Nurse refuses anesthesia for maga
Executive summary
A Florida nurse identified in multiple reports as Erik Martindale posted—and then deleted—a Facebook statement saying he would refuse to administer anesthesia to supporters of the MAGA movement, prompting swift online outrage and formal demands from state officials to investigate and potentially revoke his license [1] [2] [3]. Martindale later said his social accounts were hacked, while Florida’s attorney general publicly urged the nursing board to act, framing the episode as part of a larger dispute over professional conduct and social-media speech by health workers [2] [4] [5].
1. What was posted and how it spread
According to multiple outlets, Martindale shared a photo in scrubs with the caption “I will not perform anaesthesia for any surgeries or procedures for MAGA,” a post that was circulated widely on social media before he removed it, and that sparked reposts and commentary across conservative and mainstream platforms [1] [2] [3].
2. The nurse’s response and competing narratives
After the post went viral, Martindale reportedly said his Facebook, Messenger and Instagram had been hacked and deleted the original message, a claim relayed in coverage that noted both the initial posting and his later denial that he authored the statement [2] [3].
3. Official backlash: state scrutiny and license threats
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier publicly announced he had “paged” the state nursing board and urged action that could include revoking Martindale’s license, marking a move by state authorities to treat partisan social-media statements from clinicians as potential professional misconduct meriting disciplinary review [5] [4].
4. Ethics, conscience claims, and free‑speech defenses
Martindale framed the declaration as both his “right” and an “ethical” choice, asserting—according to reports—that he owns his businesses and can refuse service to anyone; commentators and some outlets pointed to tensions between clinicians’ claimed conscience protections and professional obligations to treat patients regardless of political views [2] [6] [3].
5. Political and cultural context fueling reaction
Coverage linked Martindale’s post to an already heightened moment of partisan polarization—citing recent high-profile incidents involving other medical workers and contentious encounters with authorities—so that a single social-media post rapidly became a proxy for broader fights over politics, public trust in healthcare, and social-media accountability [1] [5] [7].
6. Alternative viewpoints and the agendas behind them
Conservative outlets amplified calls for his license to be revoked and framed the episode as a danger to patients and an example of left‑wing bias in medicine, while outlets sympathetic to his stance or civil‑liberties defenders might emphasize free‑speech and business‑refusal arguments; reporting shows both the state’s regulatory posture (AG action) and the social-media furor, suggesting competing agendas—public-safety enforcement versus protecting individual speech or conscience—drive different reactions [5] [4] [3].
7. What is known, what remains unsettled
Multiple outlets document the posting, deletion, hack-claim, and the AG’s request that the nursing board review the matter, but none of the provided sources reports a final disciplinary decision or the board’s formal findings, so the outcome of any investigation and whether Martindale actually authored the post remain unresolved in the reporting [2] [5] [4].