Medics to rebel on NHS anti-Semitism rules

Sunday, June 21, 2026

Doctors at the British Medical Association’s annual meeting plan to challenge NHS England’s adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, arguing it suppresses free speech on Israel-Palestine issues and leads to unjust disciplinary actions. This debate highlights tensions between protecting against anti-Semitism and safeguarding political expression within the NHS, with the government reaffirming its commitment to enforcing the IHRA definition despite opposition.

Doctors within the British Medical Association (BMA) are expected to challenge NHS policies on anti-Semitism at the union’s annual general meeting, which begins Thursday. Senior medics plan to argue that the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism by NHS England restricts legitimate political expression, particularly criticism of Israel’s actions in Palestine.

The proposed motion, coming from the BMA’s consultants’ conference, voices “grave concern” over the IHRA definition’s use in the NHS, claiming it has created a “chilling effect” on free speech. It also calls for union support for members facing disciplinary measures after expressing political views related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Additionally, separate motions from the BMA’s London regional council argue that the IHRA definition has led to false allegations of anti-Semitism and that some members are being victimised for supporting Palestine. This group also advocates mandatory training to address what they term “Anti-Palestinian Racism.”

The NHS formally adopted the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism last year following a government directive amid reports of rising anti-Jewish hostility within healthcare settings. Lord John Mann, the government’s adviser on anti-Semitism, supported the move and has urged medical professionals to refrain from introducing Middle East politics into clinical environments. After the BMA meeting, the government confirmed it would implement all of Lord Mann’s recommendations.

However, the initiative has faced opposition from some within the medical and wider community. Dr. Fiona Sim, chair of the Jewish Medical Association, expressed deep concern about the motions. She described the IHRA definition as internationally accepted and said it protects against hate speech without limiting free expression. Sim also noted fears among Jewish members about potential backlash at the conference, recalling incidents from 2024 when Jewish attendees faced harassment.

Political figures have weighed in as well. Stuart Andrew, shadow health secretary, condemned the BMA’s proposed motions, stating it is troubling that NHS doctors seek to dismantle protections against anti-Jewish hatred. Similarly, Alex Hearn, co-director of campaign group Labour Against Antisemitism, defended the IHRA definition, emphasizing that it allows for criticism of Israel while helping to identify hate speech.

The BMA responded by affirming its commitment to opposing anti-Semitism and discrimination. A spokesperson emphasized that conference motions represent grassroots members’ concerns and that the annual meeting is intended to be an inclusive forum where members can speak freely, provided they adhere to the BMA’s code of conduct.

NHS England has directed all NHS organisations to implement the IHRA definition by the end of July. A Department of Health and Social Care representative reaffirmed the government’s position, stating that racism, including anti-Semitism, has no place in the NHS and that Lord Mann’s recommendations are being accepted in full.