BMA votes to scrap international definition of antisemitism across NHS in shock move

To guide IHRA in its work, it cites a number of examples of how antisemitism manifests itself, such as comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel.

NHS England endorsed the definition last year after ministers ordered action amid surging rates of antisemitism. 

Then health secretary Wes Streeting mandated that NHS England and all Department of Health and Social Care arm's length bodies explicitly adopt IHRA.

But BMA members backed a motion at the AGM in Brighton which expressed “grave concern” about the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the NHS.

It claimed that the IHRA definition has a “chilling effect” on political speech, and means that NHS doctors cannot express “ethical concerns about Israel’s actions in Palestine”.

The motion, initially proposed by BMA consultants, stated: “This meeting expresses grave concern about the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in the NHS without proper consultation or risk assessment.”

It says the BMA – which represents over 200,000 doctors and medical students across the UK – must “immediately investigate the impact of IHRA definition adoption on NHS staff, particularly regarding the chilling effect on legitimate political speech and professional expression of ethical concerns about Israel's actions in Palestine.”

It also demanded that “NHS England and all NHS organisations conduct comprehensive risk assessments before implementing any speech-related policies”.

The motion pressed for “urgent guidance and support to members who face disciplinary action or professional detriment for expressing legitimate political views or ethical concerns about international conflicts, including Palestine/Israel.”

It urged the BMA to “lobby the government and NHS England to revoke the mandatory adoption of the IHRA definition across the NHS until proper safeguards, consultation processes, and clarity on implementation are established [and] advocate for the protection of free speech in healthcare settings, ensuring that NHS staff can engage in legitimate political discourse and express ethical concerns without fear of professional reprisal.”

It also called on the union to “work with other healthcare unions and professional bodies to challenge any attempts to use the IHRA definition to suppress legitimate debate about human rights violations, war crimes, or colonial practices in international conflicts.”

The BMA told the JC that the motion speaks to the “frustration of members” who feel that their ability to challenge Israel “is under threat.”

The IHRA definition states that: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The BMA’s move comes after the government accepted in full all the recommendations published in a review into antisemitism in the NHS written by Lord Mann, its independent adviser on antisemitism.

Mann said in his report that NHS employers needed to take greater responsibility for tackling anti-Jewish racism and called for national guidance on uniform and NHS-issued equipment.

Among the recommendations adopted by the government was that the leaders of all NHS provider trusts must undergo anti-racism training, specifically including antisemitism, within six months.

But there has been opposition to the measures from some in the NHS.

The British Islamic Medical Association and the Muslim Doctors Association were among the medical bodies that accused the review’s focus on antisemitism of being too "narrow" and called on the government to pause its response.

The groups warned that longstanding evidence of the “entrenched inequalities” faced by black and ethnic minority staff is being ignored and said they were concerned by the “narrow framing of the review”.

Meanwhile, outside University College Hospital (UCLH) in London last week, leaflets were distributed opposing the government’s plans to implement recommendations from Lord Mann’s review.

Leaflets calling a review into NHS antisemitism 'racist' were distributed near UCLH[Missing Credit]

The leaflets, with the phrase “Hands Off Our Healthworkers, we will not be silent about the genocide in Palestine” on them, were handed out near UCLH on June 17.

The leaflet claimed the Mann review is "racist" and claimed that enhanced antisemitism training in the NHS is really “pro-Israel indoctrination”.

It referred to Mann as a "Zionist”, adding: “It is clear from the title and throughout the review that antisemitism is exceptionalised and prioritised over all other forms of racism.”

A spokesperson for UCLH said in response to the leaflets: “We did not sanction the distribution of the leaflet, and while we have no jurisdiction over the public pathways, we do recognise the distress this will have caused our Jewish colleagues and patients. We have always been very clear that UCLH is a politically-neutral organisation with the sole purpose of providing healthcare in an environment where patients, their families and all our staff feel safe.

“Any individuals who seek to campaign on our premises will be asked to leave, and individuals who intimidate our patients or staff will be managed appropriately by senior leaders and our security team.”

Responding to the vote, a spokesperson for the BMA told the JC:  “Antisemitism is completely unacceptable. There is no place for it in the BMA, NHS, or wider society and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms, as we do with all discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality, gender or disability.

“Doctors in the UK and around the world have witnessed in horror the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded during the Middle East conflict, with the devastating loss of civilian life and in particular, the attacks on healthcare workers and healthcare facilities.

“Doctors must be able to legitimately challenge the actions of states and armed forces, especially when healthcare is under threat, without being unfairly accused of any kind of discrimination, or threatened with disciplinary action.

“This motion speaks to the frustration of members who feel that their freedom to do this is under threat, and we will continue to advocate for all doctors and medical students to appropriately exercise freedom of expression on matters of conscience while at the same time protecting them from discrimination.”