Doctor Aladwan Challenges Medical Tribunal Over Bias Claims

An investigation into the conduct of NHS doctor Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan has intensified as she faces allegations of antisemitism and pro-Hamas sentiments expressed on social media. The General Medical Council (GMC) is examining her comments following concerns about her fitness to practice. Dr. Aladwan, 31, contends that the tribunal panel overseeing her case demonstrates “apparent bias” after it declined to halt proceedings.

Dr. Aladwan, a trainee trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, arrived for a hearing at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in Manchester on October 7, 2023. This date holds significance for her, as she previously stated it marked a day when Israel was “humiliated” by the attacks. She wore a gold necklace and a “number seven” charm, which she has described as “celebratory jewellery.”

The ongoing interim orders tribunal (IOT) is set to determine whether restrictions should be placed on her medical registration while the investigation continues. Notably, the tribunal will not address the allegations against her at this stage.

In her social media posts, Dr. Aladwan has made provocative statements, including claims that Israelis are “worse than Nazis” and describing the Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit.” The controversy surrounding her remarks has prompted significant public and governmental scrutiny.

A previous IOT in September decided against imposing any restrictions on Dr. Aladwan, concluding that the complaints did not pose a real risk to patients and her comments did not equate to “bullying or harassment.” This ruling spurred Health Secretary Wes Streeting to express that “sickening comments” should not be tolerated within the NHS, promising to reform how medical regulators handle antisemitism allegations.

Following these events, the GMC re-referred Dr. Aladwan’s case back to the MPTS for further review. At the recent hearing, Kevin Saunders, counsel for Dr. Aladwan, argued for a stay in proceedings, claiming an “abuse of process” by the GMC and asserting that Dr. Aladwan would not receive a fair hearing. He accused Streeting of undermining the rule of law and claimed the GMC was yielding to external pressures from the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).

During this week’s tribunal, Saunders requested the panel’s recusal on grounds of “apparent bias,” although he specified that he did not claim “actual bias.” He highlighted concerns about transparency in the panel’s reasoning for rejecting his previous application to pause the proceedings, suggesting that the hearing risked being viewed as a “foregone conclusion.”

“This case has drawn the attention of a minister of state and civil lobby groups,” Saunders stated. “The decision of the panel must be transparent, objective, and fair.”

In contrast, Emma Gilsenan, representing the GMC, countered that Saunders was attempting to revisit arguments already made. She emphasized that the previous tribunal’s decision was well-reasoned and that the notion of bias was unfounded. Gilsenan also pointed out that Dr. Aladwan’s recent online posts reflected an increase in the alleged tone of antisemitic remarks and support for violence.

The tribunal ultimately rejected the application for recusal. Following this, Saunders sought an adjournment, citing that Dr. Aladwan could not attend the rest of the hearing, although she expressed her desire to participate. This request was also denied.

Should the GMC conclude that there are grounds for the complaints against Dr. Aladwan, it may refer her to a full medical practitioners’ tribunal for further examination of the allegations. The outcome of this case holds significant implications for both Dr. Aladwan’s career and the broader issue of social media conduct among medical professionals.