![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by bonnie_ann on February 19, 2002, at 22:23:55
Although Andrea is totally guilty and should have to endure cruel and usual punishment for the rest of her life.
I still can't help but think that the husband, family, friends, dr's and anyone else who knew or even suspected should have some blame in this.
It just proves to me how inadequate mental health care is. How families hide from it rather than deal with it straight on.
I'm confused because although I never felt like hurting my child - a year ago or so I was afraid that I would. Like afraid to have the knifes out on the counter or my husbands guns were in the house.
My question is if I have had these thoughts, but have not acted on them. What should my punishment be? I know its a crime and morally wrong, so if thats so than I'm just as bad as her and should be put in jail. If you can't tell anyone how you really feel... what are you supposed to do? And with no insurance, then what?
Ok you can tell me to shut up
Bonnie
Posted by Dinah on February 19, 2002, at 23:35:11
In reply to Yates trial, posted by bonnie_ann on February 19, 2002, at 22:23:55
Those thoughts are not particularly uncommon Bonnie. They're frequently found in OCD. And thoughts aren't wrong. You didn't act on the thoughts. So you deserve no punishment. Only actions deserve punishment.
OCD thoughts usually seem intrusive and alien to the way you really think and feel. You might try reading a book on OCD and see if the way the thoughts are described seems familiar to you.
I know how disturbing such thoughts can be though. I think the important thing is to have a safe place to disclose them. Secrecy gives those thoughts power. And I also know it's not something you can talk about with just anyone. Many clinics have sliding rate scales. If the thoughts are still giving you trouble, I would look into it.
And, of course, if you are really afraid that you are going to act on them, the important thing is to get help.
Posted by trouble on February 20, 2002, at 5:26:10
In reply to Yates trial, posted by bonnie_ann on February 19, 2002, at 22:23:55
Oh mannnnn, and just when I was planning to go hit the couch and grab 3 hours of sleep.
Thank you for sharing what's inside your heart, both the acceptable and the non-acceptable.
If only Ms. Yates and countless other deranged mothers and fathers had had the opportunity to express themselves in a supportive environment...We'll neve know for sure if that is a palliative, but if desperate people do desperate things common sense tells me we better deal w/ it, but that's what friends are for and she was utterly friendless, wasn't she?Her husband, the little I've read about him makes me want to break both his arms and feed them to a junkyard dog. See how ugly my inner life can be? I once had a therapist who commanded me to go home and conjure up "ax-wielding fantasies" about my rivals and it really hits the spot. Has it made me less threatening in real life? All I know for sure is I'm not considered the loose cannon I one was.
The sad thing about Susan Smith, Ms. Yates and homocidal moms in general seems to be the hell they'd bring down upon their heads if they were to come clean about what most mothers (and infants)imagine they'd like to do to their parasites. Babies are parasites, literally in utero, parasites feeding off the host mother. A little understanding would go a long way toward easing what has got to be normal female resentment.
Going back many years to a Phil Donahue show, there was a new mother on who, while breast-feeding her newborn experienced sexual stimulation. Ok I don't even have kids or anything but I do have nipples and I instinctively knew what she felt was normal. plus I went to the library and all these books (Our Bodies Ourselves type books) said it was normal to feel amorous while brstfdng.
So this poor lady calls a crises line and reports her experience, looking for commonality and reassurance and they arrested her and took her baby away.
So, I don't know what happens to women when they become moms, but the cult of motherhood has a lot to answer for when she goes off the rails.Yates psychiatrists? I can't wait to hear their excuse.
Take care, trouble
Posted by trouble on February 20, 2002, at 5:40:58
In reply to Re: Yates trial, posted by trouble on February 20, 2002, at 5:26:10
Hi Bonnie,
It's the ignoramus again, just wanting to say that until I read Dinah's measured response and then re-read your original post I didn't realize you were serious. I thought you were being rhetorical or kkvetching or making a statement type thing.
Please don't let my crises line naysaying dissuade you from reaching out.
