Two doctors who were cleared by independent medical tribunals this year over what they said about Israel and Palestine still cannot put their ordeal behind them. The reason is not new evidence. It is that the General Medical Council (GMC), the regulator that prosecuted them, has refused to accept that it lost.
According to an analysis published on 8 October 2026 by Regulation Resolution Solicitors, the only two fully contested Medical Practitioners Tribunal cases on Israel–Palestine speech decided in 2026 both ended with the doctor cleared, and the GMC resolved to appeal in each. Neither appeal appeared to have produced a High Court judgment by that date.
Two doctors, two acquittals
In January, a tribunal found the facts not proved against Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, the plastic surgeon and rector of the University of Glasgow. As the Guardian reported, the panel chair, Ian Comfort, said the tribunal had considered his newspaper article in full rather than "cherrypick" quotes, and could not identify anything antisemitic or supportive of terrorism or violence. After the hearing Dr Abu-Sittah said: "I have spent my entire medical career treating the victims of war and political violence. I was therefore deeply shocked to be accused of advocating violence. I do not, and have never, supported violence against civilians." The GMC resolved to appeal on 5 February.
In March, a separate tribunal found no misconduct by Dr Menatalla Elwan over two posts made on 7 October 2023. Although it criticised the posts' tone and timing, it held that they were political speech protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and did not amount to serious misconduct. The GMC resolved to appeal on 27 April.
The process is the punishment
The law firm's analysis sums it up: "The process is the punishment." A doctor can be right about the law and still face years of stress and expense proving it, and a tribunal victory may be only the start of another round.
The government wants to make this worse. The BMA says the draft reforms would not only keep the GMC's right to appeal its own tribunal's decisions but extend it to interim decisions, despite the 2018 Williams review recommending the power be removed. The BMA began legal action in June and, in July, announced the government had agreed to re-consult. BMA council deputy chair Dr Emma Runswick said keeping and expanding the GMC's rights was "not only unfair, but also unnecessary".
Our view
HWAC stands with Dr Abu-Sittah and Dr Elwan. Independent tribunals heard the evidence and cleared them. The GMC should respect those verdicts and drop its appeals.
Every month these cases drag on sends a message to every nurse, midwife and doctor in the country: speak about Gaza and you may never be finished with the regulator, even if you are found to have done nothing wrong. That is a chilling message, and it is the opposite of what a profession built on bearing witness should be telling its members. According to the Regulation Resolution analysis, the GMC's own 2024 statement on the Middle East says that using referrals to discourage comment or target individuals is "absolutely unacceptable". We call on the regulator to live up to those words, and we call on the government to remove the GMC's right of appeal, as the Williams review recommended.
Sources
- Regulation Resolution: Doctors and Free Speech: A Route Map Through GMC Risk (8 October 2026)
- The Guardian: University of Glasgow rector cleared by medical watchdog (9 January 2026)
- BMA: BMA begins legal action over GMC right to appeal (16 June 2026)
- BMA: Government to re-consult on GMC right of appeal (15 July 2026)
