Andrea Yates found NOT guilty of capital murder

[Poety]

Are you saying that you think any psychotic person is automatically not responsible for his or her crimes? The law actually requires a higher standard. Depending on the situation, you can be psychotic and still realize what you are doing is wrong. (For instance, you could argue that since Andrea Yates waited until her husband left to kill her children, she at some level knew it was wrong. You could also argue that she waited for reasons due to her elaborate psychosis, but you get the idea.)

This is exactly where we as a society are going, theres never any balance, we either treated teh mentally ill so horrendously AND ineffectively by subjecting them to terrible torments (ie before dorothea dix etc) OR we go the other way and say, awww lets treat them, the poor bahstard is psychotic don't you see? PULEASE. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it. personally I can't stand this whole innocent for reasons of insanity. I'll treat the schizophrenic that killed him mother because his voices told him to, but I'm damn sure not letting him out of JAIL - and I don't mean some locked institution where they get there group time, and all those privileges, I mean LIFE SENTENCE OR DEATH ROW (which they'll sit on forever anyway in most states, cept texas ofcourse)

Anyone see that flick Final Analysis? Makes you think twice about this kind of stuff too.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[50960]

Poety, you are right on. I wish more PARENTS felt this way instead of being brain washed by the BS, and I am glad YOU as a future psychiatrist have your head on straight and can think for yourself. You are nowhere near a fascist, but you may be a libertarianiatrist!!!

 

[Demosthenes]

Youre insane. Thank for proving it.

Wow! Are you an attorney?

"Insanity" is not a medical nor a psychiatric term. It's solely a legal concept. Just, you know, FYI.

 

[Demosthenes]

Excellent post! I could not agree more. Since first hearing of this tragedy, I have thought about the complicit guilt of Rusty Yates. In a major televised interview, he seemed very detached from the whole situation referring to the brutal murder of his children as "when the children passed away," as though they died in a terrible plane crash. And I find his justification for continuing to have children considering his wife's precarious emotional state ("We just wanted to have as many children as God would allow us...") reckless and irresponsible. Where was God, Rusty, when your children were gasping for breath?! When someone is as obviously ill as Andrea Yates, I would hope that a husband, as a rational adult, would think twice about allowing his wife to discontinue her psych meds to have more children. And now he has a new bride, most likely with more children to follow. Sleep well, Rusty. Glad YOU can go on with your life.

But he obviously wasn't a rational adult.

That's the problem: he's got some sort of screw loose -- I certainly can't think of what dx would be appropriate, I'll leave that to a better diagnostician -- but I don't think anyone looking at the facts could possibly think he was a rational person himself. The whole issue of living situations -- five children and a mentally ill wife living in a 300 square foot bus? -- and continuing to have children AMA, despite the requirement that his wife be taken off meds? No, that's not a rational person.

And her doctor? Taking a pt that sick off meds? Anyone want to borrow my horse whip?

 

[Anuwolf]

Poety, Really? All of the borderlines Loves ya?

Listen guys! A true mental ill person would not have the kind of background that Yates has! According to my research:

Ms. Yates graduated from Milby High School in Houston in 1982. She was the class valedictorian, captain of the swim team and an officer in the National Honor Society. She completed a two-year pre-nursing program at the University of Houston and then graduated in 1986 from the University of Texas School of Nursing in Houston. She worked as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994.

Now are you telling me that shes truely mentally ill? How could she accomplish all of this if she is indeed mentally ill? The only mental ill problem that I see are Munchausen. As far as I see this... she did this to herself... She wanted attention from the husband... while he was out of town trying to make ends meat..

 

[MBK2003]

I can't believe any judge or jury would even let this evil woman off. Yes evil, there seems to be a flaw in drawing the line (as of late anyway) between EVIL and MENTALLY ILL.

And I'm aware of my own countertransferance going on here - hate for people that harm children and have no remorse. BTW, looking at her pics she looks like an evil woman to me.

Having worked with a psychiatrist specializing in the study of infanticide, who has communicated by letters with Andrea, interviewed her family and her husband, I can speak directly to her clear evidence of psychosis following her 3rd, 4th, and 5th children. This was a woman who was calling her family members just a week before she killed her babies to complain about cameras in the ceiling. I think that the media likes to demonize this woman, but one clinical fact is clear, prior to this horrendous tragedy, this was a woman who clearly cared for her children and did not demonstrate any evidence of sociopathy or psychopathy - no child abuse, no reports of child neglect, no torture of animals, no history of manipulation/lying.

As a field, we have had a great deal of difficulty separating out the elements of pathology associated with violence. Not everyone who commits a crime against others would meet DSM-IV criteria for ASPD or IED, and yet we are often called to weigh in on whether these individuals have a diagnosable illness which may reduce their culpability. Clearly the DSM-IV gives us little guidance (likely not to improve with DSM-V) and as a field we tend to wash our hands of these individuals.

I also think that after you have (YUP ONE) kid addicted to crack or heroin should = either MANDATED norplant, BTL, or hysterectomy, court ordered.

Don't forget the women who smoke during pregnancy - they were told to quit, offered the patch, and informed of the fetal complications associated with continuing to smoke. And if that kid has asthma requiring an ER visit, where mom or dad are noted to have a pack on them, then what should happen? Isn't this a slippery slope we are playing solely based upon the demographics of whichever socioeconomic class we're trying to marginalize.

MBK2003

 

[Solideliquid]

Anuwolf I wish you would stop posting your expert medical opinions for us.

----

I think people generally feel that if a person is not guilty by reason of insanity they get off lighter or don't "suffer". Suffering is the major thing you guys all seem to be hooked on. First off, as physicians I think if you are so preoccupied with the amount of suffering a criminal/mentally ill/whatever person is going to be experiencing, it's a little disconcerning to me.

Second point, Yates is going to be locked and committed right? She won't have RIGHTS anymore. Ever. And most likely she will never walk out of those double doors. Ever.

Third point, take Scott Peterson. He sits on Death Row in California. He will most likely die there. In his cell, not executed, but of old age or illness. Whatever comes first, he sits in his cell, alone. Is that "suffering" enough for you? Would you be happy for Yates to be sitting behind bars instead of in a locked ward where at least IF SHE WAS TRULEY SCHIZOPHRENIC AND IS TELLING THE TRUTH (if...) she can at least get treated?