The ax-wielding therapist I mentioned? I didn't have insurance at the time, and I paid 6 dollars a session to see her (fullly accredited, 30 years practicing psychotherapist). I'm lucky enough to live in a city where doctors like her volunteer to take on indigent clients in crises, for long term intensive therapy. I hope you find something like that where you are, even grad students have proved to be just as effective as veterans, if you happen to be near a university. But til then posting here as much as you want is a sure safe bet. trouble
Posted by bonnie_ann on February 20, 2002, at 10:35:33
In reply to Re: Yates trial » bonnie_ann, posted by Dinah on February 19, 2002, at 23:35:11
I wanted to clarify my own situation.
I had scary thoughts- I think everytime something comes across the news I think to myself-
what if? Also an unimaginable situation with someone I know has forever changed my innocence. I currently have a support system and was able to tell my therapist at that time about my thoughts and concerns. My point was that if I didn't have her to tell and trust, who could I tell? The more I was afraid to say, the more power it had.I've gone to the GP several times with high anxiety and they sort of look at you cross eyed and only ask if you're sucidal... what if I said yes? (I wasn't) Then what? I also watched an episode of HBO dealing with Belluvue hospital emergency room. The patients there were medicated until they appeared to no longer be a harm to themselves or others and released- no follow up care, just a script. One woman was telling her roommate - "you can keep saying things like that if you want to leave."
Nothing can justify what these homicidal mothers do - but, everyone always says they should have gotten help. If you're depressed and anxious about your thoughs- how much can you tell someone? and who do you tell? What are the laws?
If you can't tell someone everything how will you ever be able to get help for it? Not everyone has a therapist to talk to. I think rusty knew all about what was going on, thats why hes standing by her- he's also responsible - just like all the other people who suspected but didnt' act. In reality what could they have done? and what would the reaction be of the person told? I think a focus should also be put on that. Like, I have never told my husband or anyone about it and would never dare to.
B
Posted by LiLi80 on February 20, 2002, at 14:40:58
In reply to Yates trial, posted by bonnie_ann on February 19, 2002, at 22:23:55
I dont get this trial. Both sides say she was insane when she did it. Why are they even having a trial then. They should not have a trial just for show and for the media attention. Yates needs medical attention and therapy. She should have just been able to plead guilty and go to a hospital for rest of her life or she should have been given prison time. She is mentally ill and committed this crime. This is a no brainer and this should not even have gone to trial.
Posted by noa on February 20, 2002, at 17:39:37
In reply to Yates trial, posted by bonnie_ann on February 19, 2002, at 22:23:55
Hey, Bonnie--
I don't think we can control thoughts like we can control actions. If we are in our right minds, we have the duty to take steps to prevent thoughts from being turned into destructive actions, but having thoughts is ok. The thoughts happen, they're scary. But just having them does not mean you are going to do them.
I wonder if the Yates trial is maybe too provocative for you to be watching? It sounds like it is stirring up a lot in you. Maybe to take care of yourself through this, you could limit your exposure?
Posted by noa on February 20, 2002, at 17:47:51
In reply to Re: Yates trial = no brainer, posted by LiLi80 on February 20, 2002, at 14:40:58
After reading your next post, I just want to say again, that it is important to have someone you can trust with the feelings. And just like in the case of when someone has suicidal thoughts and feelings, it isn't the thoughts and feelings that are the most risky, it is how close a person comes to feeling like they are going to act on the thoughts and feelings.
I think your anxiety is only exacerbated by watching/hearing too much scary news. Not that turning off the tv is going to make your anxiety go away, but the bombardment with sound and visual images and words about horrible events in our world just makes fodder for the unstoppable thoughts in an ever-worrying brain. It makes it harder to turn down the worrying intesity.
BTW, are you in a postpartum period right now? Are you being treated medically for your anxieties in addition to the therapy?
And, you are right that if there aren't resources for people to discuss the feelings, the risk is that some of the people will not be helped in preventing the acting upon the feelings.
Posted by OldSchool on February 20, 2002, at 19:11:02
In reply to Yates trial, posted by bonnie_ann on February 19, 2002, at 22:23:55
Yates is the type of person who gives all the rest of us with mental illness a bad name. Its people like her that gives the public the negative perception they have of mentally ill people. Its because of people like Yates, who cant control themselves, that we have these "Kendra laws" being passed in places like New York state. Laws which do not benefit most mentally ill and in many cases do more harm than good.
