I think the conversation around Lindsay Clancy is particularly fascinating

@crutches_and_spice

830.3K followers · usually 13.7K views a post

Views

48.7K

Likes

6.7K

Comments

146

Shares

62

Why it worked

The video likely resonated due to its discussion of a high-profile case, framing it through a critical lens of the medical system and societal judgment, which taps into broader public discourse on mental health and healthcare access.

Summary

The speaker discusses the public's perception of Lindsay Clancy, suggesting that her redeemability stems from her attempts to interact with the medical system, even if those interactions were flawed. The speaker criticizes the system's handling of her case and the public's tendency to judge individuals based on their interactions with healthcare providers.

Structure

1Fascinating conversation around Lindsay Clancy
2Public finds her redeemable for reasons others are discarded
3Critique of the system's failure and her interactions with it
4The system's flawed approach to mental health and medication
5Public judgment based on seeking or not seeking help

On-screen text

And #lindsayclancy is someone who was facing the medical system from a relatively privileged positionality.

Transcript

Original caption

And #lindsayclancy is someone who was facing the medical system from a relatively privileged positionality.

More from @crutches_and_spice

Their other posts in the index, biggest breakout first.

I think the conversation around Lindsay Clancy is particularly fascinating because a majority of people are finding her redeemable for the exact reason they would find somebody else discardable. Hear me out. To be bluntly clear, do you think the system failed this woman? Like, everybody around her failed her? But I wanted to particularly talk about her interactions with the system in and of itself, and the reason why a lot of people find her redeemable as a mother, as somebody who went through postpartum depression and psychosis and wanted killing her children. I think why the public mind is redeemable is because she attempted to interact with the system. Right. Despite the fact that her decision interact with the system versus her, perhaps maybe not deciding to interact with this system would have yielded likely the exact same result. And this is not to say that people shouldn't seek help, um, care, people should not go to a doctor when they feel like something is off. This is to say that it is very bizarre to me that we will punish people for looking at a situation like this, that we will see somebody be dismissed over and over and over again. I mean, after all, like, I heard one part say that her doctor told her to Google the medication, the antipsychotic medication that she was going to prescribe her, rather than explaining to her patient herself. You know what I mean? We blame people for not interacting with a system that interacts with patients in this exact way. And then I'm simultaneously shocked that the outright pipeline to people not believing science, not believing the medical system looks the way that it does. And we will pass judgement on people's actions based off of whether they sought help or whether they didn't seek help. But this was her seeking help. I just want people to remember that this was her seeking help. We cannot sit around and pretend like people's reluctance to interact with the medical system is completely unfounded.