 

[MBK2003]

Ms. Yates graduated from Milby High School in Houston in 1982. She was the class valedictorian, captain of the swim team and an officer in the National Honor Society. She completed a two-year pre-nursing program at the University of Houston and then graduated in 1986 from the University of Texas School of Nursing in Houston. She worked as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994.

Now are you telling me that shes truely mentally ill? How could she accomplish all of this if she is indeed mentally ill?

Now I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this, but this history IS CONSISTENT with the natural course of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, both of which can present with postpartum psychosis.

MBK2003

 

[Demosthenes]

PULEASE. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it.

OK, let's explore this belief just a little more.

You say that a crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. Let's take, as our crime, something less volatile -- how about simple theft.

A 25 year old man, of sound mind and sound body, with a regular job, steals a copy of the DSM from a bookstore.

A 25 year old psychotic man walks out of the door carrying another copy of the DSM from the same bookstore, without paying.

A 3 year old child walks out of the bookstore carrying that same book, because it's got a pretty cover. (Or some other age appropriate reason.)

Are all three of these miscreants going to be subject to the same penalty?

I sure hope that 3 year old enjoys her time in prison, since by your standards, that's where she'd go.

************************************

Maybe it's just that I'm a bit older than many of you. It frightens me to think of attitudes like these coming into the practice of psychiatry. I've seen more than I'd like of the damage that a thoughtless or judgemental or just plain punitive psychiatrist can do to a patient. I'm thinking if you have this much contempt for the mentally ill, maybe another line of work is not such a bad idea?

As for Andrea Yates, I believe that the problem is an inability to hold in mind two separate tragedies:

1. 5 children were killed.

2. A woman suffering from severe mental illness did not receive adequate psychiatric treatment, nor adequate social and familial support.

Yes, I know the two are related. But step back from the outrage that those 5 children died. What can you see now?

I know, some of you will now start insulting me, and telling me I'm delusional, or that I should go back on my meds, or some other personal attack. I'm not sure I care anymore. Let's just say I'll consider the source of the insults, and hope that you receive adequate supervision with patients, so that others aren't left picking up the pieces you leave behind.

 

[Demosthenes]

Third point, take Scott Peterson. He sits on Death Row in California. He will most likely die there. In his cell, not executed, but of old age or illness.

And it's a whole lot more expensive to hold him there than in general population. And for a whole lot longer, is my guess, than had he gone to general population...

 

[Anuwolf]

Solideliquid,

Wish all you want but it's not going to come true.

Second point, Yates is going to be locked and committed right? She won't have RIGHTS anymore. Ever. And most likely she will never walk out of those double doors. Ever.

Yes she is going to be locked and committed... and Yes you're RIGHT that she will no longer have any RIGHTS as a regular citizen FOR as long as shes inside the hospital. Yes! she will probably be be there for a VERY VERY long time, however it is all up to the doctor to discharge her if he thinks that she is "all better" again... That is what I fear the most... At least when your in prison... A doctor doesn't make the decision to discharge you because in prison you're STUCK!

Trust me on this she can fake her little illness all she wants but when it comes to being inside of a psychatric hospital for a long time she will quit her little games and beg to be discharged.. I've been inside of a psychatric Hospital 5 times and I thought it was just aweful! My rights were taken away... I was FORCED of taking horse pills that knocks me out and make me stupid the next day... Trust me... She thinks that she gotten away with it but wait till she sees what she has gotten her self into!

By the way are you feeling sorry for Scott Peterson? Hes nothing but a turd... a dried out piece of turd that hasn't been flushed yet! I just LOVED how he smerked in front of the camera's during his trial... I betcha he isn't smerking anymore! Scott Peterson, David Westerfield and that Juan Carlos Chavez guy can all burn in hell for all I care... Give them ALL the chair! They deserve it.

MURDERING CHILDREN IS THE WORSE CRIME THAT ANYBODY COULD DO! Even the general prison thinks thats uneceptable... Just why do ya think they put all of the child killers and molesters in a different unit? They all would be murdered in such a short period of time! If ya don't believe me checkout this video

http://www.nopers.com/video/816/child_killer_gets_beaten

never kill or harm a CHILD!

Now I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this, but this history IS CONSISTENT with the natural course of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, both of which can present with postpartum psychosis.

MBK2003

I have Bipolar disorder (The mania side) and I would NEVER think of killing a child, even during my top peak psychotic breaks! I have a friend who is schizophrenia and she hears voices... She doesn't want to be a child killer... As of matter of fact my friend is in school right now learning to be a therapists! How odd is that!

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

OK, let's explore this belief just a little more.

You say that a crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. Let's take, as our crime, something less volatile -- how about simple theft.

A 25 year old man, of sound mind and sound body, with a regular job, steals a copy of the DSM from a bookstore.

A 25 year old psychotic man walks out of the door carrying another copy of the DSM from the same bookstore, without paying.

A 3 year old child walks out of the bookstore carrying that same book, because it's got a pretty cover. (Or some other age appropriate reason.)

Are all three of these miscreants going to be subject to the same penalty?

I sure hope that 3 year old enjoys her time in prison, since by your standards, that's where she'd go.

************************************

Maybe it's just that I'm a bit older than many of you. It frightens me to think of attitudes like these coming into the practice of psychiatry. I've seen more than I'd like of the damage that a thoughtless or judgemental or just plain punitive psychiatrist can do to a patient. I'm thinking if you have this much contempt for the mentally ill, maybe another line of work is not such a bad idea?

As for Andrea Yates, I believe that the problem is an inability to hold in mind two separate tragedies:

1. 5 children were killed.

2. A woman suffering from severe mental illness did not receive adequate psychiatric treatment, nor adequate social and familial support.

Yes, I know the two are related. But step back from the outrage that those 5 children died. What can you see now?

I know, some of you will now start insulting me, and telling me I'm delusional, or that I should go back on my meds, or some other personal attack. I'm not sure I care anymore. Let's just say I'll consider the source of the insults, and hope that you receive adequate supervision with patients, so that others aren't left picking up the pieces you leave behind.

All due respect, but I don't see what's wrong with young psychiatrists and psychiatrists-in-training choosing to critically examine these issues on a case-by-case basis rather than making blanket statements excusing mentally ill people of all bad behavior. For instance, in your examples above, what if the psychotic person took the book because he didn't feel like paying for it? What if the psychotic person had delusions relevant to the situation, knew stealing the book was wrong, and took it anyway? Unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems like you are being rather judgmental and snide in your treatment of colleagues whose opinion may differ from yours.

