We write as students of the University of Glasgow, whose Rector is Professor Ghassan Abu-Sittah, joined by undergraduate and postgraduate students and academics from across the UK who are deeply concerned by the wider implications of the General Medical Council’s (GMC) actions as the UK’s medical regulator, particularly its apparent direction towards the suppression of ethical humanitarian advocacy.

As students and future professionals, we believe regulation must be proportionate, independent and free from political pressure. We are deeply concerned by current proposals to retain the GMC’s separate right to appeal decisions made by the independent Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (Iacobucci, 2026). The GMC already investigates and brings cases before tribunals. Allowing it to then appeal tribunal decisions it disagrees with risks undermining the independence of that process.

The Professional Standards Authority already exists as an external oversight body with the power to appeal decisions that are insufficient to protect the public (Iacobucci, 2026). Doctors should not face two separate bodies with overlapping powers to challenge the same tribunal outcome. This creates delays, uncertainty, additional costs, and is unfair.

From Bawa-Garba to Abu-Sitta: The GMC’s Assault on Tribunal Independence

The medical profession has raised these concerns for years. Following the case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, the 2018 Williams Review recommended removing the GMC’s right of appeal. The review warned that the appeal power had “unwelcome and unintended consequences” and was “deterring reflection and learning from errors to the detriment of patient safety” (Department of Health and Social Care, 2018). Successive governments have acknowledged the issue, but reform has still not been delivered (Iacobucci, 2026).

Instead, current proposals risk moving in the opposite direction by retaining the GMC’s appeal powers and potentially expanding appeal rights in relation to interim orders (Iacobucci, 2026). Recent events have further intensified these concerns. In the case of Professor Ghassan Abu-Sitta, an independent medical practitioners tribunal cleared him of allegations relating to anti-Jewish hatred, support for terrorism, and support for Hamas (Dyer, 2026). The allegations were found not proved, and he was cleared of all charges (Dyer, 2026). Despite this, the GMC has appealed the tribunal’s decision to the High Court (Dyer, 2026).

Professor Abu-Sitta is a Palestinian-British reconstructive and war surgeon who has treated patients, including children, in conflict zones and has spoken publicly about the humanitarian consequences of war. His case sits within a wider climate in which students, academics, and healthcare workers are facing intense scrutiny for speech and advocacy on Palestine.

Across UK campuses, students and staff have called for universities to disclose and divest from financial relationships linked to Israel’s war in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine. A 2025 UN Special Rapporteur report identified corporate and institutional entanglements in what it described as an “economy of occupation” and an “economy of genocide” (Albanese, 2025). This wider context matters because students are already raising urgent questions about institutional accountability, freedom of expression, and the right to oppose war, occupation, apartheid, and genocide.

Abu-Sitta's recent referral by the GMC to the High Court therefore raises the question: when professionals speak about genocide, humanitarian law, or human rights, how does the GMC ensure that politically charged complaints are assessed independently, fairly, and without improper influence from external pressure groups? Where an independent tribunal has heard the evidence and cleared a professional any attempt by the prosecuting regulator to relitigate the case should face the highest possible threshold. Otherwise, the tribunal system risks appearing performative rather than independent.

Anti-Palestinian racism (APR) must be recognised

We are especially concerned that politically charged complaints may expose professionals to forms of racism and discrimination, including anti-Palestinian racism, that professional regulators and representative bodies do not always recognise consistently. Anti-Palestinian racism has been described as a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanises Palestinians or their narratives (Law for Palestine, 2022). All forms of racism and hatred must be taken seriously. Regulators and professional bodies must distinguish clearly between hatred toward a people and legitimate speech about apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and humanitarian law. Political criticism related to these issues including advocacy for Palestinian rights should not automatically be treated as anti-Jewish hatred. Equally, opposition to anti-Jewish hatred should never be used to erase, silence, or delegitimise Palestinian identity or advocacy. APR can include the silencing, exclusion, erasure, stereotyping, defamation, or dehumanisation of Palestinians and Palestinian narratives (Law for Palestine, 2022; Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, 2022). It may also include treating Palestinian identity, grief, testimony, or advocacy as inherently suspect, extremist, or professionally discrediting (Anti-Palestinian Racism Framework, 2022; Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, 2022).

