Former GP Sarah Benn was suspended by the medical practitioners tribunal service (MPTS) after an arrest for her involvement in climate protests. In The BMJ , two experts debate the question of when and whether doctors in such cases should be sanctioned. The recent case of Sarah Benn has sparked debate, partly because of a perception that the GMC referred her to an MPTS tribunal for taking part in peaceful protests, says Andrew Hoyle, assistant director at the GMC.
In reality, he explains that the referral was made because she repeatedly breached an injunction order, was found to be in contempt of court, and received an immediate custodial sentence. He acknowledges that all doctors have a right to their personal opinions, and nothing in the GMC's Good Medical Practice prevents doctors from exercising their rights to lobby the government, campaign on issues close to their hearts, or take part in public protests. "But when protesting involves breaking the law, doctors—in common with people in many other regulated professions—should understand that consequences may follow," he writes.
It's been suggested that doctors who break the law in an act of civil disobedience should be exempt from sanction if the law is unjust. But Hoyle argues that the justness of a law is the business of parliament, not the regulator. It's also been argued that doctors involved in climate change protests are acting in the public's interest, rather than against it, and that they have a moral imperativ.