Changes to medical regulator ‘could be weaponised against pro-Palestinian docs’
Doctors’ groups including the British Islamic Medical Association have written to ministers opposing plans to curb independence of medical tribunals
The General Medical Council (GMC) is at risk of being “weaponised” as a political tool in light of new reforms proposed by the government, the British Islamic Medical Association (Bima) has warned.
It has joined doctors’ union the British Medical Association (BMA) in writing to the government to make its concerns known in response to a consultation on the changes that closes next week. It was reported on Tuesday that the BMA was planning legal action over the proposed changes.
The BMA cited “significant political pressure” that has been applied to the GMC — the independent body that regulates doctors — in the past. The government’s proposal would beef up the GMC’s power to appeal decisions made by the independent Medical Practitioners Tribunal Services (MPTS) about a doctor’s fitness to practise, in what is seen as a U-turn by the Department of Health and Social Care.
“We have to keep patients safe. The system has to be fair and robust, but it also cannot be politicised,” said Naomi Green, policy and public affairs officer at Bima. She added: “If someone has committed any kind of medical malpractice, that has to be dealt with robustly, but there will be other people dragged into this process because of political opinions and humanitarian advocacy. As we have seen already, the GMC has been weaponised to that end, and this reform will make it a little bit easier.”
As well as granting extra powers to the GMC, the overhaul would also remove the five-year limit on the alleged misconduct that the regulator can investigate.
The overhaul of GMC regulation was announced by the DHSC in March. The government cited “too many recent examples of doctors using intolerably racist and antisemitic language, particularly on social media” as reason for the new changes.
But recent high-profile cases of doctors facing suspension after voicing pro-Palestinian views have prompted worries that the new powers will be used to silence those who do not approve of the government’s support for Israel.
“Unless you understand the political context, you can’t fully appreciate why these changes are being made,” Shezad Amin, a psychiatrist and a Nursing and Midwifery Council fitness to practise panel member, said at a recent Bima webinar.
Amin pointed to the case of Ghassan Abu-Sittah, a surgeon and a rector at the University of Glasgow, who was cleared of wrongdoing earlier this year by the MPTS after the lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel brought a complaint against him relating to an article he had written for a Lebanese newspaper in 2018.
The GMC lodged an appeal against the MPTS in the high court and Abu-Sittah is now crowdfunding for his defence costs. He previously told the Guardian: “What the GMC is saying is that it will keep going until it gets the decision it deems politically acceptable.”
Amin is also concerned about proposals for the GMC to gain new powers to appeal interim decisions by the MPTS to allow a doctor to keep practising while they are investigated. At present, the MPTS makes independent decisions on a doctor’s ability to work, while the GMC builds a case against them.
“The GMC should not be judge, jury and executioner,” he said. “While the GMC is investigating and bringing accusations against a doctor, it cannot also fairly decide whether to suspend that doctor or not pending investigation.”
Green said she was also concerned about how the changes would contribute to existing inequalities within the medical profession.
According to a 2019 report commissioned by the GMC, doctors from ethnic minority backgrounds are more than twice as likely to be referred over fitness to practise concerns than their white colleagues.
“There are well documented discrepancies between minoritised groups within healthcare staff,” Green said. “I think this change is not going to address this, it is going to entrench it.”