In Professor Abu-Sitta’s case, this concern is especially acute. Where a Palestinian-British war surgeon’s speech about humanitarian catastrophe becomes the subject of regulatory complaint, the GMC must be able to demonstrate that decisions are evidence-led, independent, and protected from external political pressure or discriminatory assumptions.

Instititutional silence in the face of erasure of ethical humanitarian advocacy in the UK

The contrast with the Bawa-Garba case is also striking. After the GMC appealed the tribunal decision in Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba’s case, senior figures and medical institutions recognised the profound damage done to trust in the regulator. Andrew Goddard, then president of the Royal College of Physicians, said the GMC had “lost the confidence of doctors” and that the profession’s sense of disempowerment would take “a lot of coming back from” (Rimmer, 2018). In the years that followed, royal colleges, defence organisations, unions, and professional bodies publicly pressed the government to remove the GMC’s right of appeal (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health et al., 2021). That leadership was welcome and necessary. But we are concerned that Professor Abu-Sitta’s case was met with institutional silence, despite raising many of the same questions about GMC appeal powers, tribunal independence, public confidence, and fairness. We believe this apparent silence raises serious questions about leadership and equality within the medical profession and wider healthcare sector. Royal colleges and unions that claim to represent healthcare workers must be able to demonstrate that they oppose anti-Palestinian racism, defend Palestinian healthcare workers and advocates, and ensure that their investments, partnerships, and public positions are consistent with human rights and professional ethics.

Loss of Confidence in the GMC’s Independence and Fairness

As students and future professionals, we are concerned that these developments may have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and on professionals’ willingness to speak on matters of public conscience. These are the regulatory systems and institutional structures we will soon be expected to work within, and their fairness, independence, and accountability are therefore of direct concern to us. We believe there is now sufficient evidence of a serious loss of confidence to justify an independent review of the GMC’s current leadership and governance. A fair regulatory system must protect patients and the public, but it must not overreach, undermine due process, or compromise tribunal independence.

At this moment, silence is not neutrality. The future healthcare workforce is being trained inside universities, represented by professional bodies, and regulated by systems whose fairness will shape the culture of care for decades to come. When those systems risk becoming punitive, politicised, or racist, institutions with moral, educational, and professional authority have a duty to speak.

We call on universities, students’ unions, medical schools, royal colleges and faculties, the British Medical Association, trade unions, medical defence organisations, and all relevant professional bodies to use their institutional voice in support of fair GMC reform, including by making direct representations to the UK Government, Parliament, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the General Medical Council

We therefore call for:

1. Fair GMC reform and tribunal independence

Removal of the GMC’s separate right of appeal against decisions of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

No expansion of duplicated appeal powers, including in relation to interim orders, where this would increase delay, cost, uncertainty, or unfairness for doctors and other professionals.

Recognition of the Professional Standards Authority as the appropriate external oversight body for appeals where tribunal decisions are genuinely insufficient to protect the public.

2. Independent review of GMC leadership and governance

An independent review of confidence in GMC leadership and governance, including its handling of fitness-to-practise reform, tribunal appeals, the independence of the MPTS, and the impact of its decisions on doctors, students, and public trust.

Publication of clear safeguards explaining how the GMC protects regulatory decisions from improper influence, including how it handles complaints, correspondence, lobbying, or pressure from campaign organisations and external interest groups.

3. Protection from external pressure, discrimination, and unequal treatment

An independent review into external pressure, lobbying, and organised campaign influence in GMC decision-making, particularly in politically charged fitness-to-practise cases lwar, occupation, humanitarian advocacy, or international law.

