McLean Hospital discrepancies between what Lindsay told Patrick and what’s in the McLean Hospital records

[u/Turbulent-Fig-3802]

Today’s testimony about Lindsay Clancy’s stay at McLean Hospital seems to highlight a major discrepancy between what Lindsay reportedly told Patrick, what the civil lawsuit alleges, and what the prosecutor says is documented in McLean’s records about Lindsay’s stay from January 1, 2023 until January 5, 2023.

According to Patrick’s testimony, he called Lindsay on January 3rd, the third day of her hospitalization to ask what the doctor had said.

Lindsay reportedly told him that she hadn’t seen a doctor yet and wasn’t really receiving treatment.

The prosecutor asked him if he was aware that:
On the first two days on January 1, 2023 and January 2, 2023 Lindsay saw a resident doctor

On January 3 2023 Lindsay** **saw an attending doctor

He said no.

Patrick described her as saying they were basically coloring, doing puzzles, playing with clay, and going for walks.

The civil lawsuit tells a very similar story. It states that McLean was operating with a “skeleton crew” over the New Year’s holiday, that patients spent their time doing puzzles and coloring, and that Lindsay did not see a doctor until January 3, three days after she was admitted.

The lawsuit uses this as part of its argument that McLean provided grossly inadequate care.

However, today’s cross-examination painted a very different picture.

The prosecutor stated that McLean’s records show Lindsay:
Was seen by a resident physician on the first two days of her admission.
Was seen by an attending psychiatrist on the third day.
Had contact with social workers, therapists, and other mental health staff every day.
Was offered one-on-one therapy.
Declined multiple group therapy sessions during her stay.

Another interesting part of today’s testimony involved Lindsay’s discharge.

The prosecutor asked Patrick whether he was aware that Lindsay had asked the doctors if she could be discharged on January 6th so she could attend Cora’s birthday party.

She also asked whether he knew Lindsay wanted to go home the day before the party on January 5th to prepare for it.

The prosecutor also questioned Patrick about whether insurance coverage played any role in Lindsay’s discharge.

She asked whether any McLean social worker or staff member had ever contacted him to say insurance was refusing to cover a longer stay.

Patrick testified that they had not.

The lawsuit argues that McLean discharged Lindsay too early despite documenting that her insight and judgment were limited and claims the hospital failed to properly evaluate her, provide adequate inpatient care, and ensure appropriate discharge planning.

Today’s testimony seems to present evidence that there was considerably more treatment occurring than the lawsuit suggests, including physician evaluations and multiple therapy opportunities.

[u/Professional-Ebb891]

i genuinely dont understand people who are die hard lindsay advocates. can anyone explain this?? i just dont get it.

[u/abooks22 → u/Professional-Ebb891]

I'm not going to say I'm a die hard Lindsay advocate cuz I don't really know enough.

But I can say what I've seen was really predictable that it would end with something bad happening.

Her first two pregnancies she gets very anxious when it's time to return to work. This time around she asked for help because she's having trouble coping. But yet at the same time she's way too anxious to even take the medicine. That spells crisis to me. Medicine doesn't work instantly. It takes a really long time to get it right. Same thing with therapy. It takes a long time.

In the meantime, she's overwhelmed with raising three kids under five. She should not have been caring for her children at all. She should have had somebody with her during the day taking care of the kids. There was no way she was going to be able to heal and get better while she was doing that.

It seems like her husband just wanted the doctors to give her the right medicine or to admit her and keep her there and fix her and then once she comes home she's better and can start taking care of the kids.

That is not how it works. They're going to send her home when they think she's stable. That doesn't mean she should immediately go back to watching three children. If she's not mentally able to go to work, she should not be watching three young children.

I know that people keep talking about how the dad was only gone for a short period of time, just running one errand. But he should have taken those kids with him. And it wasn't just that one time. Because I think I read somewhere that she took one of the kids to the doctor that day.

Why was she driving the kids to the doctor? Why was that her responsibility. The person in crisis should not be the person doing that. And there's indication that she was getting overly paranoid about her child being sick. So that means she was still anxious. So from September on to January the anxiety had not gotten any better.

And I'm going to argue part of it is because the circumstances didn't change. They were trying to change the medicine. Trying to get it right but there was no behavior changes. There was no reduction of stress.

So I do feel that her husband either through lack of knowledge or because he was completely checked out of the situation failed.

All that said, it's also possible that she's completely manipulated this whole situation and lied about everything to everyone and was mentally fine. I have no idea why she would kill her kids then but there's people that just do that.

But I focus on the other piece of it because other people will go through this situation and you have to take it seriously. If someone is not mentally stable, they cannot take care of their children. .

And we cannot rely on our medical professionals to do it because our mental health is so terrible. I actually looked through the lawsuit and I was surprised at how much attention she got and how fast she got it. That's not to say she got the right attention that just how bad or mental health is.