NHS doctor allowed to continue practicing after posts denying Holocaust and branding Israelis 'worse than Nazis'

An NHS doctor was allowed to continue practicing after a medical tribunal found that controversial social media posts did not amount to bullying or harassment, despite accusations that she denied the Holocaust and described Israelis as 'worse than Nazis.' The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) ruled this week that Dr Rahmeh Aladwan could remain in clinical practice while the General Medical Council (GMC) continues its investigation into the posts.

The GMC had sought to place an interim order on Aladwan that would have restricted her practice for 12 months, requiring supervision or additional training. Counsel for the GMC, Isobel Thomas, argued that the conditions were necessary given the "nature and seriousness of the allegations" and that the posts appeared to demonise Israelis and Jews and described the Holocaust as a "fabricated victim narrative." The tribunal, however, found that there was not sufficient evidence to show that Aladwan posed a real risk to patients, and concluded that allowing her to remain practicing would not undermine public confidence in the medical profession.

Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, a trauma and orthopaedics doctor, drew widespread criticism after describing the two gunmen involved in a fatal mass shooting in Jerusalem as "two Palestinian martyrs." The remarks followed an attack that killed six people, including a pregnant woman, and injured more than a dozen others. She also faced questions about whether she condemned the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks; multiple posts have been cited in which she reportedly declined to condemn the assault. Aladwan, who has the words "Free Palestine" tattooed on her left bicep, is British-Palestinian in background.

During the hearing, Aladwan told the panel that all posts were "legitimate and can be defended and reasoned" and that she had no intention of harming patients. Her counsel, Tom Gillien, contended that it was not appropriate for a tribunal to tell a Palestinian doctor how she should discuss the genocide of her own people, arguing that people may be offended but have a right to express themselves. The GMC’s case was presented as a matter of professional conduct and the safeguarding of patients, rather than a debate over political expression.

In responding to the ruling, Health Secretary Wes Streeting wrote on social media that he did not have faith in the medical regulator and condemned the tribunal’s decision. "The racist language of 'Jewish supremacy' reflects the values of Nazis, not the NHS," he said. "I fail to see how medics using such language with impunity doesn't undermine confidence in the medical profession. I have no confidence in our regulation system." The Campaign Against Antisemitism also criticized the ruling, stating that the MPTS had "failed spectacularly in its duty" and calling the decision inexplicable and disgraceful. It said it would review legal options and continue monitoring GMC actions.

The GMC had asked the tribunal to consider interim measures while the investigation continued, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and their potential impact on public trust in medical professionals. The MPTS’s ruling does not end the GMC investigation; it simply allows Aladwan to keep practicing while the proceedings proceed. The GMC said it would review the decision and continue its work, noting that patient safety and professional standards remain the central focus of the ongoing inquiry.

The timeline surrounding the case includes the initial post-attacks controversy in October 2023 and the subsequent social media activity that drew scrutiny from medical regulators. The Jerusalem attack left six people dead and multiple injuries, prompting worldwide discussion about the language used by professionals in the context of conflict. The posts and statements that emerged in the weeks and months afterward were used by the GMC as part of an ongoing assessment of whether Aladwan’s public commentary could affect patient trust and professional conduct expectations for clinicians.

Aladwan’s remarks became a focal point for debates about free speech, professional responsibility, and how medical regulators balance individual expression with patient safety and public confidence. The tribunal’s decision to permit continued practice while the GMC investigation continues marks a cautious approach, signaling that regulators weighed potential harm to patients against the implications of silencing or disciplining a doctor for political expression. Observers noted that the ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, emphasizing due process and the independence of medical tribunals from political pressures.

As the investigation proceeds, the GMC stressed that the case remains under review and that any additional findings could lead to reconsideration of conditions on practice or other regulatory actions. The Campaign Against Antisemitism said it would seek legal advice on possible next steps, including potential appeals or further regulatory challenges, arguing that the protection of patients and public trust should extend to rejecting language or views that could justify violence or promote hatred. Supporters of Aladwan, including some colleagues and international observers, framed the issue as one of expression in the context of a protracted and highly charged conflict, arguing that professional standards must be applied fairly and without dampening legitimate views expressed by clinicians.

The case has potential implications for how medical regulators respond to posts and statements made on social media that touch on politics, religion, and violence. It underscores the ongoing tension between safeguarding patient safety and upholding freedom of expression among medical professionals who speak publicly about contentious issues. Health authorities say the priority remains maintaining public trust in the NHS and in medical regulation, while ensuring fair processes for doctors under investigation. The GMC and MPTS have not disclosed further steps beyond the current investigation, but observers expect continued scrutiny as more cases involving social media content come before regulatory tribunals in the coming months.

In summary, the MPTS decision to allow Dr Aladwan to continue practicing while the GMC’s investigation continues reflects a cautious, process-driven approach to a highly controversial matter. The ruling drew sharp reactions from Health Secretary Streeting and advocacy groups, highlighting a broader debate about the role of personal expression in medicine and the standards regulators must enforce to protect patients and public confidence in health care institutions.