An independent review into whether the GMC has adequate safeguards against anti-Palestinian racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia, anti-Jewish hatred, and all other forms of racism and discrimination in fitness-to-practise processes.

Clear GMC guidance on how it distinguishes hatred toward protected groups from legitimate criticism of states, governments, political ideologies, war, occupation, genocide, apartheid, humanitarian law, or human rights abuses.

4. Accountability of professional bodies

A review of whether the GMC, royal colleges, trade unions, and relevant professional bodies have adequate mechanisms to recognise and respond to anti-Palestinian racism, unequal institutional advocacy, conflicts of interest, financial entanglements, and external pressure in professional regulation and representation.

Public statements from relevant professional bodies, including royal colleges, unions, and medical defence organisations, supporting tribunal independence, due process, and the removal of the GMC’s separate appeal power.

Greater transparency from professional bodies regarding investments, partnerships, lobbying relationships, and institutional positions that may conflict with their duties to represent healthcare workers equally and uphold human rights.

5. A safer, fairer professional culture

A regulatory and professional culture that supports public safety through openness and learning, rather than fear, defensiveness, selective advocacy, and mistrust.

Meaningful consultation with students, junior professionals, and early-career workers, who will inherit the consequences of these reforms.

The future workforce deserves regulators and professional bodies that are trusted, independent, and consistent. We ask every institution that claims to educate, represent, or defend healthcare workers to show leadership now. Silence is not neutrality where due process, tribunal independence, anti-racism, and freedom of expression are at stake. Universities and professional bodies must stand with the future workforce in demanding a regulatory system that protects the public without undermining justice.

Iacobucci, G. (2026) ‘GMC to get new powers to crackdown on doctors over racism and antisemitism’, BMJ, 392, s568. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s568

Department of Health and Social Care (2018) Gross negligence manslaughter in healthcare: The report of a rapid policy review. London: Department of Health and Social Care. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/williams-review-into-gross-negligence-manslaughter-in-healthcare

Dyer, C. (2026) ‘Abu-Sitta case: New regulator joins appeal effort on doctor cleared of supporting terrorism’, BMJ, 392, s495. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s495

Albanese, F. (2025) From economy of occupation to economy of genocide: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. United Nations Human Rights Council. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5923-economy-occupation-economy-genocide-report-special-rapporteur

Law for Palestine (2022) Anti-Palestinian racism: Motives, manifestations, and solutions. Available at: https://law4palestine.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Summary-of-Webinar.-Anti-Palestinian-Racism.-Motives-Manifestations-and-Solutions.pdf

Arab Canadian Lawyers Association (2022) Anti-Palestinian racism: Naming, framing and manifestations. Available at: https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2022CanLIIDocs4618

Anti-Palestinian Racism Framework (2022) Anti-Palestinian racism: A form of racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives. Available at: https://antipalestinianracism.org/

Rimmer, A. (2018) ‘GMC should apologise for its handling of Bawa-Garba case, says RCP president’, BMJ, 363, k4784. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4784

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health et al. (2021) Joint letter to the Secretary of State: GMC right of appeal. Available at: https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/joint_letter_to_the_secretary_of_state_-_gmc_right_of_appeal_final.pdf

Dyer, C. (2026) ‘Doctor is cleared over alleged antisemitism and posts linked to Hamas’, BMJ, 392, s69. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s69

Dyer, C. (2026) ‘Medical regulator appeals decision clearing doctor of support for terrorism’, BMJ, 392, s337. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s337

Waters, A. (2026) ‘Consultants demand action to protect their freedom of speech in wake of Abu-Sitta case’, BMJ, 392, s449. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s449

Minhas, R., Maynard, N., Chalmers, I. and Feder, G. (2026) ‘Doctors’ freedom of speech must be protected from punitive scrutiny’, BMJ, 392, s550. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s550