In a submission to the British Medical Journal, Professor Gene Feder (University of Bristol), Dr Rubin Minhas (University of Kent) and Professor Aziz Shaikh (University of Oxford), provide a nuanced critique of the recent “rapid” review conducted by Lord Mann,UK government advisor on antisemitism, “to examine how the regulatory system for healthcare professionals, from employment through to national oversight and professional regulatory bodies, supports recognition and reporting of antisemitism and other forms of racism, and tackles racism at every stage and level.”
While welcoming the Review “clarifies that criticism of the Israeli government or state, even where offensive to some, does not necessarily constitute antisemitism; nor do positions that accord equal human rights to Palestinian people”, the authors note that there is an “explicit hierarchy of affected groups.”
| “Asymmetry in the visibility of different groups in the review is, however, broadly evident: “antisemitism” appears 71 times, “anti-Muslim” appears five times, and “Black” 10 times, often in the term “Black and minority ethnic staff.” One recommendation, on medical school disciplinary processes, solely addresses anti-Jewish hatred, despite the diversity of the medical student population and medical workforce and the report’s acknowledgement of widespread anti-Muslim hostility. The remaining recommendations mostly avoid an explicit hierarchy of affected groups.” |
The authors raise three specific concerns:
- Professional Standards Authority and General Medical Council powers to challenge decisions will extend from final tribunal decisions to interim restrictions imposed during investigations [. . .] . These changes may improve consistency and public protection but increase pressure on doctors before wrongdoing is established.
- Expert advice is also proposed in relevant fitness to practise cases involving protected characteristics, such as race, alongside wider powers for GMC case examiners, similar to those of fitness to practise panels [. . .] However, they also require safeguards against summary justice: how experts are selected, what thresholds apply, how decisions are audited, and what protections exist against punitive scrutiny—where repeated investigation or escalation becomes a penalty in itself
- NHS England and its successor would be able to restrict practitioners on grounds of “suitability,” including where they express racist or “extremist” views. Unless “extremism” is confined to clear legal or regulatory thresholds, such as proscribed organisations, it risks becoming subjective in contested areas, with the potential for uneven enforcement
Their diplomatically worded conclusion: “The Mann review’s far reaching reforms carry several substantial risks. Developed through a six-week rapid process, the fragmented policy approach lacks the benefit of the level of stakeholder engagement normally expected for such a sensitive matter. In the absence of a clear implementation plan, reforms may be applied differently across or within organisations, regulators, protected characteristics, and local contexts [. . .] the Mann review’s lasting value may lie in whether it eventually leads the NHS and regulators to build coherent, transparent, fair, and auditable systems for all forms of racism and religious discrimination—making proper regard for antisemitism the basis for equal protection for all.”
For the BMJ article, click here.
For the Mann Review, click here.
.