An NHS doctor has accused a medical tribunal panel of bias during an ongoing investigation into alleged antisemitic remarks made on her social media accounts. Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, 31, is under scrutiny from the General Medical Council (GMC) following accusations regarding her fitness to practice, particularly after she described Israel as having been “humiliated” by the attacks on October 7.
Dr. Aladwan, a trainee trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, attended a hearing at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in Manchester, where she wore a distinctive gold necklace and “number seven” charm, which she previously referred to as “celebratory jewellery.” The tribunal’s interim orders hearing is expected to last for three days and will determine if any restrictions should be placed on her registration while the investigation proceeds.
The allegations against her stem from several posts on X, formerly known as Twitter. In these posts, Dr. Aladwan made statements such as, “The day Israel was humiliated. Their supremacy shattered at the hands of the children they forced out of their homes.” Other contentious remarks included characterizations of Israelis as “worse than Nazis” and references to the Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit.”
In a previous interim orders tribunal held in September, the panel decided not to impose any restrictions on Dr. Aladwan, concluding that the complaints did not demonstrate a significant risk to patient safety. Health Secretary Wes Streeting responded by stating that such “sickening comments” had no place within the NHS and pledged to reform how medical regulators handle allegations of antisemitism.
Following this, the GMC re-referred Dr. Aladwan’s case back to the MPTS for further review. During today’s hearing, Dr. Aladwan’s legal counsel, Kevin Saunders, applied to have the proceedings stayed, claiming that the GMC had committed an “abuse of process” and that his client would not receive a fair hearing. He accused the health secretary of undermining the rule of law and suggested that the GMC was yielding to external pressures from organizations like the Campaign Against Antisemitism.
As the hearing progressed, Saunders sought to have the tribunal panel recuse itself based on claims of “apparent bias.” He argued that the panel’s decision to reject his request for a stay was insufficiently transparent, creating a perception that the outcome was predetermined. He emphasized, “The decision of the panel must be transparent, objective, and fair.”
In response, Emma Gilsenan, representing the GMC, contended that Saunders was merely attempting to relitigate his prior arguments regarding process abuse. She stated that the previous tribunal’s ruling was well-reasoned and that there was no evidence of bias. Gilsenan also highlighted Dr. Aladwan’s online activity since the last hearing, noting an increase in the tone of alleged antisemitism and support for violence.
The tribunal ultimately rejected the application for recusal. Following this, Saunders requested an adjournment, expressing concerns that Dr. Aladwan could not attend the remainder of the hearing, despite her desire to participate. This request was also denied.
If the GMC finds sufficient grounds to proceed, Dr. Aladwan’s case may be referred to a full medical practitioners’ tribunal for further examination of the complaints against her.
