Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, a 31-year-old British-Palestinian NHS doctor and trainee surgeon, has been suspended from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom for 15 months, following a high-profile investigation into her social media activity. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) handed down the interim suspension on November 27, 2025, after a three-day hearing in Manchester, citing the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the medical profession, as reported by multiple outlets including Sky News and The Telegraph.
The case against Dr. Aladwan centers on a series of posts and comments she allegedly made across various social media platforms. According to the General Medical Council (GMC) counsel, Emma Gilsenan, these posts contained content that “justifies terrorism, denies sexual violence, includes antisemitic conspiracy theories, misuses Holocaust and Nazi imagery and expresses support for proscribed groups and terrorist acts.” Among the most serious accusations, Dr. Aladwan is said to have described the Royal Free Hospital in London as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit,” called Israelis “worse than Nazis,” and referred to Hamas terrorists as “oppressed resistance fighters.”
The GMC investigation was prompted by a wave of complaints from both the Jewish Medical Association UK and the Campaign Against Antisemitism. These organizations argued that Dr. Aladwan’s comments and online behavior crossed the line from political discourse into hate speech and incitement. The Campaign Against Antisemitism stated, “This new rhetoric is a further grotesque invocation of classic antisemitic tropes… She must be removed from British medicine.” The Board of Deputies of British Jews echoed this condemnation, saying, “Her views are deeply hateful and wholly incompatible with the values of the NHS.”
Dr. Aladwan’s lawyer, Kevin Saunders, countered that her posts “fell into the category of legitimate political speech and debate,” maintaining that she denies making racist or hate speech and that there is “no information to suggest Dr. Aladwan presents a real and immediate risk to patient safety.” Despite these arguments, the tribunal concluded that the alleged conduct “may impact on patient confidence in both her and the profession and patients may be discouraged from seeking treatment from her,” as tribunal chair Lee Davies stated. He emphasized that “additional information” had emerged since an earlier review in September, which indicated an escalation in the tone and nature of Dr. Aladwan’s activities and posts, some of which “may be considered to be extreme, offensive and antisemitic.”
The MPTS’s decision marks a significant shift from its previous stance in September 2025, when it declined to impose interim conditions on Dr. Aladwan’s registration, citing insufficient evidence of a real risk to patients. However, the new information provided since then, including evidence of persistent and prolonged posting of potentially egregious material, led the tribunal to reassess the situation. According to Mr. Davies, “The Tribunal considers that the allegations, if found proved, are serious and appear to have arisen from persistent and prolonged posting of potentially egregious material which has been widely disseminated by Dr. Aladwan, resulting in a number of individual complaints made to the GMC.”
Dr. Aladwan’s case is not limited to professional disciplinary proceedings. In October 2025, she was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of misusing a public communications network, sending malicious communications, and stirring up racial hatred. The investigation relates to comments she allegedly made at a July protest in London and in subsequent online posts, which authorities have described as “grossly offensive and antisemitic.”
Following the tribunal’s ruling, Dr. Aladwan took to social media once again, posting: “The ‘israeli’ and jewish lobby decide who can and cannot practise medicine in Britain… Free Palestine and Britain from jewish supremacy.” She also wrote, “This is not an end. It is the beginning of a far greater battle for the integrity of our institutions.” Alongside a sunset image, she posted a verse from the Quran: “But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.” Jewish groups immediately condemned these remarks as further evidence of deeply held antisemitic views.
The controversy surrounding Dr. Aladwan is not new. In September 2025, she avoided suspension despite evidence that she had made threatening gestures—specifically, “slit your throat” signals—toward Jewish protesters and had claimed the Holocaust was “a fabricated victim narrative.” These incidents, combined with her recent online activity, have fueled demands for her permanent removal from the medical register. The GMC has indicated that it may still refer her case to a full tribunal, which could result in her being struck off entirely.
The case has sparked a broader debate about antisemitism within the UK’s National Health Service and the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has publicly acknowledged the gravity of the issue, stating last month, “We must be unequivocal that antisemitism has absolutely no place in our NHS, or anywhere in our society. It is clear that the current medical regulatory system is completely failing to protect Jewish patients and NHS staff. I am looking urgently at how we can overhaul the current regime, which has been found completely wanting.” Campaigners argue that antisemitism has been able to “fester unchecked” in the NHS and the wider medical profession, particularly in the wake of heightened tensions following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The MPTS’s interim suspension of Dr. Aladwan’s registration will be reviewed every six months, as is standard practice in such cases. Interim orders tribunals, such as the one that heard Dr. Aladwan’s case, do not make findings of fact regarding the allegations themselves, but rather assess whether there are grounds to restrict a doctor’s practice during an ongoing investigation. The GMC and MPTS are responsible for evaluating the conduct of doctors and determining whether sanctions, including being struck off the medical register, are necessary to protect patients and uphold the integrity of the profession.
As the debate over free speech, hate speech, and professional standards continues, the case of Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan stands as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by regulatory bodies in balancing individual rights with the need to safeguard public trust in essential institutions. The outcome of the ongoing investigation—and any possible future tribunal—will be closely watched by both supporters and critics, as the NHS grapples with the broader implications for its staff, its patients, and its reputation.
