Fitness to practise barristers, Kings View Chambers, discusses the fitness to practise considerations involved with doctors taking part in protests.

The GMC Position

Over the years, the GMC has issued statements and guidance on its approach to fitness to practise concerns associated with doctors taking part in protests or other forms of activism.  In 2019 it said:

“Like all citizens, doctors are entitled to their own personal political opinions, and there is nothing in the standards we set that prevents them from exercising their rights to lobby government, or campaign on issues.

“If we receive a complaint about the actions of a doctor involved in a protest, or a self-referral, we have a legal duty to consider the issues raised. However, as with all complaints, we would make our decision based on the specific facts of the case.

“Our focus would be on whether a doctor’s actions may have fallen seriously or persistently below the standards we set, or put patients or the public confidence in the profession at risk. Doctors must always be prepared to justify their decisions and actions.”

In July 2024, the GMC issued further guidance.  It said, in summary:

“We recognise that some doctors may feel strongly about social or ethical issues such as climate change. It is understandable that recent cases have prompted questions around how our guidance applies to doctors taking part in protests or other forms of activism.”

But ultimately, as in the Benn case above, the GMC is clear that the “Good medical practice domain 1 makes clear that doctors must follow the law.”

In the 2024 guidance, the GMC also stated that:

“Where we receive concerns about a doctor’s actions, including when their involvement in any form of activism has resulted in a criminal conviction or civil sanction, we have a legal duty to consider whether their conduct raises a question about their fitness to practise.

“If a doctor is convicted of a criminal matter and given a custodial sentence, we must refer the case to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) for a hearing. This is required in law and we can’t exercise any discretion over this.”

In the most recent statement from the GMC, specifically in relation to the Benn case (below), the regulator said:

“‘We agree that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing us all, particularly given the serious threat a changing climate poses to human health and wellbeing. Our guidance is clear that doctors, like all citizens, have a right to express their personal opinions on important issues like climate change, and there is nothing in our guidance that prevents them from exercising their right to lobby government and campaign – including taking part in protests. Our recently updated professional standards for all UK doctors, Good medical practice, also includes a new sustainability commitment, with a specific duty that all doctors should choose sustainable solutions.

“‘However, patients and the public have a high degree of trust in doctors, and that trust can be put at risk when doctors fail to comply with the law.’”

UK Fitness to Practise News

Benn v General Medical Council

The case of Benn v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 87 (Admin) involves Dr. Sarah Benn’s appeal against the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal’s (MPT) decision to suspend her from the medical register for five months. The MPT’s decision was based on findings that Dr. Benn’s fitness to practice was impaired through misconduct due to her participation in Just Stop Oil protests, which led to her breaching a High Court injunction and resulting in her imprisonment.

Dr. Benn’s appeal argued that her actions were motivated by genuine and sincerely held beliefs in the wider interests of public health and that the Tribunal’s decision was disproportionate. She contended that her participation in non-violent environmental activism should not amount to misconduct and that the sanction of suspension was excessive.

In the case, the MPT acknowledged that “amongst the public there would be considerable sympathy for Dr Benn’s concerns about the environment” but ultimately the tribunal expressed the view that “the overwhelming majority of the public would not condone breaking the law in the way in which Dr Benn did especially given the impact, on the final occasion, to the wider public resources involved.”

There will no doubt be considerable public sympathy and support for, in this case, doctors who take part in this form of activism recognising the implications of inaction on climate change.  However, the High Court was clear on the importance of doctors acting within the rule of law at all times, notwithstanding the motivation behind any action(s) that lead to them breaking the rule of law.  Mr Justice Yip commented in this case:

“A doctor cannot be permitted to deliberately act outside the law, nor can anyone else. The rule of law applies to everyone. The rule of law was applied to Dr Benn when the High Court enforced its orders and sentenced her to a period of imprisonment. It was therefore a mischaracterisation of the issue to suggest that Dr Benn’s arguments would result in the Tribunal permitting doctors to act outside the law.” 

Protest action, fitness to practise and patient risk

It has been pointed that, whilst it is the case that the GMC has a duty to refer doctors to a medical tribunal when they receive a custodial sentence, in the case of climate protests, the doctor’s actions will not necessarily have a bearing on their ability to practise medicine nor pose any risk to their patients.

This has called into question the GMC approach and how it should deal with doctors convicted of offences arising from protest action. The BMA, for example, said;

“Referring a doctor to a medical tribunal for something not directly related to patient care or their clinical skills, raises legitimate questions about the rules behind the handling of such cases and whether doctors should be punished twice for something totally unconnected to their role as doctors.

“The climate crisis is a health crisis and as such doctors are understandably concerned about the failings of Governments to address climate change, at the detriment to society.  Doctors, like Patrick Hart, find it very difficult to understand why their ability to practise medicine could be suspended because of non-violent actions they take in protest of the climate crisis.” 

What is clear from the current GMC position on criminal convictions, and other fitness to practise issues arising from doctors taking part in protest action, is that the overriding consideration is doctors staying within the rule of law and complying with the GMC guidance (most importantly the Good medical practice).

Whilst there is general recognition and sympathy for doctors taking up the cause to raise awareness of the implications of climate change, this does not overwrite the need for doctors to stay on the right side of the law and act with integrity.

The fact that a doctor’s protest action(s) may, neither, have no bearing on their ability to practise medicine nor pose any risk to their patients is not considered relevant.  This position has been upheld by the High Court as we discussed in the case of Dr Benn.

Doctors will need to ensure they act within the law when taking part in any form of protest or activism to avoid fitness to practise investigations and possible sanctions.

Kings View Chambers

We are leaders in fitness to practise defence, with a remarkable track record of success and rated excellent by our clients.

Kings View Chambers has over 30 years’ combined experience representing heath and care professionals at all levels.  We are a leading fitness to practise defence chambers that have a proud record of consistently achieving excellent outcomes for our clients.

As public access barristers, you can instruct us directly without having the additional expense of hiring a solicitor.

Speak to us today for a free, no obligation assessment of your case.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.

Insight Works Training

Restoration Courses

Courses suitable for any health and social care practitioner who is considering making an application for restoration back onto the register.

Insight Works Training

Insight & Remediation

Courses that are suitable for any healthcare practitioner who is facing an investigation or hearing at work or before their regulatory body.

Insight Works Training

Probity, Ethics & Professionalism

Courses designed for those facing a complaint involving in part or in whole honesty, integrity and /or professionalism.