NHS doctor allowed to continue practicing after Holocaust-denial allegations, Health Secretary condemns ruling

An NHS doctor facing an ongoing investigation over social‑media posts denying the Holocaust and using inflammatory language about Jewish people will be allowed to continue practicing, after a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service ruling found no immediate risk to patients. The decision comes despite the General Medical Council’s assertion that the posts could undermine confidence in the medical profession and that Jewish patients might feel unsafe under her care.

Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, a trauma and orthopaedics doctor based in the United Kingdom, sparked outrage after describing the two gunmen in a fatal Jerusalem shooting as “two Palestinian martyrs.” She has also been criticized for remarks viewed as failing to condemn the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas and for describing anti‑Semitic tropes as part of a broader narrative surrounding the conflict. The tribunal’s ruling states that the posts did not amount to bullying or harassment and that she can continue to practice while the GMC gathers further evidence in its investigation. The GMC had sought a 12‑month interim order of conditions that would have restricted her practice or required additional supervision or training, arguing the posts were serious enough to pose a risk to patients and public confidence. ![Dr Rahmeh Aladwan leaves tribunal] (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/09/27/01/102493705-0-image-m-21_1758931790058.jpg "")

In a Manchester hearing, GMC counsel Isobel Thomas outlined the scale and seriousness of the allegations, describing posts that appeared to demonise Israelis and Jews and to portray the Holocaust as a fabricated victim narrative. The tribunal, however, concluded there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate a real risk to patients or to public confidence in the medical profession in the near term, allowing Dr Aladwan to remain in practice while the GMC continues its investigation. The panel noted that the decision does not close the GMC’s inquiry and that further proceedings could follow as more facts come to light.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting reacted to the ruling by saying he had no faith in the current regulation system. In posts on X, he criticized the decision and the regulator, arguing that the “racist language of ‘Jewish supremacy’ reflects the values of Nazis, not the NHS,” and saying he could not understand how medical professionals could use such language with impunity without undermining public confidence. Streeting emphasized that he would monitor the GMC investigation closely and would consider options available to him as health minister.

The ruling drew strong responses from advocacy groups. The Campaign Against Antisemitism described the decision as “inexplicable and disgraceful,” saying it marked a step backward for institutions charged with protecting people. The group said it would seek legal guidance on how to respond while continuing to press for a rigorous investigation and potential sanctions if warranted. The tribunal’s decision did not preclude ongoing scrutiny of the case by the GMC, and the regulator has signalled it will proceed with its own process while the MPTS ruling stands.

Dr Aladwan has, in other social media posts, reportedly described anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as “concepts” used by Jewish people to promote a narrative of victimhood, and has been described in some reports as denying that rapes occurred during Hamas’s 2023 attacks. She also wrote that she would not condemn the October 7 attacks and described the events as part of a broader conflict context. The posts, uncovered by media outlets, have been described by critics as endorsing or supporting acts of violence against Israeli civilians. In response to the tribunal’s decision, Dr Aladwan’s representatives argued that her right to free expression should be protected, and that her statements must be understood within the context of a broader political and humanitarian debate.

The tribunal’s ruling notes that more than 50 of Dr Aladwan’s friends had died in the Gaza conflict, which she described as genocidal in nature, and that she spoke of the conflict in terms that included comparing it to the Holocaust. While acknowledging personal distress and losses, the panel found the evidence insufficient to establish that her public statements about a political conflict translate into clinical risk or an immediate danger to patients in a medical setting. The decision leaves open the possibility of further disciplinary action if additional evidence demonstrates risk or undermines public trust in the medical profession.

As the GMC continues its investigation, the health secretary’s criticisms of the regulator underscore ongoing concerns about how statements by medical professionals on sensitive political and historical topics are handled within the profession. The case highlights tensions between free expression and professional conduct, and it keeps the focus on how regulators balance patient safety with the right of clinicians to speak on controversial issues. The GMC said it would continue to pursue its inquiry, while the MPTS’s decision remains in effect, pending further determinations at the tribunal level or in related regulatory proceedings.