Supporters of Lindsay Clancy, who is on trial for the murder of her three young children, are exhibiting a "false empathy" that risks exacerbating the stigma surrounding postpartum depression, according to an opinion piece in the New York Post.
The author argues that many women who identify with Clancy's reported struggles with postpartum depression are conflating it with postpartum psychosis, a far rarer and more severe condition.
Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight new mothers and can lead to profound sadness, anxiety, and hopelessness. In contrast, postpartum psychosis, affecting one or two in a thousand, can involve delusions, hallucinations, and a detachment from reality. Clancy's defense attorneys assert she was psychotic during the killings, while prosecutors maintain she acted with premeditation and understanding.
The piece suggests that some supporters see their own experiences with postpartum difficulties in Clancy's narrative, leading to statements like "I could have been Lindsay Clancy." This identification, while understandable, can blur the critical distinctions between different mental health conditions and may interfere with a clear assessment of the case.
"Recognizing yourself in someone’s story isn’t the same as knowing her mind," the author states. The argument posits that this over-identification can lead to questioning the legal responsibility of Clancy, which may be perceived as questioning the reality of postpartum suffering itself or blaming women for mental illness.
Furthermore, the author contends that the focus on Clancy's alleged suffering risks marginalizing her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. The narrative, they argue, becomes centered on the mother's experience, with the children relegated to secondary roles.
"We can believe Clancy suffered profoundly — without declaring that she was or was not legally responsible," the piece concludes. "We can believe postpartum illness deserves greater attention — without turning one defendant into a symbol for every woman who has struggled after childbirth."
Instead of viewing Clancy as a proxy for their own struggles, the author suggests supporters could draw a different lesson: "I was depressed, and I wasn’t Lindsay." The article advocates for empathy that acknowledges suffering without erasing the complexities of agency and responsibility, emphasizing that "I understand some of what she went through" is empathy, but "I could have been her" is a broader, potentially distorting claim.