Andrea Yates found NOT guilty of capital murder

[Poety]

Thanks for the clarification Des and Sazi, I think my problem is that the more involved I get in ANY form of medical care (we do unfortunately have to see the worse of the worst, its the nature of medicine after all) is that I start to feel like Des was saying, children just aren't being protected at all.

Psy, I'm sure you remmber the case in Philly where the woman who had a baby, she was mentally challenged, was left alone with the baby (they had let her take the baby home <dyfus did> with the condition that her cousin was to keep an eye on her all of the time (I can't remember the diagnosis, some form of MR) anyway, the cousin left her with the baby, and the baby wouldn't stop crying - she beat the baby to death. this was probably the 3rd case I had heard of in a WEEK in Philly and from that point on, I felt my own gutteral reactions start to come about. Why aren't authorities protecting these kids if theres A DIAGNOSIS? Why are they allowed to be home with these mothers that are clearly not fit? I could bang my head on the cmputer but I imagine I won't get the answer - I just think there needs to be some type of reform to STOP these things from happening in the first place.

I for one, would most likely recommend CPS if I had a psychotic PPD mother telling me she had bad thoughts of microwaving her child or whatever - with her getting mandated inpt treatment. HEre again the problem lies with the fact that our patients often become slick enough to lie about whats going on just to get let out - its a conundrum.

Ideas?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Demosthenes]

Why aren't authorities protecting these kids if theres A DIAGNOSIS? Why are they allowed to be home with these mothers that are clearly not fit? I just think there needs to be some type of reform to STOP these things from happening in the first place.

I for one, would most likely recommend CPS if I had a psychotic PPD mother telling me she had bad thoughts of microwaving her child or whatever - with her getting mandated inpt treatment. HEre again the problem lies with the fact that our patients often become slick enough to lie about whats going on just to get let out - its a conundrum.

Ideas?

The first part of what you've written gets me back to philosophy -- and maybe this is partly my age, because it brings up Kennedy for me. I think what you're looking for is a reason, and there just isn't one. Probably the most important quality for a scientist is a high tolerance for uncertainty, and that's also probably one of the rarest qualities out there. It's very hard to look at something like the Yates case and not look for a reason for that to have happened. You look at it and say the mother was evil, I look at it and say a few mentally healthy people abdicated their responsibility despite copious amounts of evidence that something just wasn't right. (The husband and mother arranging the schedule to leave her alone with the kids for two hours every day? Anyone besides me see a little problem there?) We're both looking for something to tell us that the world still makes sense, even though something like this can happen. I think that's why people still want Kennedy's death to have been the result of a conspiracy. It's hard to think that a lone "nut job" can change the world so completely.

Then again, I also think that psychotics don't have the capacity to protect themselves, and therefore Yates really isn't responsible in a criminal sense. Guess that's my own bias.

 

[50960]

Your ability to rely on philosophy to guide your instinct is proof of one thing; you can only see this in abstract and have never personally been tainted by one of these incidents. It is easy to remain philosophical when it is only other people who have to suffer. This woman deserves to be severely punished, not for what she may or may not have been able to grasp, but for what she did.

 

[Demosthenes]

Your ability to rely on philosophy to guide your instinct is proof of one thing; you can only see this in abstract and have never personally been tainted by one of these incidents.

Hell of an assumption to make.

 

[50960]

Life is not fair....

 

[Pterion]

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.

In truth, my first reaction was strongly in opposition to this new verdict. Your point is a good one, Solide. The final difficulty is this: the details of the case, her mental health history, the facts (actual facts, not legal facts) of her offense behavior and the letter of law in TX are completely obscured by what we are able to glean from the media reports.

If she in fact is severely mentally ill, she of course will require close and possibly permanent treatment/management. This outcome is tragic because when she regains/sustains "sanity" she will be utterly emotionally destroyed by what she has lost. That is to say nothing of the five innocent lives lost - tragedies themselves.

If she is not truly mentally ill, or at least not SMI (read: she is Axis II) then close supervision of a definite management kind is in order.

I know everyone has sources they want to cite to support their positions, everyone wants to assert a clear position. I am not satisfied that all the facts are known.

 

[Solideliquid]

One thing about this case that I was curious about is the psychiatrist on the prosecution. Did he/she simply come to the conclusion that Mrs. Yates was faking her psychotic symptoms?

He must of been utterly convinced or getting a huge check. How can you actually trust any of the psychiatrists (on the defense and prosecution) when one is convinced a person has a mental illness and another claims the person is completely faking it?

 

[Psyclops]

That is one of the big complaints of MH experts. It seems that you can almost always get someone to find the results you want, and then you let 12 relatively uninformed jurors decide. But not to worry, those jurors have had a high school education, right?

This is also where the ethics of practice come in. I'm not familiar with the principles in place for iatrists, but for ologists, regardless of who is paying the bill, the person you are evaluating shouldbe treated as the client. So, ultimately you are beholden to them to find the appropriate diagnosis, etc. This can be difficult to do when the defense or prosecution is paying you tons of money.

Not to mention you are already working in a system with questionable ethics. By that I mean criminal defense attorneys, trial lawers, divorce atorneys etc.

 

[Pterion]

That is one of the big complaints of MH experts. It seems that you can almost always get someone to find the results you want, and then you let 12 relatively uninformed jurors decide. But not to worry, those jurors have had a high school education, right?

