Post by Bystanders No More

This BMJ opinion piece by Minhas et al. provides important evidence of how professional regulation can risk becoming a mechanism for silencing lawful dissent. The data are striking: despite a sharp rise in complaints to the GMC about doctors’ comments on Israel and Palestine, only around 4% proceeded to investigation. That gap should prompt serious scrutiny. It may possibly indicate appropriate filtering, but it also shows how the complaint process itself imposes administrative, legal, reputational, and psychological burdens even where no misconduct is ultimately established. The case of Dr Ghassan Abu-Sitta illustrates the concern. He was cleared of misconduct by a medical practitioners tribunal, yet the GMC intends to appeal, and the PSA has taken the unusual step of joining that appeal. The published reasoning for the PSA’s decision has not been made available. In politically sensitive cases, that lack of transparency risks undermining confidence that escalation is based on evidence rather than complaint pressure, reputational risk, or political context. For Bystanders No More, this is a warning. If medical regulators can be drawn into repeated scrutiny of professionals who speak about genocide, atrocity, or state violence, similar risks may arise in other professions. Lawyers, accountants, finance professionals, academics, and others may ask what protection exists when they question institutional complicity or speak from conscience. The chilling effect is the central issue. The danger is not legitimate complaints, which must be taken seriously. The danger is when repeated complaints, escalation, and opaque decision-making make silence feel safer than lawful ethical speech. This lack of transparency can be weaponised by bad faith actors who can intimidate people who speak knowing that by repeatedly doing so 'the process is the penalty'. The solution requires both regulatory transparency and collective professional leadership. Regulators should publish auditable data on complaint sources, repeat complaints, filtering decisions, and escalation rates, so they can demonstrate that decisions are evidence-based. But data alone is not enough. Senior professionals must also use their institutional standing to normalise ethical dissent. When they speak, they do more than express concern: they make it safer for others to uphold conscience as a professional duty rather than a career liability. Read the entire piece here: https://lnkd.in/eGcJxBs6 If you're a health professional in the UK, have you been able to speak out about Palestine? Share your experiences in the comments section. Dr Rubin Minhas MBA, Nick Maynard, Iain Chalmers, and Gene Feder BMJ #BystandersNoMore #PhysiciansForHumanRights