NHS workers shouldn't be silenced for speaking out on Gaza genocide

In March this year, staff at Bart’s hospital NHS Trust were banned from using symbols which showed support for Palestine or anathematised the abhorrent sustained violence which is taking place in Gaza. This included wearing pin badges or stickers which had the Palestinian flag, or even the watermelon motif to show solidarity against the suffering which is taking place.

To many staff, this came as a surprise, not least because of the systematic destruction and targeting of healthcare system and staff in Gaza, with many doctors, nurses and aid workers – some of whom have ties to Britain – having been killed by the Israeli military. It also reeks of the hypocrisy that exists in the NHS.

Bart’s Trust is also one of the oldest and most important hospitals to exist in the world. It has a legacy of compassion, and even faced bombardment during the Second World War. It's no wonder when Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukraine began, Bart’s rightly came out in support and solidarity to the Ukrainians, and to support staff affected by the conflict.

Medical equipment was also sent to help support Ukraine. Yet, long after United Nations experts have formally stated the threshold for risk of genocide having been met in Palestine, the wearing of badges was deemed offensive by NHS trusts?

This follows a long line of workers feeling threatened with fitness to practice referrals for condemning the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. Many are not only feeling silenced by this repression, but also helpless and confused over the blatant contradiction.

Our right to be political

In a survey carried out by the British Islamic Medical Association (BIMA), 97% of respondents had found their wellbeing negatively affected by the war, and only 12% had felt they had received support from their employer. One in ten said expressing their opinions in the workplace had led to problems such as formal meetings or disciplinary action.

The General Medical Council (GMC) – who regulate doctors in the UK – have clearly stated that doctors, like all other citizens in Britain, are entitled to hold political views and campaign on issues when talking about Gaza so long as it holds patients' trust in them.

Given public polling suggests half of all Brits feel Israel’s war is unjustified, many of their patients also clearly feel the same way about the genocide.

The policy introduced by Bart’s was announced by advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) eight days prior to it being officially implemented, and even before workers were informed. They had complained to the trust following reports patients felt intimidated by workers wearing ‘free Palestine’ on their lanyards.

No NHS worker should doubt patients' concerns - they are paramount to the functioning of healthcare and should always be investigated thoroughly. The stance of ‘political neutrality’, announced by Bart’s, however, seems inherently incorrect when you consider how deeply political the NHS is as an institution.

NHS failing its obligations

The NHS was formed in response to inequality that existed in British society, and even in its frail 76th year of action, it continues to be a national treasure that is celebrated globally. It is a political institution that took decades of organised mobilisation and action to bring about.

Not forgetting, healthcare workers are committed to the founding principle of ‘do no harm’, and so calling out the killing of thousands by Israel and its allies would surely be considered the bare minimum?

It's why, when it was announced that US data company Palantir, that has alleged close ties to Israel’s military, was being given hundreds of millions of pounds in contracts to be used in the NHS, staff were horrified and many took to the streets in protest.

Moreover, there should be no nuance or neutrality to what so many experts have agreed is a genocide happening in Gaza. And preventing staff to express their opposition to it is a frightening precipice that we now stand on.

Even the most devout supporters of Israel within the heart of the government, have now had too-late change in their stance on the sickening situation. The health secretary Wes Streeting, who was calling on strengthening the policing of Palestine solidarity within the NHS at the start of the genocide, himself has advised Israel to “get their house in order” and now referred to the situation as “intolerable”. If the man who runs the NHS is now backpedalling and stating these words, why are staff still being silenced for holding views which are not dissimilar?

Likewise, in the last few months, the British Medical Association (BMA), the trade union for doctors in the UK, at the annual representative meeting re-affirmed the right to speak up against humanitarian crises. This meeting also importantly noted staff have the right to condemn the atrocities carried out by the state of Israel.

NHS workers have also taken legal action against Bart’s, arguing the policy introduced infringes on employee’s rights under the Equality Act 2010. The outcome of this case will be significant to the future of NHS workers’ rights, and the freedom to express and call out the abuse of human rights.

One would hope that in the future the NHS will not only respect their workers’ freedom of speech in the face of genocide, but also represent the values of the institution itself - designed to treat all equally.

Dr Ammad Butt is an NHS doctor and writer based between Birmingham and London. His pieces can be found in The Guardian, The Independent, i Paper, The Spectator, Tribune and UnHerd. He is an awardee of the 2025 Wellcome Collection Non-Fiction prize for his book proposal, The International Health Service.

Follow Ammad on X: @ammadbutt_

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of their employer, or of The New Arab and its editorial board or staff.