Let me give you another perspective here to illustrate the absurdity of what we're witnessing:
The SAME group of women who are pushing for Lindsay Clancy to be acquitted on the grounds that, "her doctors and husband failed her by not intervening earlier and taking control over her treatment", are the SAME group of women who would blow a complete GASKET at any man for proposing that a husband and doctors should have the ability to intervene and take control over a woman's decisions on her own treatment.
And it's so easy to imagine their chants in that alternative universe:
"How dare you take a mother away from her children!"
"A husband has no authority over what a woman needs for her own body, especially after a pregnancy!"
"Until a man gives birth, how a woman takes care of herself after birth is none of their business!"
"How male of you to want to control women!"
"Involuntarily committing a woman who is feeling down after pregnancy is the definition of The Handmaid's Tale!"
Had that pre-murder intervention actually occurred here, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these raving women outside of the courthouse would be DOWNPLAYING Clancy's diagnosis, characterizing her emotions as routine baby blues, and STRESSING the autonomy that Clancy, a fierce, independent tiger woman should have been able to retain in the face of men trying to control her.
So which is it, Western Woman?
Either: (A) there are some circumstances when women become so utterly unstable that they lose any right to their own agency; or (B) a woman's agency is never the business of men?
I assure you, it cannot be both.