UPDATE: An NHS doctor, Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, is making headlines as she accuses a medical tribunal panel of “apparent bias” during her ongoing investigation into alleged antisemitic remarks. This urgent case has raised significant concerns about her fitness to practice and has drawn attention from government officials and advocacy groups.
Arriving today at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in Manchester, Aladwan, a 31-year-old trainee trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, was seen wearing a necklace featuring a “number seven” charm, the same piece she displayed at a prior hearing. The tribunal’s interim orders hearing, expected to last three days, will determine if restrictions should be placed on her medical registration while the investigation continues.
The controversy erupted following Aladwan’s posts on social media, including inflammatory comments regarding the attacks on October 7, which she described as “the day Israel was humiliated.” Her statements have been sharply criticized, with some labeling Israelis as “worse than Nazis” and calling the Royal Free Hospital a “Jewish supremacy cesspit.”
In response to these allegations, Health Secretary Wes Streeting condemned her remarks as “sickening,” asserting that such views have no place within the NHS. Streeting has vowed to reform how medical regulators investigate antisemitism, emphasizing the need to root out racism in healthcare.
Despite a previous ruling in September that found insufficient grounds for restrictions on Aladwan’s practice, the General Medical Council (GMC) has now referred her case back to the MPTS after an initial hearing last month. During this latest session, Aladwan’s counsel, Kevin Saunders, argued for the tribunal’s recusal, citing concerns over “apparent bias” and claiming that the GMC was yielding to external pressures from the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).
The tribunal panel, however, dismissed these arguments, reinforcing that prior determinations were well-reasoned and free from bias. Emma Gilsenan, representing the GMC, highlighted a recent escalation in Aladwan’s online posts, which allegedly promote antisemitism and violence, further complicating her defense.
As the proceedings unfold, the tribunal’s decision could have far-reaching consequences for Aladwan’s medical career. If the GMC finds sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaints against her, the case may escalate to a full medical practitioners’ tribunal. The urgency of the matter is underscored by the public interest and the political ramifications tied to the ongoing discourse surrounding antisemitism in the UK.
The MPTS panel’s ruling is anticipated to be pivotal, with implications not only for Aladwan but also for the NHS and its approach to handling similar allegations in the future. As this story develops, stakeholders and observers alike are closely monitoring the unfolding events in what has become a contentious intersection of medical ethics, social media, and public health policy.
Stay tuned for more updates as this urgent situation continues to evolve.
