It seems we find ourselves once again in the throes of yet another bizarre spectacle in today’s healthcare environment—this time starring a New Jersey nurse named Lexy Coons Sell, who finds herself suspended indefinitely without pay. And why? Because she dared to express her horror after overhearing a doctor celebrating the alleged death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, claiming he deserved it. In an era when one might expect medical professionals to uphold the Hippocratic Oath’s principle of “do no harm,” this doctor seemed to have missed the memo.
According to the hospital, both the doctor and the nurse were placed on suspension pending a “thorough and fair” investigation. Presumably, this is to maintain everyone’s safety, as if having an opinion in the workplace has suddenly become a highly dangerous affair. It’s bewildering to think that calling out what sounds like a gross breach of professional ethics can lead to indefinite suspension. The so-called “protocols” seem as ambiguous as ever, and the notion of fairness is getting stretched thinner than a slice of deli meat.
Apparently, this all started when Lexy stumbled upon the doctor who was waxing lyrical about his enjoyment of the supposed death of Charlie Kirk, someone with whom Lexy happens to share a fondness going way back to her first blue-check retweet days in 2018. The shocking part isn’t Lexy’s admiration for Kirk—that’s her prerogative—but rather the whimsical professionalism exhibited by this doctor. Lexy challenged his questionable stance, rightfully questioning how someone bound by the ethical standards of medicine could utter such distasteful remarks.
As one might expect in today’s digital age, the incident found its way online. Lexy took to Instagram, condemning the doctor’s disgraceful behavior that sparked her suspension. Her post queried whether patients who shared Kirk’s views would receive unbiased care under this doctor’s watch. A tough question for the hospital to answer, it seems, given their reliance on suspension as a cure-all for maintaining order instead of addressing the real issue—whether or not personal politics should dictate professional conduct in a place where healing, not harming, should be paramount.
With her lawyer, John Paul Deal, Lexy is ready to fight her case in court. Deal argues that actions casting doubt over patient safety and welfare are matters not just of public interest, but also of professional responsibility. Lexy, optimistic about her future, expresses her desire to return to work, provided she is vindicated. Otherwise, she’s prepared to sue the hospital, standing firm in her belief that speaking up against unethical behavior should not be a punishable offense. It’s an all-too-familiar tale in today’s labyrinthine landscape of bureaucracy—where standing up for what’s right often leaves you suspended in the political crossfire of hospital politics.
