UK surgeon cleared of antisemitism criticises GMC’s plan to challenge ruling | Doctors
A surgeon who was cleared by a court over allegations of anti-Semitism and supporting terrorism has accused his regulator of seeking a “politically acceptable” outcome after announcing he would appeal the decision to the High Court.
Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, who gave evidence to the International Criminal Court over the Israeli attack on Gaza and is rector of the University of Glasgow, was cleared of any misconduct by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in January.
But the decision to appeal by the General Medical Council (GMC), which brought the case after a complaint from pressure group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), means it is trying to fund £150,000 to defend itself again.
“When the MPTS rejected the allegations, I felt that a two-year period of continued harassment and attempts to undermine my credibility, including my testimony before the ICC, [international criminal court] and ICJ [international court of justice]had finally ended. » said Abou-Sittah.
His case was initially heard by an interim orders tribunal, which said it was “unable to accept the GMC’s argument that there was a risk that Dr Abu-Sitta would discriminate against Jewish or Israeli patients because the only evidence presented to the tribunal on this point suggested otherwise”. He was later cleared in a full hearing at the MPTS.
“What the GMC is saying is that they will continue until they get the decision that they think is politically acceptable,” Abu-Sittah said.
“The significant cost of pursuing this appeal, borne by subscription-paying GMC members, raises serious questions about the degree of external political pressure placed on the regulator. »
The government has said it intends to remove the GMC’s right of appeal, to which the regulator’s chief executive, Charlie Massey, told a parliamentary committee in January he was “reconciled”. The change has been in the works for years, with a 2018 study describing a perception that the regulator “had two opportunities to make its case – first by arguing for a sanction against the MPTS, and then by appealing the MPTS’ decision if it does not ‘agree’ with the GMC’s view”.
The case against Abu-Sittah concerned an article he wrote for a Lebanese newspaper and two articles about X.
Ian Comfort, chairman of the committee, said the court did not “cherry-pick” quotes from the article but examined it in its entirety and could not identify anything that was anti-Semitic or supportive of terrorism or violence.
The lawyer said the tweets, linked to Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, could not be considered inciting or supporting violence or terrorism.
Abu-Sittah said: “I do not and have never supported violence against civilians. The allegations against me have been rejected by the court and, in my view, are part of a broader attempt to discredit my professional and humanitarian work.”
He said he had received “an outpouring of support from Jewish colleagues, patients and even Israeli colleagues who submitted evidence to the GMC courts”.
A GMC spokesperson said exercising the right to appeal “is something we do very carefully and only after detailed consideration. Our aim is to protect the public and we are satisfied, given the nature of the allegations, that it is right to appeal.”
A UKLFI spokesperson said: “UKLFI has nothing to do with the GMC’s appeal against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service’s decision.
“The UKLFI has lodged its own complaint with the Professional Standards Authority, regarding the manner in which the GMC pursued the case against Dr Abu-Sittah and regarding the MPTS’ decision. For example, the GMC failed to present most of the evidence to the MPTS regarding Dr Abu-Sittah’s conduct in commemorating and supporting terrorism.”
