Generating key takeaways...
The Royal College of Psychiatrists encounters significant opposition from UK members for partnering with Qatar’s healthcare system to conduct international psychiatric exams, sparking ethical and reputational debates over human rights issues in the Gulf nation.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists is currently facing significant opposition from its members following its decision to partner with Qatar’s state healthcare provider, Hamad Medical Corporation, to host international psychiatric exams in Doha. This move allows psychiatrists from across the Middle East and other regions to apply for membership via exams conducted in Qatar. However, the decision has sparked controversy due to Qatar’s well-documented human rights issues, including the criminalisation of same-sex relationships, lack of legal protections for women, and reported exploitation of migrant workers, who comprise over 90% of the country’s workforce.
More than 150 psychiatrists from prominent UK hospitals and universities have signed an open letter to the college president warning that this commercial relationship with a state healthcare system closely linked to the Qatari government risks severe reputational damage to the college. The letter highlights concerns such as the denial of equal rights for women, absence of protections against domestic abuse, and the threat of the death penalty for same-sex sexual activity. Concerns were also raised about the ethical implications of conducting clinical exams in a country with such a record on fundamental human rights, questioning how mental health issues related to gender dysphoria, HIV status, and homophobic experiences could be fairly addressed in the exam assessments that involve role-playing patient consultations.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists defended the partnership, stating that its primary objective is to increase access to membership exams for doctors from the global south and marginalised groups. The institution maintains that the exams held in Doha will uphold the same standards, values, and rigorous scrutiny as those in the UK and Singapore, another international exam centre. It pledges an anti-discriminatory and evidence-based approach that eschews a colonial mindset by not selectively deciding whom to work with, emphasising that the decisions are driven by medical needs and guided by its values in line with Charity Commission requirements. The college also claimed to have received supportive feedback from many of its 22,200 members despite the backlash.
Leading voices among the objectors have expressed particular distress at the college’s apparent willingness to engage with a government known for institutional homophobia. Dr Bradley Hillier, a consultant forensic psychiatrist and signatory of the letter, described the partnership as in direct conflict with the college’s historic values and mission. Similarly, Professor Michael Bloomfield, head of translational psychiatry research at University College London, categorised the move as “completely morally unacceptable.” Professor Annie Bartlett from City St George’s University welcomed the international expansion of exam access but criticised the choice of Qatar over alternatives that lack severe human rights concerns, including issues around women’s rights, migrant worker protections, and punitive laws against same-sex activity.
This controversy arises in the context of ongoing collaboration between the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Qatari health organisations on mental health initiatives. The college has previously co-hosted large-scale events such as the 9th Qatar International Mental Health Conference, which drew over 1,000 delegates and was aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing across the region. It has also worked with Hamad Medical Corporation and Sidra Medicine to raise awareness on maternal mental health issues, including organising conferences addressing societal taboos and challenges faced by new and expectant mothers in the Middle East.
While the college emphasises its commitment to improving mental health care for marginalised groups through these partnerships, the ethical and reputational concerns voiced by its UK-based members suggest significant tensions in balancing global outreach with adherence to human rights principles. The debate underscores the complex challenges faced by professional bodies operating internationally, especially in regions where legal frameworks and social attitudes conflict sharply with Western human rights norms.
📌 Reference Map:
- [1] (The Guardian) – Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9
- [2] (The Guardian) – Paragraphs 1, 2, 4
- [3] (Hamad Medical Corporation) – Paragraphs 10, 11
- [4] (Sidra Medicine) – Paragraphs 12, 13
- [5] (Qatar Tribune) – Paragraph 10
- [6] (Gulf Times) – Paragraph 10
- [7] (The Peninsula Qatar) – Paragraph 13
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is recent, published on 9 November 2025, with no evidence of prior similar reports. The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ partnership with Hamad Medical Corporation is a new development, indicating high freshness.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The direct quotes from the open letter signed by over 150 psychiatrists are unique to this report, with no earlier matches found online. This suggests original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Guardian, a reputable UK-based news organisation, enhancing its credibility.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims about the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ partnership with Hamad Medical Corporation and the subsequent backlash are plausible and align with known human rights concerns in Qatar. The narrative includes specific details, such as the dates of the exams and the number of psychiatrists involved, which are consistent with other reputable sources.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is recent, originates from a reputable source, and presents plausible claims with specific details, indicating high credibility.
