Dr Sarah Benn has long been concerned about the climate crisis, diligently recycling until she was “blue in the face”. But the rise of the climate activist group Extinction Rebellion in 2019 inspired her and her husband to go further. “We thought: well, if we don’t do it then who else is going to?”

During her time as a general practitioner in the vicinity of Birmingham, Benn began to participate more actively in direct action. One notable instance was when she glued her hand to the door of the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy in protest against the government’s lack of action on climate issues.

Benn is currently undergoing a review by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), which is the disciplinary division of the General Medical Council (GMC), to decide if she should be allowed to continue her medical practice. She is one of three doctors facing potential revocation of their licenses due to their involvement in climate activism, and her case will be the first to be heard in April.

Physicians must report to the GMC if they face charges or are found guilty of a criminal offense. However, Benn took it a step further and also notified the regulatory body and her local NHS employer whenever she was arrested. Despite the lack of guidelines regarding protest or activist involvement from the GMC, Benn chose to disclose the information for transparency purposes.

Following four prior convictions for various offenses such as obstructing a highway, interfering with individuals engaging in legal activities, and operating a drone in a restricted area, the GMC launched an inquiry into Benn’s actions. Despite having received conditional discharges, the investigation was concluded with a written reminder for Benn to contemplate her behavior and uphold her professional duties in the future.

Benn stated that his comments were taken into consideration, in which he expressed that he did not believe he posed any danger and would continue his actions until he no longer saw it as necessary. Therefore, it was known by the decision makers that he would continue despite their verdict.

Benn’s case was brought to trial, as she breached a civil injunction at Warwickshire’s Kingsbury oil terminal while participating in the Just Stop Oil campaign. She was ultimately charged with contempt of court and spent 31 days in prison for her involvement.

View image in fullscreen

”
GP from Bristol, Dr. Patrick Hart, has a record of being involved in climate activism and has been convicted multiple times. One of these convictions led to a prison sentence being suspended. Despite being warned by the General Medical Council (GMC), he refused to comply and as a result, he will be facing a tribunal in November.

Hart stated that the attorney he spoke with considered the punishment to be remarkably mild, but he chose not to accept it. This was partly due to his unwillingness to be dishonest, and partly due to his frustration with them for not addressing the issue thoroughly and for aggressively investigating individuals for matters related to morality and patient well-being.

The General Medical Council stated that doctors have the same rights as all citizens to hold their own political beliefs, and their ability to lobby the government or advocate for issues is not restricted by the council’s standards.

Nevertheless, it was stated that in the event of a doctor being handed a custodial sentence following a criminal conviction, it was compulsory for them to be referred to the MPTS.

In 2012, the creation of the MPTS was suggested by the Shipman inquiry to independently evaluate the competence of doctors, separate from the GMC. Aside from addressing clinical malpractice and research misconduct, the MPTS often handles cases of doctors falsifying records, engaging in relationships with patients, or driving under the influence.

According to Benn, there are numerous physicians that engage in political activism and have participated in social justice causes. However, to the best of my knowledge, there are none who have faced criminal convictions that then resulted in a hearing to evaluate their ability to continue practicing medicine.

Benn has officially left her role as a GP and is no longer practicing. However, she believes it is important for the GMC to acknowledge the significance of her actions and hopes to establish doctors as reliable sources of information.

“I am concerned about the potential public health consequences of a crisis that humanity has never encountered before,” she expressed. “As a parent, I fear for my children’s future and my own, but also for those who are already experiencing famine, displacement, and hardship due to our continued reliance on mining and burning fossil fuels. Punishing someone who is attempting to address this issue is not the solution.”

She hopes that the GMC will create advice for medical professionals on activism, as she intends to continue being a part of it.

According to Hart, the majority of doctors do not recognize their crucial responsibility in addressing the impact of climate change and raising awareness about it. He states that his original goal was to serve as a science communicator, but very few doctors have made attempts to do the same. As a result, there is a significant disparity between the scientific knowledge and the understanding of the general public, politicians, and business leaders regarding the current state of the climate crisis.

Benn observed an increase in activism within her field, as evidenced by its scholarly publications. In the previous year, over 150 healthcare professionals signed a public statement addressed to the attorney general, expressing apprehensions about the legal proceedings against Trudi Warner. Warner was charged for peacefully displaying a sign outside Inner London crown court emphasizing the jury’s right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience.

Benn and Hart are still subject to criminal proceedings that could result in the loss of their freedom and potentially, their ability to practice their profession.

Hart stated that activism has improved their skills as a doctor and has enabled them to provide compassionate, long-term care for patients with a focus on inter-generational healthcare. Additionally, it has reinforced their belief in the social importance of healthcare in a society with a promising future.

According to Benn, he does not pose a threat to the public when it comes to treating patients. He is focused on one specific paragraph in the Good Medical Practice guidelines from the General Medical Council, stating that doctors must act in a way that justifies their patients’ trust and the trust of the public in the medical profession. He is curious about how this concept of public trust is defined in today’s society and how it will be interpreted in his case.

Source: theguardian.com