Doctors taking part in protests or other forms of activism

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.

We have put together some key points and case studies to explain our role and how we deal with concerns about the actions of doctors during protests, including when doctors have been found to have broken the law.

Our role

We have a legal duty under the Medical Act 1983 to protect the public. The Act splits public protection into three distinct parts. It says that we must act in a way that:

• protects, promotes and maintains the health, safety and wellbeing of the public
• promotes and maintains public confidence in the profession
• promotes and maintains proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.

Patients and the public have a high degree of trust in doctors, which can be affected if doctors break the law. This can put the public’s confidence in the profession at risk, meaning that we may need to take regulatory action.

This also applies at the point of applying for registration. Where an individual applies to join the medical register and declares anything that raises a question about their fitness to practise, we will need to investigate and make a decision about whether to grant them registration.

Our position on taking part in protests

Our guidance on personal beliefs and medical practice is clear – like all citizens, doctors are entitled to their political opinions and have the right to campaign on issues.

However, Good medical practice domain 1 makes clear that doctors must follow the law. And doctors have a duty under Good medical practice domain 4 to tell us about any criminal charges, convictions or cautions.

You can find more information in our guidance Reporting criminal and regulatory proceedings within and outside the UK. 

Good medical practice also says that doctors must make sure their conduct justifies patients’ trust in them and the public’s trust in the profession. Doctors must therefore consider how their conduct might be perceived by members of the public and how this could impact confidence in the wider profession – even where the conduct takes place outside of their professional practice and they consider it to be principled action.

How we handle concerns

We work within a legal framework as set out in the Medical Act 1983 and the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 (as amended). This dictates how we handle concerns about doctors.

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 other cases, if the concern raises a question about the doctor’s fitness to practise, we will investigate and decide whether the case needs to be referred to the MPTS for a hearing.

We will consider each case on its individual circumstances, making sure we take the minimum proportionate action necessary at each stage of our process to protect the public. This includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding professional standards.

When considering what action to take, our decision makers and MPTS tribunals will consider whether the behaviour is a serious breach of our professional standards and if the behaviour is capable of undermining public confidence in the profession.

In assessing whether the concern involves a serious breach of our standards or raises any risk to public protection, we will consider:

• the seriousness of the concern
• any relevant context ie the individual circumstances surrounding a concern
• how the doctor has responded to the concern including any insight or lack of insight into how their behaviour had the potential to undermine public confidence. This is relevant to the risk of repetition.

You can find more information about the different types of relevant context at paragraphs 30-43 of our explanatory guidance What we mean by fitness to practise. These often relate to matters in the workplace that are outside a doctor’s control, such as their working environment, systems factors, or the values and interests of the organisation or team within which they work. It can also relate to certain very specific personal matters affecting the doctor and outside their control when the events happened, such as personal emergencies, bereavements and ill health.

It would not include the nature of a protest that a doctor was taking part in when the events took place. Doctors may take part in a protest for a range of causes and we can’t take a view on the merits of specific causes or sanction illegal conduct in that context.

A number of factors affect how serious we consider a doctor’s conduct to be and increase the likelihood we’ll need to investigate and potentially take action. These may include whether the conduct:

• risks harm to others or damage to property
• is abusive, for example racial abuse or hate speech
• involves undermining the rule of law
• involves the doctor resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer or fleeing the scene
• involves persistent or repeated breaches of the law (civil or criminal) including relevant court orders
• results in a custodial or high sentence (which reflects the court’s assessment of the seriousness)
• includes a failure to report in line with Reporting criminal and regulatory proceedings
• attempts to mislead the police, courts, an employer or the GMC in relation the event.

If the concern does not involve a serious breach of our standards or a significant risk to public protection, it is unlikely to result in us taking any regulatory action. 

What happens if a doctor is referred to tribunal?

If a doctor is referred to the MPTS for a hearing, the independent tribunal will consider the evidence and any representations made by the GMC and the doctor. If the tribunal determines that the doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired, it will decide what, if any, sanction to impose in accordance with the current Sanctions guidance.

How we make sure concerns raised with us are appropriate and fair

Doctors may feel worried about fitness to practise referrals to the GMC being used inappropriately to discourage comment or unfairly target individuals. We’re clear that this is absolutely unacceptable.

We want to reassure doctors that there are processes and safeguards to help make sure that concerns raised with us are appropriate and fair.

We’re also working to help patients and members of the public understand what we can and can’t investigate. We signpost to organisations that might be better placed to deal with their concerns and are working with those organisations to make sure they’re offering good advice.

Read more about when a concern should be raised with us or elsewhere.

Support and advice for doctors

We understand the impact that having a concern raised about them can have on a doctor. It’s likely they’ll be worried, and they may be unsure of what to do, or where to go for advice. We offer a range of support for doctors.

Useful links and further information

• Our ethical hub incudes a range of resources exploring how to apply our professional standards in practice, focusing on areas doctors often ask us about, or have told us they find challenging.
• Our Outreach team offers learning and development opportunities to help doctors understand our professional standards and apply them to day-to-day work.
• You can learn more about our processes on our Fitness to practise explained pages.
• You can also find further information on the MPTS website around understanding hearings.