By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Houston pediatrician and a former city official have drawn widespread condemnation for their insensitive social media comments regarding the Texas flooding. Dr. Christina B. Propst lost her job at Blue Fish Pediatrics after posting a controversial Facebook message wishing harm upon those with opposing political views and visitors, while Sade Perkins, a former city appointee, criticized the victims of the flood, specifically singling out the race and religious affiliation of a camp of victims. Due to Perkins’s comments, Houston’s mayor stated he would not reappoint her to any future positions. The backlash highlights the sensitivity surrounding the disaster and the impact of social media on public figures’ careers.
Read the original article here
The situation unfolding in Texas, where a doctor was fired for her controversial social media post about flood victims, has ignited a fiery debate, and it’s easy to see why. At the heart of the matter is the doctor’s statement, “Get what they voted for. Bless their hearts,” a sentiment that seemingly dismisses the suffering of those affected by the floods based on their political affiliation. This naturally sparked outrage and condemnation from many, while also revealing a complex mix of underlying frustrations and political divides.
The immediate reaction, and the catalyst for the doctor’s termination, centered on the perceived lack of empathy and professionalism. The medical field, one would hope, is grounded in a commitment to care and compassion for all, regardless of their political beliefs. To suggest that someone deserves their misfortune due to their voting choices is a blatant contradiction of these principles. It’s no surprise that this kind of statement would lead to professional consequences.
Yet, the comments also revealed a deeper layer of frustration, primarily aimed at perceived hypocrisy and the often-cited lack of empathy from the right. Many pointed out that similar sentiments of blaming victims or dismissing tragedies based on political alignment are frequently expressed by those on the other side of the political spectrum. The criticism wasn’t just about the doctor’s specific words; it was also about the perceived double standard, the idea that certain groups are quick to criticize and judge others while excusing their own.
This is where the discussion veers into the complexities of political discourse. The idea of “cancel culture” comes into play. Some saw the doctor’s firing as an example of this phenomenon, where individuals are punished for expressing unpopular or controversial opinions. Others saw it as a necessary consequence for a statement deemed unprofessional and harmful. This underscores the tension between free speech and the responsibility that comes with it, especially in the public sphere.
The conversation also touched on the specific political context of Texas. The fact that the doctor’s comments were made in the wake of devastating floods in a state often associated with conservative politics fueled the debate. The issue of government preparedness and response to natural disasters, especially the criticism of policies in place prior to the floods, became another focal point. Some commenters used this tragedy to point out the perceived shortcomings of certain political ideologies and their impact on the welfare of citizens.
The discussion then turned to the underlying socio-economic issues involved, such as lack of emergency response, inadequate early warning systems, and the construction of homes in high-risk floodplains. These are all concerns related to the management of risk, community planning, and the potential consequences of political choices and how those choices impact public safety. There were also expressions of the “you reap what you sow” philosophy, and the idea that voting for policies that don’t prioritize public safety can result in catastrophic outcomes.
It is crucial to remember that the victims of the floods, the people who lost their homes, possessions, and potentially their loved ones, did not deserve this hardship. The sentiment expressed by the doctor, no matter what her intention, offered no comfort and no help in the face of a tragedy that, for many, may have resulted in the loss of everything. It is important to distinguish between criticizing political views or systems, which is healthy for democracy, and celebrating or cheering for the deaths of working class citizens, which is not.
The incident also opened a window onto the larger political climate, where empathy and compassion can be casualties of partisan divides. The comments show a growing trend of both sides pointing fingers and trading blame during times of crisis. This does not foster a constructive environment for problem-solving and instead deepens the divide, and the idea that “both sides” are essentially the same is present here.
Ultimately, the firing of the Texas doctor is a reminder of the power of words, the weight of responsibility that comes with holding a professional position, and the urgent need for empathy and understanding in a polarized society. It’s also a reminder of the importance of seeking solutions to complex problems, rather than simply assigning blame. The doctor’s words were met with swift consequences, but the underlying issues – the divisions, the frustrations, and the urgent need for compassion – remain, serving as a reminder of the work that remains ahead.