 

[solumanculver]

Are you saying that you think any psychotic person is automatically not responsible for his or her crimes? The law actually requires a higher standard. Depending on the situation, you can be psychotic and still realize what you are doing is wrong.

Hey,
No I don't mean that. I tried to be explicit; I said that they are worthy victims of retribution as long as they are culpable for what they've done. I didn't specify what makes somebody culpable. There's no philosophically clear answer to that question, I think, but I roughly believe that in order to be culpable for a crime a person has to have a bad intention. That's actually the verbatim translation of Mens Rea, which is the component of a crime that requires a person to have a specific state of mind during the act of the crime.

I realize that many, if not most, psychotic people will be liable for their crimes. Parking tickets, shoplifting, most crimes they are likely to commit they will be culpable for. The main exception that I'm interested in, and which also encompasses Andrea Yates, is when the psychotic person believes that they are doing a morally right thing, when in fact it is an immoral thing. She claims that she killed her children intending for them to go to heaven to protect them from the devil, or something. It's exactly this situation that a retribution model cannot be used in. There is simply nothing evil to get retribution for. She wanted to do right, but did wrong (if we believe her). The only model left for her is a rehabilitation model.

 

[solumanculver]

(For instance, you could argue that since Andrea Yates waited until her husband left to kill her children, she at some level knew it was wrong. You could also argue that she waited for reasons due to her elaborate psychosis, but you get the idea.)

Hey,

I don't think that it matters if Andrea Yates knew that she was doing something illegal, only that she was doing something wrong. She might have waited for her husband to leave because she knew he would try to stop her, even though she "knew" she was doing something right. Just because a person takes precautions not to get caught doesn't mean they know it's wrong, it just means that they know it's illegal. If I truly believed that I had to kill my children to protect them from the devil, I probably would do it in a way that I didn't get caught, if only because I don't think the police would understand...

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

Hey,

I don't think that it matters if Andrea Yates knew that she was doing something illegal, only that she was doing something wrong. She might have waited for her husband to leave because she knew he would try to stop her, even though she "knew" she was doing something right. Just because a person takes precautions not to get caught doesn't mean they know it's wrong, it just means that they know it's illegal. If I truly believed that I had to kill my children to protect them from the devil, I probably would do it in a way that I didn't get caught, if only because I don't think the police would understand...

That's why I put both points of view. You may not think her steps to avoid detection matter, but other people may find them significant. That is also why both the defense and prosecution have their own experts, and why we have juries to sort through all the evidence and expert opinions and hand down a verdict.

 

[Solideliquid]

All due respect, but I don't see what's wrong with young psychiatrists and psychiatrists-in-training choosing to critically examine these issues on a case-by-case basis rather than making blanket statements excusing mentally ill people of all bad behavior. For instance, in your examples above, what if the psychotic person took the book because he didn't feel like paying for it? What if the psychotic person had delusions relevant to the situation, knew stealing the book was wrong, and took it anyway? Unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems like you are being rather judgmental and snide in your treatment of colleagues whose opinion may differ from yours.

That's my main point, I'm not saying all mentally ill people should go to a mental hospital. I'm saying look at the Yates case as an individual case and that we (especially as physicians) shouldn't rush to make generalizations.

 

[Solideliquid]

Yes she is going to be locked and committed... and Yes you're RIGHT that she will no longer have any RIGHTS as a regular citizen FOR as long as shes inside the hospital. Yes! she will probably be be there for a VERY VERY long time, however it is all up to the doctor to discharge her if he thinks that she is "all better" again... That is what I fear the most... At least when your in prison... A doctor doesn't make the decision to discharge you because in prison you're STUCK!

Well no, a single doctor cannot make that decision there is a board and perhaps they will decide one day to release her but I think the chances of that are about as low as Mrs. Yates getting AN APPEAL IN PRISON OR GETTING RELEASED BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT...yes those things are possible too.

By the way are you feeling sorry for Scott Peterson? Hes nothing but a turd... a dried out piece of turd that hasn't been flushed yet! I just LOVED how he smerked in front of the camera's during his trial... I betcha he isn't smerking anymore! Scott Peterson, David Westerfield and that Juan Carlos Chavez guy can all burn in hell for all I care... Give them ALL the chair! They deserve it.

You completely missed the point of that part of my post, as usual.

I have Bipolar disorder (The mania side) and I would NEVER think of killing a child, even during my top peak psychotic breaks! I have a friend who is schizophrenia and she hears voices... She doesn't want to be a child killer... As of matter of fact my friend is in school right now learning to be a therapists! How odd is that!

As to your "manic side", you don't know what you are capable of doing when you are experiencing a manic episode do you? If you really think you can control yourself when you are psychotic, you are just showing how poor your insight really is.

 

[50960]

At the end of the day we (in america) live in a culture where people get punished for what they do that is evil or illegal. Ultraliberal BS based on countertransference without personal insight has no place in this dialogue. This woman brutally killed 5 of her kids, who were totally innocent. Sure her husband in culpable and a looser to boot, but she did it and deserves the time. We are all brainwashed by the liberal media, but what would you think/do if this was a member of your own family that was murdered. Wake up....

 

[Solideliquid]

At the end of the day we (in america) live in a culture where people get punished for what they do that is evil or illegal. Ultraliberal BS based on countertransference without personal insight has no place in this dialogue. This woman brutally killed 5 of her kids, who were totally innocent. Sure her husband in culpable and a looser to boot, but she did it and deserves the time. We are all brainwashed by the liberal media, but what would you think/do if this was a member of your own family that was murdered. Wake up....

What the heck are you talking about? Who cares what the media says? This isn't political!

 

[Anuwolf]

Solideliquid,
Well I can tell you one thing... If we have yet another president like Bush in the future... I would be very afraid.

As far as getting an appeal to go to Prison after her treatment... what is the use of wasting the working tax payers money in texas getting her better? Why not throw her in prison and allow some of that tax payers money to go to somebody that really needs psychiatric treatment and isn't a menus of society?


Nah I'm not missing the point... I know exactly what you're talking about... The reality is that I don't care what happens with the dried up tured Scott peterson... I just hope he burns in hell where he belongs. His soul is dark and black... Just like the child killer Andrea Yates.. I hope she suffers, even in death.

When I'm manic... I feel that Im the queen of the world... I have an extreme high confidence with very boiling self esteem..
I admit at the time of my manic episodes that I really don't care about other people then my self.

During my psychotic episodes...

