A recent Healthed survey reveals most GPs had no idea AHPRA adopted an antisemitism definition. Those who did were split.
Medical education company Healthed’s 23 June webcast asked GPs if they knew AHPRA had adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and the controversy surrounding it.
Of the 1064 responses, 61% were unaware, 25% preferred not to comment, and just 14% – 150 GPs – answered yes.
Among those aware, responses were divided. Only 40% provided further comment.
GPs most often said AHPRA’s decision was either “too political”, that existing anti-discrimination laws and codes of conduct were already sufficient, or that Australia should develop its own definition of antisemitism.
Others found the IHRA definition “biased” or “very vague”, which they said could lead to misunderstandings or distress among clinicians.
Some were firmly supportive, with one citing the Federal Government and Royal Commission’s own adoption of the definition as reason enough.
“I think it is outrageous that there would even be any contention that the IHRA definition should be adopted,” one respondent said.
Others were concerned the definition would hinder free speech.
“I think it stifles legitimate discussion about what is happening in the Middle East and the effect on the population there, especially Gaza and West Bank,” one respondent said.
Related
An open letter to AHPRA chief executive Justin Untersteiner penned by Health Workers 4 Palestine South Australia gained signatures from over 1,400 practitioners and 60 health and medical organisations according to reporting from the Sydney Morning Herald.
“We share AHPRA’s stated commitment to a health system free from racism and discrimination, and we recognise that antisemitism, like all forms of racism, has no place in healthcare,” the open letter read.
The letter called for clarification on what safeguards the definition would provide beyond those already offered by AHPRA’s code of conduct, and whether the decision was made by AHPRA itself or encouraged by ministerial policy direction.
It also urged confirmation of whether public or stakeholder consultation had occurred before the announcement and, if not, encouraged one to be conducted.
Health Workers 4 Palestine also called for the advisory panel reviewing AHPRA’s vexatious notifications framework to include practitioners with experience receiving complaints about their pro-Palestinian advocacy, as well as those who had faced antisemitism.
The Medical Association for the Prevention of War and the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network have also expressed concern with the adoption of the definition.
AHPRA’s IHRA definition adoption coincided with NSW judge Michael McHugh’s recent ruling that a video of former Sydney nurses Ahmad Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, allegedly refusing to treat and threatening violence against Israeli patients, was inadmissible as evidence in court.
AHPRA banned the pair from practising as nurses in Australia effective last February, and they are now set to face a criminal trial scheduled for late August.
Comments on this article have been disabled.
