Demonstrators against antisemitism in London on Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: Campaign Against Antisemitism

In a move likely to intensify tensions over rising antisemitism in Britain’s health-care system, the British Medical Association (BMA) has voted in favor of scrapping the world’s most widely recognized definition of antisemitism across the country’s National Health Service (NHS), arguing that government efforts to combat anti-Jewish discrimination risk undermining free expression among health workers.

During the BMA’s annual meeting on Tuesday, health-care professionals voted to remove the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism from the NHS, arguing that its application could limit health-care workers’ ability to express political views and ethical concerns.

The BMA passed a motion calling on “the government and NHS England to revoke the mandatory adoption of the IHRA definition across the NHS until proper safeguards …” are in place to help protect “free speech in health-care settings.”

An intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries, including the United States and Israel, IHRA adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. The British government adopted the definition that same year. 

Since its adoption, the definition has gained widespread support from Jewish organizations and lawmakers around the world, and is now used by hundreds of governmental bodies, including the European Union and the United Nations.

According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Beyond traditional antisemitic acts associated with the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the definition provides contemporary examples of antisemitism found in public life, media, education, workplaces, and religious settings — including Holocaust denial and modern forms targeting Israel, such as demonizing the Jewish state and denying its right to exist.

In the United Kingdom, the NHS adopted IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism last year after Health Secretary Wes Streeting required its use across all Department of Health and Social Care arm’s-length bodies, in response to rising concerns over anti-Jewish discrimination.

However, the BMA — which represents more than 200,000 doctors and medical students across the UK — strongly opposed the move, arguing that the IHRA definition has a “chilling effect” on political speech and could prevent NHS doctors from expressing “ethical concerns about Israel’s actions in Palestine.”

Now, the motion calls for “urgent guidance and support to members who face disciplinary action or professional detriment for expressing legitimate political views or ethical concerns about international conflicts, including Palestine/Israel.”

It also “advocates for the protection of free speech in health-care settings, ensuring that NHS staff can engage in legitimate political discourse and express ethical concerns without fear of professional reprisal.”

The BMA is encouraging its members to “work with other health-care unions and professional bodies to challenge any attempts to use the IHRA definition to suppress legitimate debate about human rights violations, war crimes, or colonial practices in international conflicts.”

The move follows the British government’s full acceptance of recommendations from an independent review into antisemitism in the NHS, which urged stronger action by health authorities to address anti-Jewish racism and proposed national guidance on NHS uniforms and equipment amid rising antisemitic incidents in health-care settings.

Among the review’s recommendations was a requirement that leaders of all NHS provider trusts complete anti-racism training, including specific education on antisemitism, within six months.

However, there was mounting opposition from some medical organizations, with the British Islamic Medical Association and the Muslim Doctors Association arguing that the review’s focus on antisemitism was too “narrow.”

Last week, leaflets opposing the government’s plans to implement the review’s recommendations were distributed outside University College Hospital (UCLH) in London.

The leaflets, bearing the phrase “Hands Off Our Healthworkers, we will not be silent about the genocide in Palestine,” described the review as “racist” and alleged that enhanced antisemitism training within the NHS amounts to “pro-Israel indoctrination.”

The NHS has been under scrutiny following several high-profile cases both in the UK and around the world involving medical practitioners promoting antisemitic beliefs online and even threatening or boasting about their hate for Jewish people as well as Israelis.

In the UK, however, there has been an especially high number of cases of alleged antisemitism over the past several months.

The case of Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, a trainee trauma and orthopedic surgeon, particularly drew public attention. In November, Aladwan was suspended from practicing medicine in the UK for 15 months over social media posts denigrating Jews and celebrating terrorism.

British law enforcement had arrested Aladwan in October, and in March she  pleaded not guilty to inciting support for Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group, and publishing material intending to stir up racial hatred.

Her suspension last year came about two weeks after Streeting called it “chilling” that some members of the Jewish community fear discrimination within the NHS.

Other incidents in the UK included a Jewish family fearing their London doctor’s antisemitism influenced their disabled son’s treatment. The North London hospital suspended the physician who was under investigation for publicly claiming that all Jews have “feelings of supremacy” and downplaying antisemitism.