I really don't hear voices but I do have Delusions.... I feel that the FBI is watching me... and that the police has my cell phone tapped.. I feel that the men in the white coat are after me and that the only safe place to be is inside of my room.

During both of my Manic/psychotic episodes... I've NEVER once had the feeling of killing a child. I usally remember what I was feeling after my episodes.

Killing a child is MUCH more cowardly thing...

Sure think that Yates was a spoild brat as a child. it's always... gimme gimme gimme! Not trying to make her husband look innocent and all but each time he was away for busniess she calls him up and threatens suicide on him if he doesn't come down... Do you not see the attention seeking? I sure hate to say this but she sounds like a borderline to me... severe borderliners are attention seekers and want attention... often threaten suicde if things don't go as plan.

 

[psm1776]

Anuwolf,

You said,

Sure think that Yates was a spoild brat as a child. it's always... gimme gimme gimme! Not trying to make her husband look innocent and all but each time he was away for busniess she calls him up and threatens suicide on him if he doesn't come down... Do you not see the attention seeking? I sure hate to say this but she sounds like a borderline to me... severe borderliners are attention seekers and want attention... often threaten suicde if things don't go as plan.

& I could quote you some more from other statements you've made, but what you are saying is Yates is behaving as a borderline would and therefor ascribing qualities to yourself (as a self-confessed borderline & seemingly proud of it!)- you realize that right; that by saying she is basically an attention seeking liar and malingerer who needs to fake illness - that you are thereby indicting yourself in these inflammatory statements. Is that why you started this thread, that the things that REALLY bother you about Andrea Yates isn't that she killed her kids, it's that she not truly ill - that's she just "trying to get attention" unfairly. Hmmmm, you need to work on that sweetheart.

 

[LADoc00]

Also want to add that there are degrees of crimes that are not forgiveable, as well, I've never had a patient with Tourettes that went around drowing their kids.

I don't believe she thought she had to save her children so she killed them, I think she was a sociopath. Thats the difference. I think she didn't want the responsibilty, hated having them around and wanted to get rid of them, thats what I think. I think she was selfish and should be punished in the manner anyone ese whos a "sociopath" should be punished - life term, bread and water only, no damn cable tv, no excercise, no nothing. For punishment for the crime, AND to keep them away from the rest of society.

I don't think you can rehab a sociopath, nor do I think you can retrain a sex offender (namely child molestors) since their recidivism rate although statistically is 80%, in reality is most likely 100%, the rest just haven't gotten caught again.

Let em rot., and take away all their rights and privileges.

FASCIST PIG I MAY BE, but I sleep good at night.

and my patients love me

Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens

 

[Psyclops]

Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens

Devil dog, Nouvelle langue mais vous dissez toujours la meme chose. Croiez-vous vraiment en dieu? Lequelle? Vous n'avez pas une attitude trop chretien.

 

[LADoc00]

Devil dog, Nouvelle langue mais vous dissez toujours la meme chose. Croiez-vous vraiment en dieu? Lequelle? Vous n'avez pas une attitude trop chretien.

Ah Psycolps, lupus in fabula!

Imeacht gan teacht ort.

Although my français is rusty, I believe he is saying, roughly: New language, same old ****. Do you think you are a God? blah blah.. not clear on "Lequelle?"

 

[Faebinder]

Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens

Absolutely agree with Peoty on the child molestation crap....

On the other hand disagree about Adrea Yates ... a mother killing her own five kids is mentally ill not murderous.....

BUT

I agree with Ladoc and Peoty that even though she is mentally ill... it doesn't change what she did.... It's my sole opinion that mentally ill should be split into two different categories... those who commity felonies and those who don't. Those who commit felonies must still suffer some sort of a punishment for the felony... and the psych ward is a treatment not a punishment.

The argument that the mentally ill have no control of themselves is moot. You can have the same argument for drunk people... they didn't mean to kill while drunk.... That does not mean it didn't happen and some sort of a punishment should be set in place. While the concept of an eye for an eye is not a good punishment in our day and age where accidental death can happen in a lot of ways, but neither is letting one off with ZERO punishment.

Lets face the facts... you were drunk/mentally-ill and killed someone who is no longer going to live.... the psych ward is a treatment facility not a punishment... though some might see it as a punishment. (Yes I can see people arguing that getting drunk is something you do but being mentally ill is out of control.... my answer is .... that doesn't mean you should get equal punishment... but there needs to be a punishment. Take responsibility for what you did.)

 

[Solideliquid]

Getting drunk is a CHOICE. I don't think she just decided that evening to become psychotic.

And sitting in a psych ward for the rest of your life not a punishment? Well I guess you would enjoy that sort of thing.

 

[Psyclops]

Ah Psycolps, lupus in fabula!

Imeacht gan teacht ort.

Although my français is rusty, I believe he is saying, roughly: New language, same old ****. Do you think you are a God? blah blah.. not clear on "Lequelle?"

Slight correction: Do you believe in god? Which one? You don't have a very christian attitude.

 

[Psyclops]

BTW, LAD: Plá ar do theach

 

[LADoc00]

BTW, LAD: Plá ar do theach

BTW, Gaelic curses have no effect unless you are Irish!

I have a very Christian attitude, depending on how you interpet the Bible.

Now see you are focusing on:

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"
"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

But I also read:

And the woman(Andrea?) which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.... And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon (Texas justice system?) the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

And to really hammer it home:

And I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese(although this is a movie quote, it is in fact a true story). As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

Now you will receive us. We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry, we do not want your tired and sick, it is your corrupt we claim, it is your evil that will be sought by us. With every breath we shall hunt them down. Each day we will spill their blood 'til it rains down from the skies. Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. These are not polite suggestions. These are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth, not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain, for if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day, you will reap it, and we will send you to whatever god you wish.... And shepherds we shall be, for thee my lord for thee. Power hast descended forth from thy hand, so that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command. And we shall flow a river forth to thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. Il nomine patri, et filli, spiritus sancti."

Coming for Andrea:

 

[Anuwolf]

& I could quote you some more from other statements you've made, but what you are saying is Yates is behaving as a borderline would and therefor ascribing qualities to yourself (as a self-confessed borderline & seemingly proud of it!)- you realize that right; that by saying she is basically an attention seeking liar and malingerer who needs to fake illness - that you are thereby indicting yourself in these inflammatory statements. Is that why you started this thread, that the things that REALLY bother you about Andrea Yates isn't that she killed her kids, it's that she not truly ill - that's she just "trying to get attention" unfairly. Hmmmm, you need to work on that sweetheart.

