At lunch on September 10, 2025, I accessed Instagram for a bit of relief: adorable dog clips, life hack reels, something cheerful and uplifting. Instead, I encountered a video and headline I wished to dismiss as a deepfake. It was graphic and disorienting and, for a moment, I attempted to negotiate with reality: This cannot be true, and if it is, how did it end up on my phone? Wouldn’t it have been removed for breaching platform regulations against graphic violence? But it was true. Charlie Kirk had been shot while addressing an audience at Utah Valley University at 12:20 p.m., with his wife and two small children present just ten feet away. He did not make it. My heart sank. That afternoon, I went on to see patients, but time slipped by in a haze. Although I do not align with many of his opinions, I share the conviction that as human beings, we resolve disagreements through dialogue, not violence, not firepower.
The federal reaction highlighted the seriousness: A proclamation from the White House ordered U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff until September 14. Authorities released investigative documentation; by the end of the week, a 22-year-old suspect was apprehended, while Utah’s governor cautioned that the motive was still under scrutiny.
What struck nearly as hard as the news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination were certain reactions: A number of individuals in public roles, including in healthcare and education, celebrated his demise and deemed it “justified.” When a physician comments, “The individuals responsible for this are amazing and I admire them and they should continue doing it indefinitely.” That is not “edgy.” It is a violation of the healer’s pledge.
Among our nation’s “healers” who crossed that boundary are the previously mentioned neurologist at the University of Miami, who was dismissed after sharing on Instagram, portraying the murder as justified and calling for ongoing violence; in Virginia, Riverside Walter Reed Hospital let go of a contract anesthesiologist due to ‘highly inappropriate’ remarks endorsing violence against a public figure (identity not disclosed). In Georgia, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta terminated an employee for inappropriate social media remarks about Charlie Kirk (identity not disclosed).
The First Amendment restricts governmental punishment for speech. It does not shield professionals from professional repercussions, particularly in roles that demand high trust. Medicine is not solely about preventing harm; it is about preserving trust in situations where patients and the public are exposed and reliant.
In simple terms, Medicine necessitates unbiased care: Patients must realize that we will care for them irrespective of political preferences, ideology, religion, or affiliations. When a clinician openly praises a political assassination, it suggests that certain lives matter less or not at all, which poses an imaginable risk to safety. Medicine also requires respect for all individuals, from Hippocrates to the AMA Code; our license is predicated on honoring every human life and dignity. Supporting lethal violence undermines that foundation. Ultimately, clinicians must exemplify moral restraint, both in speech and action. The public grants us immense authority (intimate access, prescribing power, clinical judgment) in exchange for transcending political blood sport. When providers manifest dehumanization, it multiplies. Celebrating a killing is hate speech, outside professional limits; it damages public trust not only in the individual provider but also in the institutions they represent.
Some will argue, “My personal account is my concern.” In ordinary professions, perhaps. In medicine, education, law enforcement, and other trust-based roles, a public endorsement of violence contradicts the duty of care.
Zero tolerance is not “cancel culture.” It is about patient safety. Maintain safe care; exclude hate.
What responsible institutions must do, every time:
**Establish firm boundaries.** No posts that commend or rationalize violence against anyone. Since it jeopardizes patient trust, any commendation or rationalization of violence is subject to disciplinary action: removal from duty, termination, and when relevant, board notification.
**Articulate clearly.** Specify the behavior, identify the infringed provision, and reiterate the duty of care and ethical standards.
**Align with licensure.** Boards and professional societies should explicitly express that endorsing real-world violence constitutes unprofessional conduct.
**Educate on digital professionalism.** Not a gag order, but instruction on foreseeable harm and the permanence of digital content.
**Safeguard dissent.** Encourage debate; prohibit dehumanization. Create an environment where clinicians can discuss policy without transforming colleagues into adversaries.
History demonstrates the consequences that follow when certain lives cease to be valued; the corrosive nature of dehumanization impacts everything it encounters.
Begin here: In medicine, we do not celebrate death, whether on duty or off, in the hospital or clinic, and certainly not on our feeds.
*Carrie Friedman is a dual board-certified psychiatric and family nurse practitioner and the founder of [Brain Garden Psychiatry](https://braingardenpsychiatry.com) in California. She integrates evidence-based psychopharmacology with functional and integrative psychiatry, emphasizing root-c…