‘Jewish supremacy’ doctor accuses medical tribunal panel of bias

An interim orders tribunal (IOT), expected to last three days, will rule on whether restrictions need to be placed on her registration while the investigation takes place, but not on the allegations themselves.

Her recent posts on X include: “October 7. The day Israel was humiliated. Their supremacy shattered at the hands of the children they forced out of their homes. The children who watched foreign jews execute their loved ones, rape their land and live on their stolen soil.”

Others labelled Israelis as “worse than Nazis” and the Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”.

A previous IOT in September ruled not to impose any restrictions on her, saying it did not believe the complaints against her were “sufficient to establish that there may be a real risk to patients”.

It also found that her posts did not amount to “bullying or harassment”.

It prompted Health Secretary Wes Streeting to say that “sickening comments” had no place in the NHS “and action needs to be taken to root the evil of racism out”.

He also promised to overhaul the way medical regulators investigate cases of antisemitism.

The General Medical Council (GMC) then re-referred her case back to the MPTS, with an initial hearing taking place last month.

It rejected an application by Kevin Saunders, counsel for the doctor, to have proceedings stayed after he claimed an “abuse of process” by the GMC and that the doctor would not get a fair hearing.

He accused Streeting of seeking to “undermine the rule of law” and the GMC of bowing to “pressure” and a legal threat from the Campaign Against Against Antisemitism (CAA).

Saunders made a further application at today’s hearing for the MPTS panel to recuse itself on the grounds of “apparent bias”, but not “actual bias”.

He also claimed the reasons the panel had rejected his application to stay proceedings were “wholly inadequate and devoid of transparency”.

As such, he said, there was a risk the hearing would be considered a “foregone conclusion”.

“This is a case that has attracted the intervention of a minister of state and civil lobby groups,” he said.

“The decision of the panel must be transparent, objective and fair.”

And he accused the GMC of attempting to abuse IOT rules.

But Emma Gilsenan, representing the GMC, said Saunders was attempting to re-litigate his “abuse of process” argument and the panel should not recuse itself because the doctor had not liked the outcome.

She said the previous tribunal had made a “well-reasoned” determination and there was no appearance of bias.

Gilsenan also noted online posts by the doctor since the previous IOT which showed “an increase in tone” of alleged “antisemitism, supporting violence and supporting terrorism”.

She also accused the defence of “trying to have their cake and eat it” and “attempting to derail proceedings in any way they can”.

The tribunal panel ruled to reject the application to recuse itself.

But Saunders then made a further application for an adjournment, saying the doctor could not attend the remainder of the hearing, although she “clearly wants to participate in these proceedings”.

That application was also rejected.

The GMC could eventually refer Aladwan to a full medical practitioners’ tribunal if it concludes she has a case to answer over the complaints it has received.