Just what makes you think I'm soo proud of having Borderline Personality Disorder? Do you seriously think I'm proud of it and how I'm label with this Disorder by a Psychiatrist at the Psychiatric emergency assessment hospital? Heck no! I would love NOT to have them as of matter of fact but unfortunatly I've been sucked into the gene pool.

For the rest of your post is an outrage.. I refuse to get into details about it

 

[Poety]

All due respect, but I don't see what's wrong with young psychiatrists and psychiatrists-in-training choosing to critically examine these issues on a case-by-case basis rather than making blanket statements excusing mentally ill people of all bad behavior. For instance, in your examples above, what if the psychotic person took the book because he didn't feel like paying for it? What if the psychotic person had delusions relevant to the situation, knew stealing the book was wrong, and took it anyway? Unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems like you are being rather judgmental and snide in your treatment of colleagues whose opinion may differ from yours.

excellent post, Im so sick of the shyt on this board about how psychiatrists are supposed to be so touchy feely crappy about crimes - its bullshyt ok? a crime is a crime is a crime. YEAH I CAN TREAT MY PATIENTS AND SEPARATE MYSELF FROM WHAT MY IDEAS ARE, I CAN DO THAT BY CHOOSING MY PATIENTS DUH- theres no way in hell you're getting me in to do therapy with a child abuser, and my program doesn't make us, and it doesn't make you a shyty psychiatrist if you DONT.

Nor does believing that one should pay for their crimes REGARDLESS OF MENTAL STATE. and to answer the above question: a child at 3 doesn't UNDERSTAND the consequences of their actions, and as my friend rust here says = it all depends regarding the mentally ill, did they do it because they didn't want to pay or because they had voices telling them to do it?

I am NOT ABLE to separate myself from my countertransferance with people that kill their children/abuse children or anything of that sort. I'm aware of it. Can I see someoen that killed their husband? yes, can I see someone that has done x,y,z to prostitutes, siblings, yes - but I CANNOT SEE OR TOLERATE ANY WRONGDOING TO CHILDREN.

For you to judge ME for my own thoughts and ideas is ridiculous, you'll never change my mind in that regard - and my program and colleagues are WELL AWARE of my viewpoint, as are my attendings, and not ONCE have I been criticized as insensitive towards patients or ineffective - in fact youd be surprised at how effective I can be. I think you're judgment of peole with strong views about this topic says more about you than me - I stick to my guns, you're not going to make me sway on this no matter what.


MBK: I see your point, and perhaps it is a failure for both the medical field as well as those surrounding her children, however, in the end, the horrific deed has been done and cameras or not, psychosis or not, she has got to pay for that.

I'd also like to add that there are DEGREES of crimes, lets be real here, stealing a BOOK is no where near as tragic as murdering your kids (Like faebinder was saying)

Also, I could actually argue that half those bastards on death row are mentally ill with some of the stuff thye've come up with, how come its ok to be some sort of mentally ill but not other kinds of mentally ill that require special treatment. For instance, if you dont think charles manson was sick then you definitely aren't seeing things clearly - yet he went to JAIL - just because he didn't talk about hearing voices or seeing cameras he gets a different punishment?

Some things like I said before are unforgiveable - you kill/molest/abuse a child in my book and you really don't WANT me on the jury cuz you're going DOWN.

 

[Poety]

Getting drunk is a CHOICE. I don't think she just decided that evening to become psychotic.

And sitting in a psych ward for the rest of your life not a punishment? Well I guess you would enjoy that sort of thing.

Punishment for us maybe Solid, but is it punishment to the extent of the law that she really deserves? She chased those two kids down Solid, they ran, they didn't wnat to die, she drowned her oldest in the water the others were drowned in, she waited until people were gone (and I don't give a shyt about what cameras or how she was trying to save them, she was also a NURSE who would KNOW what SYMPTOMS to give in order to get this defense so I buy NONE OF IT)

Is she psycho? Yeah - but here again, sometimes the psychosis just needs to be locked away for good - we don't need that kind of psychosis inflicting their rotten deeds on the innocent children of the world.

I mean we lock away violent patients, why? because they're dangerous, and a threat to themselves or society - whats really sad is that its getting harder and harder to tell who is just a biological psychopath and who is mentally ill since we splatter what our criteria for such diagnosis is all over the news so anyone can play into it.

 

[Poety]

Hi,
I didn't mean to imply that a person would have to be "crazy" to murder children. I think that some mentally healthy people might possibly murder children. It seems to me, however, that if a person were to make an appointment with a psychiatrist, and tell them that they were feeling an intense desire to murder children, the psychiatrist would probably not tell them that there's nothing wrong with them and send them home. There must be some kind of treatment involved... and if there's a treatment, it seems that, by definition, there must be an illness...

But, as I said, I don't have any experience whatsoever in these matters. But I'm very interested in psychiatry, which is why I come here, so I hope that somebody qualified on these forums can enlighten me.

No one mentally healthy is going to murder their children. hence, they should all get punished. At least the doctor in miami killed himself too - perhaps he realized hed be better off after THROWING HIS KIDS OFF THE BALCONY.

 

[Poety]

Having worked with a psychiatrist specializing in the study of infanticide, who has communicated by letters with Andrea, interviewed her family and her husband, I can speak directly to her clear evidence of psychosis following her 3rd, 4th, and 5th children. This was a woman who was calling her family members just a week before she killed her babies to complain about cameras in the ceiling. I think that the media likes to demonize this woman, but one clinical fact is clear, prior to this horrendous tragedy, this was a woman who clearly cared for her children and did not demonstrate any evidence of sociopathy or psychopathy - no child abuse, no reports of child neglect, no torture of animals, no history of manipulation/lying.

As a field, we have had a great deal of difficulty separating out the elements of pathology associated with violence. Not everyone who commits a crime against others would meet DSM-IV criteria for ASPD or IED, and yet we are often called to weigh in on whether these individuals have a diagnosable illness which may reduce their culpability. Clearly the DSM-IV gives us little guidance (likely not to improve with DSM-V) and as a field we tend to wash our hands of these individuals.



Don't forget the women who smoke during pregnancy - they were told to quit, offered the patch, and informed of the fetal complications associated with continuing to smoke. And if that kid has asthma requiring an ER visit, where mom or dad are noted to have a pack on them, then what should happen? Isn't this a slippery slope we are playing solely based upon the demographics of whichever socioeconomic class we're trying to marginalize.

