A sharp look at healthcare workers who air dangerous sympathies online and the unsettling defense of Lindsay Clancy by some in the medical community, plus an update on the ongoing trial.
Doctors and nurses are supposed to comfort and protect, but lately too many are trading competence for clout on social media. Far too often we see professionals saying outrageous things in public forums and facing little immediate consequence. That erosion of trust matters when lives are on the line.
There are responsible first responders who quietly do their jobs, and then there are ones who go viral for all the wrong reasons. A Florida labor and delivery nurse who wished harm on a public figure lost her license, a Chicago nurse encouraged violence against ICE agents, and a certified nurse anesthetist admitted he would refuse anesthesia to “MAGA patients.” Those examples are not isolated incidents — they add up.
All this while progressives preach that healthcare is a right, yet shrug when practitioners act unethically online. Now an OB-GYN has publicly sided with Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three children in 2023. That defense comes from Noa Sterling, the founder of the Obi app, who spoke about Clancy in emotional terms that struck many as tone-deaf given the facts.
“I don’t even know if you’re allowed to watch videos like this,” Sterling said. “But I want you to know that I believe you. From my perspective as an OB-GYN, I believe that you were overfunctioning throughout your entire postpartum period. I am blown away by how hard you were working to get better, while also working as a mom.”
“I have three kids,” she continued, “I know how much work it is. Even when you are mentally well, it is so hard to take care of three kids. They say hindsight is 20-20, but I don’t know what else you could have done. You were far beyond what should be expected of a single individual. You have galvanized us women in a really powerful way. And I’m not quite ready to tell my story yet, but when I eventually do, it’s going to be because you came first.”
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2092392616746996093
Lindsay Clancy’s actions resulted in the deaths of her three children. She does not deny that fact, and neither does her defense. The central question at trial is whether she was legally insane at the time, but the raw outcome is still that three children are dead.
Some commentators have already erected a narrative that turns Clancy into a martyr or a misunderstood victim, and women with platforms have amplified that. That narrative does real harm when it sidelines accountability and minimizes the victims. Hero worship of someone who killed their children is not sympathy — it is distortion.
Allowing Clancy near newborns or infants again would be reckless, and anyone who argues otherwise shows terrible judgment. Complicated emotions about postpartum struggles do not cancel responsibility for violent acts. We can and should care about mental health while still insisting on clear safety measures.
Yes. Anyone who publicly claims to “understand” Clancy without acknowledging the children who died should have their perspective questioned. Empathy does not mean exoneration, and medical professionals should not use their credentials to sanitize violent behavior.
A medical title does not make every opinion immune to scrutiny; flaunting glasses or credentials does not equal wisdom. When clinicians step into the court of public opinion, they owe the public better judgment than partisan spectacle. Professionalism and evidence should guide commentary, not social media applause.
“I don’t know what else you could have done.” That line has been repeated as if it settles anything, yet it avoids the simplest requirement: do not kill your children. Moral clarity matters, and evasive comfort phrases do nothing for the dead.
Start with basic responsibility. If you’re a parent and you cannot keep your children safe, the right move is to get them out of harm’s way and seek help before tragedy strikes. Platforms and professions must also enforce standards so that patients and families can trust those who claim to serve them.
At minimum, accountability is needed for public statements that normalize or excuse violence. Lindsay Clancy’s trial continues; yesterday the prosecution called mental health experts as witnesses, and closing arguments are expected either today or tomorrow. The court will decide the legal outcome, but public debate needs better ethics from those wearing stethoscopes and scrub tops.
