NHS Doctor Accuses Tribunal of Bias Over Antisemitism Allegations

An NHS doctor, Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, has alleged bias from a medical tribunal panel that is reviewing her case concerning alleged antisemitic comments made on social media. The accusations stem from her statements following the attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, which she described as a moment when Israel was “humiliated.” The investigation into Dr. Aladwan’s conduct is being conducted by the General Medical Council (GMC) due to concerns about her fitness to practice.

Dr. Aladwan, a 31-year-old trainee trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, arrived at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in Manchester wearing a distinctive gold necklace with a “number seven” charm. She has referred to the necklace as “celebratory jewellery” in previous posts. The interim orders tribunal (IOT) is set to last three days to determine whether any restrictions should be placed on her medical registration while the investigation continues.

The controversy escalated after Dr. Aladwan made statements on social media that included comments comparing Israelis to “Nazis” and referring to the Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit.” A previous IOT in September determined that there was insufficient evidence to impose any restrictions on her practice, concluding that the allegations did not suggest a real risk to patients. This prompted UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting to criticize the comments, asserting that such views have no place within the NHS and promising reforms to address antisemitism in medical regulation.

In light of the continuing investigation, the GMC has referred Dr. Aladwan’s case back to the MPTS. During the current hearing, her counsel, Kevin Saunders, sought to have the proceedings paused, arguing that the GMC had committed an “abuse of process” and claiming that Dr. Aladwan would not receive a fair hearing. He also accused the GMC of yielding to external pressures from groups like the Campaign Against Antisemitism.

Saunders further requested that the MPTS panel recuse itself on the grounds of “apparent bias,” although he did not claim actual bias. He expressed concerns that the panel’s decision-making process lacked transparency and that the outcome could be perceived as a “foregone conclusion.”

In response, Emma Gilsenan, representing the GMC, countered that Saunders was attempting to relitigate previous arguments. She defended the tribunal’s earlier decision as “well-reasoned” and denied any appearance of bias. Gilsenan pointed to Dr. Aladwan’s recent social media activity, asserting that it demonstrated an escalation in the tone of her alleged antisemitism and support for violence.

The tribunal ultimately rejected the application for the panel to recuse itself. Following this, Saunders requested an adjournment on the grounds that Dr. Aladwan could not attend the remainder of the hearing, although she expressed a desire to participate. This request was also denied.

If the GMC concludes that there are grounds for the allegations against Dr. Aladwan, her case may be escalated to a full medical practitioners’ tribunal. The developments in this case highlight ongoing tensions surrounding issues of free speech, professional conduct, and the responsibilities of medical practitioners in the UK.