MBK2003

i should also address this - I smoked during pregnancy per my obgyn who thought it would be too stressful to quit at that time. I limited myself. My child has never been sick, not once, with ANYTHING (creepy i know) but i KNEW what I was doing, and I also KNEW that 4 cigs a day were not going to put me or her at any real risk for endangering her health since its a much higher dose (if you read the studies like I have) thats required for placental insufficiency to actually ensue, most of those people have an underlying copd to some extent as well. I never drank one glass of wine, yet others do, I didnt because... studies have shown that they cannot determine whether its ONE or multiple drinks that can cause FAS - there is a difference between smoking 4 cigs a day and smoking a crack pipe making your kid addicted or doing heroine and making your kid addicted (and in my experience, its never the first one that I saw, its always the 4th/5th/6h one that dyfus was coming to take away - causing permanent mental disability for the child - FOREVER)

There are different degrees that are often lost in these discussions which is quite unfortunate since all I'm seeing are blanket statements about things that may be no where near as harmful as others.

A mother with postpartum depression who is monitored should not be left alone with her child. Thats how I feel - a mother with such severe ppd that she became psychotic perhaps shouldnt HAVE any more children since infantcide is the unfortunate result that (at least I have) seen time and again.

Coming from Philly, I can assure you, I saw more cases of this than I'd ever like to see again. It doesn't make me not want to do psych, but it sure does make me selective in my patient population. IN fact, that depressed pain the butt who wants to whine about things all day is starting to look more attractive by the minute, who knows, but I do know I won't change my mind on the aspect of child abuse.

 

[Demosthenes]

Nor does believing that one should pay for their crimes REGARDLESS OF MENTAL STATE. and to answer the above question: a child at 3 doesn't UNDERSTAND the consequences of their actions,

And that was part of the point some of us are trying to make here: Andrea Yates did not understand the consequences of her actions, at least not in the sense that you do. She did not see that she was killing them forever and ever. She saw that she was keeping them alive forever and ever. Her delusional belief system prevented her from seeing the children's deaths as being against their best interests.

I am NOT ABLE to separate myself from my countertransferance with people that kill their children/abuse children or anything of that sort. I'm aware of it.

MBK: I see your point, and perhaps it is a failure for both the medical field as well as those surrounding her children, however, in the end, the horrific deed has been done and cameras or not, psychosis or not, she has got to pay for that.

This, I think, might be what I object to: it seems to me -- forgive me if I am wrong here -- that you're more concerned with retribution than with what some of us might see as justice. "Someone has to pay!" That's not necessarily Justice, that's Retribution.

I'd also like to add that there are DEGREES of crimes, lets be real here, stealing a BOOK is no where near as tragic as murdering your kids (Like faebinder was saying)

And that's exactly why I used it -- I was trying to shift this away from emotionally charged content.

Also, I could actually argue that half those bastards on death row are mentally ill with some of the stuff thye've come up with, how come its ok to be some sort of mentally ill but not other kinds of mentally ill that require special treatment. For instance, if you dont think charles manson was sick then you definitely aren't seeing things clearly - yet he went to JAIL - just because he didn't talk about hearing voices or seeing cameras he gets a different punishment?

Mentally ill? That might depend on how you classify Axis II d/os, don't you think? It's less about what dx might be applied after the fact, than about what untreated dx was in play at the time.

At least, that's my opinion. But I'm going to stop now, because I don't think that continuing this discussion is likely to produce more understanding nor agreement nor mutual respect. I suspect that those who agreed with me at the outset probably still do, and that those who didn't, don't. C'est la guerre.

 

[Poety]

And that was part of the point some of us are trying to make here: Andrea Yates did not understand the consequences of her actions, at least not in the sense that you do. She did not see that she was killing them forever and ever. She saw that she was keeping them alive forever and ever. Her delusional belief system prevented her from seeing the children's deaths as being against their best interests.



This, I think, might be what I object to: it seems to me -- forgive me if I am wrong here -- that you're more concerned with retribution than with what some of us might see as justice. "Someone has to pay!" That's not necessarily Justice, that's Retribution.



And that's exactly why I used it -- I was trying to shift this away from emotionally charged content.



Mentally ill? That might depend on how you classify Axis II d/os, don't you think? It's less about what dx might be applied after the fact, than about what untreated dx was in play at the time.

At least, that's my opinion. But I'm going to stop now, because I don't think that continuing this discussion is likely to produce more understanding nor agreement nor mutual respect. I suspect that those who agreed with me at the outset probably still do, and that those who didn't, don't. C'est la guerre.

Yes I admit, I feel like someone has to pay, but wouldn't you say paying for the crime IS justice?

 

[juddson]

Ladoc00, indulge me for a moment:

You strike me as a second amendment sort of guy, no? You believe in self defense?

Suppose you happen upon a man and women in the throws of an argument and just as the man is about to stab the woman with a knife, you pull out a firearm and shoot him in the head, killing him. Are you heading for prison?

Why or why not?

Judd

 

[Solideliquid]

Ladoc00, indulge me for a moment:

You strike me as a second amendment sort of guy, no? You believe in self defense?

Judd

Judge: So, LADoc, why did you feel you had to judo-chop that patient's head off?

LADoc: Well, she was looking at me weird.

 

[Solideliquid]

Yes I admit, I feel like someone has to pay, but wouldn't you say paying for the crime IS justice?

Well, the preoccupation with the amount of "suffering" we inflict on Yates is disconcerning to me.

 

[Demosthenes]

Is she psycho? Yeah - but here again, sometimes the psychosis just needs to be locked away for good - we don't need that kind of psychosis inflicting their rotten deeds on the innocent children of the world.

Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens.

Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, 1209

How modern of you...

 

[50960]

Enough of the french already....shyte!! For God sakes French!@!!! edited for Dr. S.

Peace, shalom, .......um cheers, slainte..same thing.

 

[Psyclops]

Yes I admit, I feel like someone has to pay, but wouldn't you say paying for the crime IS justice?

