Charity Gentry
Introduction
Charity Gentry is a UK consultant obstetrician who was suspended from the medical register for twelve months on 19 December 2025, after a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service found she had given dishonest evidence at a Coroner’s Inquest examining the death of a baby, and had committed clinical failings in the care of multiple obstetric patients. The tribunal found the dishonesty at the inquest — where she sought to justify or conceal her own actions — amounted to serious misconduct, imposed an immediate suspension order, and recorded that she has lodged an appeal .
Background Information
Gentry’s case combined two strands. The first was a series of alleged clinical failings in the care of multiple patients between January and December 2017, including errors in managing induction of labour and instrumental delivery, and a failure to offer caesarean section when clinically indicated. The second followed from the first: an allegation that, at a Coroner’s Inquest on 18 February 2020 concerning the death of Baby E following the care of Patient D in September 2017, Gentry gave evidence that was dishonest about her own role .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated (regulatory). The findings are a medical tribunal’s conclusions on the civil standard. The inquest itself was a judicial proceeding; the dishonesty finding about her evidence is the tribunal’s.
The tribunal found a number of the clinical failings proved, and — the charge that carried the case — found the inquest dishonesty proved. It determined that Gentry’s evidence at the Coroner’s Court was motivated by a desire to justify or conceal her actions, and that dishonesty under oath, at an inquest into a baby’s death and on the very care she had provided, amounted to serious misconduct. Its aggravating findings were pointed: she was a senior and experienced consultant in a position of trust; the dishonesty went to central issues about Patient D’s care and had the potential to blame another and obscure what actually occurred; and it caused emotional harm to Patient D .
On sanction the tribunal weighed an otherwise unblemished career of over twenty years in a highly demanding specialty, no repetition of similar concerns, work under conditions at Portsmouth NHS Trust where colleagues were impressed, some remediation including relevant courses, significant work-related pressures and personal stressors at the relevant time, and a substantial body of positive testimonials. Erasure was rejected as disproportionate; the outcome was a twelve-month suspension with a review directed, an immediate order — and the appeal she has lodged .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequence is the twelve-month suspension, in force immediately, and a finding that she lied under oath in the one forum — a coroner’s court — where the truthfulness of a doctor’s account of a death carries the most weight. The case is recorded in MedicWatch’s listing of doctors suspended in 2025 .
The tribunal’s finding that the false evidence risked shifting blame for Baby E’s death onto another and obscuring the true course of care is what lifts the case above ordinary clinical-failings litigation. No public comment from Gentry beyond the appeal appears in the fetched record .
Current Status
Gentry is a suspended consultant obstetrician under a twelve-month order imposed on 19 December 2025, effective immediately, with a review directed before expiry — and an appeal pending, which she lodged against the outcome. The tribunal credited developing insight and an unblemished twenty-year career; it also found her insight into the dishonesty specifically to be limited and largely inward-facing .
The appeal will determine whether the suspension stands in its current form. Whatever its result, the finding that she gave false evidence about a baby’s death under oath is on the permanent record .
Impact on Their Career/Life
Clinical failings in obstetrics are litigated against consultants with some regularity; what made this case a suspension with an immediate order was the sworn testimony. A coroner’s inquest into a newborn’s death exists to establish truth for the family and for the system, and the tribunal found Gentry used it instead to protect herself — with the risk of misdirecting the blame toward someone else. Twenty years of unblemished practice bought her the erasure-rejection; the dishonesty finding took the rest. Her seniority, which the tribunal listed first among the aggravating factors, is the same seniority the profession now has reason to remember differently .