This is also where the ethics of practice come in. I'm not familiar with the principles in place for iatrists, but for ologists, regardless of who is paying the bill, the person you are evaluating shouldbe treated as the client. So, ultimately you are beholden to them to find the appropriate diagnosis, etc. This can be difficult to do when the defense or prosecution is paying you tons of money.

Not to mention you are already working in a system with questionable ethics. By that I mean criminal defense attorneys, trial lawers, divorce atorneys etc.

Heh, loved this post!

This is not done in all states, and even within all court systems within the states that do, but there are courts that employ psychiatrists (and psychologists and pathologists, etc). These people are employed by "administrative offices of the courts" or some such moniker. They evaluate the person/situation in question and provide written opinions in the form of amicus briefs. These are "friend of the court" briefs and are therefore not originating from either prosecution or defense - the court is the client. Takes care of that ethical question.

Unfortunately, attorneys can and do pay anywhere from 3 to 10 times the court's reimbursement for one's opinion. That's handsome money, and many doctors will respond, fully certain their personal and professional ethics will remain firmly intact. However, getting $300/hr can call into question what any "expert" has to say, especially if said expert has a long track record on one or the other side. Rest assured that opposing counsel will bring this type of thing up on the record.

Let's not forget that if the defense hires an expert whose evaluation would not be seen favorably in court, it can be "lost". (Yes, that is unethical as Hades.) Not so the prosecution, for whom in criminal proceedings all activity is discoverable and therefore available to the defense.

In short, when the media reports that a court has found a "fact" I automatically assume the real story is completely unknown. Neither of those two entities has any basis in science.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

One thing about this case that I was curious about is the psychiatrist on the prosecution. Did he/she simply come to the conclusion that Mrs. Yates was faking her psychotic symptoms?

He must of been utterly convinced or getting a huge check. How can you actually trust any of the psychiatrists (on the defense and prosecution) when one is convinced a person has a mental illness and another claims the person is completely faking it?

Sleazy, lying mental health experts testifying in Texas criminal cases? That doesn't happen. I went to law school in Texas, and we learned about a psychiatrist called Dr. Death who testified at virtually every death penalty trial about how the death penalty was the appropriate treatment. I guess the guy made a lot of money, but I'm assuming if there's a hell, he's headed there.

Personally, I'm very happy with the verdict and feel that it's proper. From what I understand, there's no dispute that Andrea Yates was seriously mentally ill (legally I know that's not enough, but still). Honestly, the woman was a saint before killing her kids, so I can't see her as evil or hate her.

I agree with some of the earlier posts about the culpability of Rusty Yates. She was obviously not well, and yet he discouraged her from getting treatment and left their children alone with her all day. He's remarried and apparently living in pretty nice digs now after forcing Andrea to live in an old school bus. I'm guessing he sleeps pretty well at night, but I don't think he should.

 

[Poety]

Life is not fair....

my post didn't post, but in essence I second that.

 

[LADoc00]

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.

Damn straight.

 

[whopper]

I haven't read the entire thread.

So forgive me if the following comment was not addressed.

As physicians, you are committing unethical practice by stating your opinion on this case without having fully reviewed it, and by stating your opinion, as a physician, you are to be held to professional standards by your comment, unless you offer a disclaimer that your opinion is nonmedical. Simply seeing the 30 second news soundbyte is not appropriate to formulate an opinion. Some argue that unless the entire court documentation is read, it should be left alone.

I would also suggest that if some of the comments I'm referring towards are made by a doctor, ahem, cough cough, well the moderator should consider getting involved. If medically unethical comments are being made--E.g. what if someone on the internal medicine board told someone to treat hypertension with a high salt diet--that is highly litiginous, unethical and possibly dangerous. Same goes for this case. If you're a doc and you're going to say comments about something where mental health is involved--you keep your mouth shut unless you are willing to be held responsible as a doctor. Whether or not your field is Psychiatry-you still are to be held within the standard of care. Don't demand or urge practices that go against the standard of care. Take it any way you want, but I mean this in a friendly manner--a colleague asking another colleague to protect themself.

There are forensic ethics that doctors are obligated to follow, even in a highly publicized case as this one. Some of these ethics haven't been followed in this thread.

If you suggest practice & opinion that goes against it (which has been done above), well that isn't exactly safe for yourself.

 

[whopper]

One thing about this case that I was curious about is the psychiatrist on the prosecution. Did he/she simply come to the conclusion that Mrs. Yates was faking her psychotic symptoms?

He must of been utterly convinced or getting a huge check. How can you actually trust any of the psychiatrists (on the defense and prosecution) when one is convinced a person has a mental illness and another claims the person is completely faking it?

This is a problem in any field of expertise, Psychiatry or not.

Take the OJ Simpson case for example. 2 experts on DNA evidence giving completely different statements.

You got a bridge for example that has collapsed, people get hurt, it goes to court--guess what? You'll have an engineer from the defense, and an engineer from the plaintiff/prosecution give 2 very different despositions.

Someone I know suggested that for this reason, if a field of expertise was going to be called into a court case, the jury should contain people in that field of expertise. Some have even suggested professional jurors. Unfortunately, many of these suggestions, however seemingly reasonable go against the backbone of the legal system's use of jury by peers. It is something which will probably never change and if it is changed won't happen for a long time.

The particular question in and of itself is not a Forensic Psychiatry problem but an "Forensic Expert" problem.