That is a relatively simplistic view of justice in my opinion. Punishment can have various purposes. These are not mutually exclusive. One like you say is "pay", I assume that you mean vengance exacted on the culprit. Which of course can be satisfying to the public or the harmed. But, it is only of limited utility. You might want punishment to serve as a deterent for others. And presumably it does to some extent. If there were no punishment for any crimes there would presumably be a lot more committed. But they aren't perfect, people continue to committ crimes even under penalty of death. Another purpose it could serve is to have the guilty party "pay" restitutions, to make the situation better for the injured party. So, if you steal my goat, you might have to buy me a new one, that way it removes the injury. This is not possible in murder trials of course, although people do try to put a price on lives. And finally, punishment might serve as quarantine. That way we take the offending party and kep them from doing so again.

In my opinion the quarantine is the most important, especially in murder trials. To the extent that is possible paying restitution is good too, just have the guillty arty pay extra for the troubles everyone had. Deterence, although necessary hasn't seemed to serve a great purpose, unles you look at a regime like Sadam's in which no one was willing to reak the law lest their whole family be gassed and their sheep killed and daughter's raped. But I don't think even you are advocating going to that extreeme, P. I think the vengeance reason for justice is the most immature, and is merely responding to our base emotions. We might want to listen to these emotions to help guide us on what is right and what is wrong (assming you aren't one of those people who looks to 2000 year old books to tell them what any half intellegent child could), but we shouldn't act on them. That would make us no better than they impetuous criminal.

 

[Poety]

That is a relatively simplistic view of justice in my opinion. Punishment can have various purposes. These are not mutually exclusive. One like you say is "pay", I assume that you mean vengance exacted on the culprit. Which of course can be satisfying to the public or the harmed. But, it is only of limited utility. You might want punishment to serve as a deterent for others. And presumably it does to some extent. If there were no punishment for any crimes there would presumably be a lot more committed. But they aren't perfect, people continue to committ crimes even under penalty of death. Another purpose it could serve is to have the guilty party "pay" restitutions, to make the situation better for the injured party. So, if you steal my goat, you might have to buy me a new one, that way it removes the injury. This is not possible in murder trials of course, although people do try to put a price on lives. And finally, punishment might serve as quarantine. That way we take the offending party and kep them from doing so again.

In my opinion the quarantine is the most important, especially in murder trials. To the extent that is possible paying restitution is good too, just have the guillty arty pay extra for the troubles everyone had. Deterence, although necessary hasn't seemed to serve a great purpose, unles you look at a regime like Sadam's in which no one was willing to reak the law lest their whole family be gassed and their sheep killed and daughter's raped. But I don't think even you are advocating going to that extreeme, P. I think the vengeance reason for justice is the most immature, and is merely responding to our base emotions. We might want to listen to these emotions to help guide us on what is right and what is wrong (assming you aren't one of those people who looks to 2000 year old books to tell them what any half intellegent child could), but we shouldn't act on them. That would make us no better than they impetuous criminal.

Well said, and I admit that my responses are based almost solely on my own emotions (as I've said before you know I'm open about how I have countertransferance issues with child crimes, etc). I agree that I think the biggest issue for me is punishment and deterence. I see a huge flaw in attempting to rehabilitate after a certain point. But I happen to be one of those that believes there are lines, and once they're crossed, there is no going back. What Im disturbed by is that people on this board seem to think you're an arsehole just for having lines and boundaries, which is what psychiatry is about in the first place isn't it? I mean we need to draw the line somewhere, it can't all be chalked up to mental illness and it can't all be treated. Sure, had we gotten to her in time perhaps things could have and should have been much different, but both sides have failed, however the medical community didn't inflict the crime (which is the other underlying theme I find disturbing on this board, that its somehow psychs fault for not intervening, or the cops, or the family, or etc etc, you get my drift) when in actuality we need to place the blame where the blame should lie - with the offender.

Ofcourse these issues are way more complicated than what appears to be the simplistic view I often jot down in my responses - but I try to express my underlying ideas as well as ideals of how I think justice should be served. We all have reasons for belief systems. Perhaps if the person who so contradicts imprisoning and punishing a woman who killed her children would feel completely different had they experienced some loss like this in their own life. Say for instance, (and no, it hasn't happened in my family, or I'd be in jail ) but lets just say your aunt killed your cousin when he/she was 2 weeks old by beating them with their fist and then throwing them against the wall over and over and over (yes, this happened in Philly, Psyclops, I think you know the case I'm referring to) - we could all make the argument that this person was psychotic, but..... do they deserve TREATMENT? Should I actually be reimbursed for my time and skills after such a henous crime has been committed? I don't think so, especially since on further evaluation, the person left the room and went on as though nothing happened only to have another family member find the baby beaten to death. This for me, with my beliefs, and regardless of my understanding of mental illness is unforgiveable and deserves not only punishment (yes for others to be deterred but ALSO for retributiont o the loss of the child).

I dont know, perhaps I'm not making myself clear, but your post was well stated Psy.

 

[Psyclops]

Thanks for the kind words. Naturally these issues are beyond internet chat forums. In fact, I think discussing an individual case makes it more difficult. It's kind of like trying to argue with someone when you are using general principles and tehy keep citing exceptions to the rule. Or at least that's how I see it.

Thanks for pointing out the final of the 5 purposes of punishment, I couldn't remember rehabilitation. Or at elast the way I understand it there are 5 big ones.

1. Vengeance
2. Quarantine
3. Deterent
4. Retitution
5. Rehabilitation

 

[psychmom1]

I think this is a rather common way of thinking when it comes to particularly heinous crimes: "To do that someone would have to be crazy." I guess that would obviously depend on one's definition of "crazy," but it seems like when there is a terrible crime, particularly a mother killing her children, people almost automatically assume that there is insanity involved. Similarly, most people in the general public seem to think that mental illness equals insanity in the eyes of the law, which it doesn't necessarily.



Anasazi, it is interesting that you bring this up. I just finished an article about the Yates trial, and the jury mentioned that they wished they could have found her guilty but insane:

Is this verdict only available in particular states? Just curious why it wasn't an option for the Yates trial, as it seems it would be more palatable to many people.


I was curious about what people here thought about Park Dietz. From what I know, he is a very respected forensic psychiatrist. Yet it was his erroneous testimony that led to the mistrial, and he also seems to disagree with most psychiatrists on this board in that he feels Andrea Yates wasn't insane.

