Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Menatalla Elwan, doctor (General Medical Council 7577792).
Decision date: 31 March 2026 · Hearing started 23 March 2026 and ended 31 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Menatalla Elwan, a neurology trainee, made two posts on Twitter on 7 October 2023 about events in Israel and Palestine. The tribunal decided the posts were neither antisemitic nor grossly offensive and were political speech protected by free-expression rights. While the timing and tone were inappropriate and in bad taste, this did not amount to misconduct. The tribunal found her fitness to practise was not impaired and issued no warning.
Charges
It was alleged that on or around 7 October 2023 Dr Elwan posted two comments on Twitter (X). Schedule 1 was the comment 'Israel was never a country. They illegally occupied Palestine... Israel kills Palestinians everyday, didn't see anyone caring :) Also, there are no civilians in Israel.' Schedule 2 was a comment reposting a video, with the words 'If it was ur home, u would stay and fight. U wouldn't just run away (smiley face emoji).' The GMC alleged that the Schedule 1 comment was grossly offensive and that the Schedule 2 comment was both objectively antisemitic and grossly offensive.
Findings
The Tribunal found that Dr Elwan had made the posts but found that the Schedule 1 comment was not grossly offensive, that the Schedule 2 comment was not objectively antisemitic, and that the Schedule 2 comment was not grossly offensive. The Tribunal accepted expert evidence from Professor B and held that the posts were political speech protected by Article 10 ECHR. While the timing and tone were inappropriate, insensitive and in shockingly bad taste, the conduct did not amount to misconduct. There was therefore no legal basis for considering impairment and no warning was issued.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.