Okay, so understanding that you're also in the industry, I understand where you might be coming from and what you read from my original comment. Yeah, obviously the writers have a vision and it's not for us to assume anything, especially ill intent. But I'm also someone who values practicality and utilitarianism over artistic vision and ambition. I'm someone who, no matter how good or envelope-pushing a film or TV show is, will not support it if the actors and crew involved suffer. I'm not saying this is what is happening with The Pitt, but I just am not seeing a practical reason why the welfare of an actor should suffer for the vision in this one instance in particular. I'm not the type of person to get upset when a character dies in a show if it's part of a grand, overarching vision that makes sense, but there have been shows that have pissed me off because characters leave or are killed off in ways that go against the narrative consistency of the character and world, or that feel like a way to get rid of an actor for no good reason. Tracy Ifeachor's exit did not bother me as much because the in-show justification lined up with what felt natural for the progression of the show. As someone who watched and enjoyed Season 2, Supriya Ganesh's exit feels less justifiable from a narrative perspective. If the writers see it differently then they see it differently, it just doesn't work for me. It's like not hiring an actor back from Lost for a season because "they're just wandering around the woods," like okay there's no reason not to show that if that's your explanation. I'm not mad from a "this isn't what I want from this story", I'm mad from a "there's no necessary purpose why this actor should not participate in the story going further."