I LOVE Park Dietz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel ya Poety!!!! It would be much easier to accept the entire incident had she had a psychotic break and immediately in a rage killed her children. It is hard to understand how the whole incident was so well thought out and she waited for the perfect time when she could get away with it. Not really sure where I lie on the whole situation, but I do know that it seems awfully shady how premeditated it was. I stand firmly that there should be much more literature and info available about PPD/psychosis. There is little to none info explaining the feelings, emotions, and symptoms of PPD. Although I didn't have any symptoms while I was pregnant with both of my boys, after I had them, I was never offered any info about PPD. I feel that this all should be explained to every expectant mother and explained that this happens to a lot of mothers and that there is help available. There is none of that. I don't want to hear the one person that has heard of that in their hospital either, b/c the fact is, it's not everywhere and it needs to be. Considering that this is a mental illness, you would think that the info would be not only available but discussed between the OB and the patient. I can see how a mother would fear that she would loose her children if she expressed the desire to harm them, or even the thought of it. Maybe if the mothers who suffer from PPD had more knowledge on the subject, they would feel more comfortable seeking the care that they so desperately need. When you have your child, you are presented with the info about the first Hep B shot that the child receives in the hospital, along with every other immunization they will receive. It explains all of the possible side effects and even the chance of death. Yet, when a woman has a child, she is offered little to no info about the feelings and emotions she may endure after the birth. I would think that if it is that important to stress the side effects of the immunizations, it would be important to stress the symptoms of PPD. By the way, has any of the attending psychiatrist or family members that knew of her desperate mental state been held accountable? As far as I am concerned, her husband should be imprisoned right along with her and her psychiatrist should loose his/her licence.

 

[Poety]

Hi Psychmom, I think I love that forensic guy too for thinking she wasn't insane at all. I was given lots of literature on PPD after my birth - and I talked about any odd feeling or thought I had, I also reassured myself that I was a raging hormone and that this is NORMAL for people to respond with excessive crying, excessive fears, etc - which is due to a biological process.

I do know, that in my state PP, when I would break down and cry, etc, there was no "planning it" it just happened and as you said - perhaps in rage or something it would be easier to swallow the insane pill, but premeditated murder (although can be due to a mental illness) should definitely (at minimum, I think the others should too - non premeditated) be punished to teh fullest extent of the law.

Thanks for your ideas

 

[Demosthenes]

It would be much easier to accept the entire incident had she had a psychotic break and immediately in a rage killed her children. It is hard to understand how the whole incident was so well thought out and she waited for the perfect time when she could get away with it.

Um... She waited until she could do it, but hardly to "get away with it." As soon as she was done, she called he husband, no? That's not trying to get away with it.

You're right, though -- more info on PPD and PPP should be out there, and more discussion with family members, too.

And her former psychiatrist should lose his license and probably spend a few weekends in jail. This was an AVOIDABLE tragedy.

 

[Poety]

Um... She waited until she could do it, but hardly to "get away with it." As soon as she was done, she called he husband, no? That's not trying to get away with it.

You're right, though -- more info on PPD and PPP should be out there, and more discussion with family members, too.

And her former psychiatrist should lose his license and probably spend a few weekends in jail. This was an AVOIDABLE tragedy.

See thats where I disagree, how can we as medical specialist take responsibility for everything our patients do if we're not aware of whats going on? THATS frightening. In all honesty, I would possibly switch my specialty if I find that I can held accountable for someone elses actioins like this when I may not have known anything about what was going on in her head.

Is this the norm Sazi? I can be held responsible for this? Im dead serious when I say this - I'm switching fields if thats the case. I mean if they TELL me or Im aware of it, etc etc - thats one thing, but no way in hell am I being held responsible for OTHER PEOPLES actions if I'm not even aware of whats going on.

 

[Anasazi23]

See thats where I disagree, how can we as medical specialist take responsibility for everything our patients do if we're not aware of whats going on? THATS frightening. In all honesty, I would possibly switch my specialty if I find that I can held accountable for someone elses actioins like this when I may not have known anything about what was going on in her head.

Is this the norm Sazi? I can be held responsible for this? Im dead serious when I say this - I'm switching fields if thats the case. I mean if they TELL me or Im aware of it, etc etc - thats one thing, but no way in hell am I being held responsible for OTHER PEOPLES actions if I'm not even aware of whats going on.

You can only be sued (effectively) if it's been demonstrated that you've deviated from common and acceptable medical practice, which caused harm to the resulting party. If one or the other is not present, you are not liable. A psychiatrist is no more responsible for what their patients don't say to them, or how they live their lives than a GP is responsible for a man having a heart attack that stopped taking his coreg and digoxin.

The case in question is extraordinary in the fact that a tragic, horiffic event resulted - more so than even suicide. We don't know all the facts of the case, we don't know what's written in the psychiatrist's progress notes. We don't know if she experienced multiple treatment failures. We don't know if he recommended hospitalization, or if he flat out stopped all her medications, while knowing that she was symptomatic and having homicidal intentions and the details associated with this.

Don't worry. Practice competently, document everything, keep abreast of recent literature and common practice, and it's generally ok.

 

[Demosthenes]

See thats where I disagree, how can we as medical specialist take responsibility for everything our patients do if we're not aware of whats going on? THATS frightening. In all honesty, I would possibly switch my specialty if I find that I can held accountable for someone elses actioins like this when I may not have known anything about what was going on in her head.

Is this the norm Sazi? I can be held responsible for this? Im dead serious when I say this - I'm switching fields if thats the case. I mean if they TELL me or Im aware of it, etc etc - thats one thing, but no way in hell am I being held responsible for OTHER PEOPLES actions if I'm not even aware of whats going on.

Yeah, I overreacted on that one. Here's what I meant, and probably should have spelled out earlier:

The accounts I remember reading back when Yates first killed her children said that her psychiatrist had stopped all her medications a couple of weeks before, despite knowing that she was still suffering psychosis. It's possible that he had in mind starting something else after a wash out, but that wasn't clear. It was reported, with how much accuracy is anyone's guess, that he talked to her about "thinking happy thoughts," which I truly hope is not accurate. I can't remember now, but I think this was a psychiatrist, rather than a GP, so I would hope that there was better sense used in her treatment than this.

Nonetheless, her doctor did stop all her medications within weeks of this event, despite ongoing symptomology. Unless there was some compelling need that I can't think of, it seems as though there was some substandard care going on. (Back of my brain, of course, is saying, "Managed Care...")

My own bias, by the way, is not so much related to Mrs Yates' actions. Those I see as being tragic, and heartbreaking. My own bias is that several people in a state of mental HEALTH apparently did not adequately protect either the children or Mrs Yates herself. I'm outraged by the story, too, but my outrage takes a different bias. Just for the record.