  
 Or — if you must — you can read about the British surgeon who repeatedly burned his initials into human livers during organ transplants. 
  
 Simon Bramhall, 53, has pleaded guilty to assault of two patients, for, yes, branding his initials onto their organs during surgery. He is going to be sentenced on Jan. 12. 
  
 The Associated Press reports that a prosecutor called the case "without legal precedent in criminal law." 
  
 "Bramhall used an argon beam coagulator, which seals bleeding blood vessels with an electric beam, to mark his initials on the organs," the AP writes. 
  
 The internal graffiti very likely did not cause any damage, The Guardian reports: "The marks left by argon are not thought to impair the organ's function and usually disappear by themselves." 
  
 But in one patient, Bramhall's brand did not heal over. Another surgeon conducting a follow-up surgery discovered the letters S and B etched into the man's organ. An investigation discovered that Bramhall had branded a female patient's liver as well. 
  
 In case you were curious, there were other medical professionals present as Bramhall branded his name on those livers, the BBC reports. It was not an isolated incident, prosecutors said. 
  
 Bramhall's misdeeds were uncovered in 2013. (In early 2014 they inspired a lighthearted post in Marketing Week on effective branding — get it, branding? — because the world is objectively terrible.) 
  
 As he tendered his resignation in 2014, Bramhall said — and we promise we are not making this up; this is what an actual, once well-regarded surgeon said after burning his initials into human livers — "It is a bit raw." 
  
 "I have to move on." 
  
 But we at the Two-Way remained blissfully ignorant of this liver-branding surgeon until this week, when he entered his guilty plea. 
  
 Reactions to his conviction are mixed. A patients' rights advocate told the Guardian, "This is a patient we are talking about, not an autograph book." 
  
 But one of his former patients told the Birmingham Mail, "Even if he did put his initials on a transplanted liver, is it really that bad? I wouldn't have cared if he did it to me. The man saved my life." 
  
 And we are sorry to say that while this may be unprecedented in U.K. criminal courts, this territory has been marked by U.S. doctors before. 
  
 In 2000, a doctor in New York allegedly carved his initials into a woman's abdomen after her C-section. And in 2010, a gynecologist in California allegedly branded a woman's name on her own uterus. Both patients brought civil suits against the doctors. |||||
Solution:
When you're an artist, it's considered customary to sign your work. When you're a surgeon, it's considered bizarre and illegal. Renowned British surgeon Simon Bramhall, who branded his initials on the livers of at least two transplant patients in 2013, pleaded guilty to assault Wednesday, the BBC reports. The liver, spleen, and pancreas surgeon used an argon beam—normally used to stop livers from bleeding or to sketch out areas to be operated on—to brand "SB" on the patients' organs. Such marks usually disappear on their own, but Bramhall's handiwork was discovered when a colleague operated on a patient whose liver had failed to heal normally, the Guardian reports. Bramhall was suspended from Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth Hospital and resigned after a disciplinary hearing in 2014. At Wednesday's hearing, prosecutor Tony Badenoch said the "highly complex and unusual case" was "without legal precedent in criminal law." He added that the branding of initials required "some skill and concentration"—and was carried out in the presence of colleagues. The prosecutor said the guilty plea shows Bramhall accepts what he did to unconscious patients "was not just ethically wrong but criminally wrong." Bramhall will be sentenced next month. NPR notes that while the case was apparently without precedent in Britain, there have been similar incidents in the US, including a 2010 case in which a California gynecologist was sued for branding a patient's name on a uterus he had removed.