Because of the minority of people like Yates, the public equates severe mental illness with criminality.
Just a few bad apples is all it takes to screw things up for everybody. Most mentally ill people, even most psychotics, are more likely to be victims of violence than the ones who committ violence.
Do away with the "insanity defense."
Old School
Posted by judy1 on February 22, 2002, at 17:14:02
In reply to Re: Bonnie, posted by noa on February 20, 2002, at 17:47:51
Thank you for writing that; my therapist insists that I don't watch the news. Bonnie, I had post-partum psychosis with my first child (so far I'm ok now) and had the most horrible thoughts of hurting my child. Fortunately I had a wonderful psychiatrist whom I trusted completely, and 1 week after starting meds I was a lot better. Now that I understand, I watch for any symptoms myself. Old School, what a hurtful thing to write- judy
Posted by bonnie_ann on February 26, 2002, at 15:58:22
In reply to Re: Bonnie » noa, posted by judy1 on February 22, 2002, at 17:14:02
The more I read on the trial, the more I know the difference between her and I. I don't have hallucinations about harming my child or hear voices. I just worry about it.
Posted by Cecilia on February 27, 2002, at 0:29:56
In reply to Yates trial, posted by bonnie_ann on February 19, 2002, at 22:23:55
I don`t see how Andrea Yates can possibly be held responsible for her actions anymore than a paraplegic can be blamed for not having the will to get up and walk. She was clearly psychotic; the persons responsible are her idiot doctor who took her off her anti-psychotic meds a few weeks before the murders and her idiot husband who totally failed to see that she was in no emotional state to be taking care of five young children.
Posted by Krazy Kat on February 27, 2002, at 16:33:32
In reply to Re: Yates trial, posted by Cecilia on February 27, 2002, at 0:29:56
Remember the poor Menendez brothers in California - they killed their parents after suffering years of abuse. However, the public didn't embrace them because they were angry young men who then spent the money of their abusive father.
I hate to be puritanical, but murder is murder. I think things will change as we start to see mental illness as a physical challenge - in fact we may see "asylums" go away completely and the mentally ill will go to prison. We don't give leeway to a young inner city man who shot his friend because they had an argument. It was the way he was brought up, his surroundings created this "mental affliction", this uncontrolable anger.
Yate IS responsible, just like the recent homeless who have pushed people in front of the metro in NY. And they certainly aren't getting this kind of compassion from the public.
- KK
Posted by Willow on February 27, 2002, at 19:54:28
In reply to Re: Yates trial, posted by Cecilia on February 27, 2002, at 0:29:56
No one is debating her guilt. She has admitted to committing the crime. The question is about appropriate sentencing in my opinion.
Comparing this crime to one committed by the two brothers in California has no correlation. (I'm not familiar with the particulars of the crime involving the subway.) Yes, she knew what she was doing, but the logic behind her reasoning was delusional. This is the purpose behind her defence using the "insanity" plea.
I lived with someone for two years who assualted me in more ways then I care to mention. I spent my last evening in that relationsip hugging a knife locked in the bathroom. I was sick to my stomache physcially because I so wanted to kill him. The only thing that stopped me was the prospect of spending time in jail.
The boys thought they could hide their actions. Yes, they were probably affected by the abuse they received but still knew their actions were wrong.
An eye for an eye, isn't always the correct way to go. To be a just society sometimes the malicious need to be protected.
Whispering Willow
Posted by Krazy Kat on February 28, 2002, at 9:51:07
In reply to Guilt / Sentencing, posted by Willow on February 27, 2002, at 19:54:28
My dearest willow (how are you by the way?). I have missed your poetic posts.
I certainly have no desire to argue with you, but I do disagree re: the case comparisons - in fact judging from your horrific "real life" senario, the Menendez brothers should have been treated with compassion by the public, not hatred. I believe abuse can change your psyche, and in a sense "make" you mentally ill. What do you think?
Again, the thing that kept you from committing a crime, was the prospect of jail. I realize that someone who is mentally ill cannot necessarily rationalize between right and wrong. But there is Right and there is Wrong - that's what a civilized society is based on.
I'd actually rather see the mentally ill go to a psychiatric ward than a prison - I'd also like to see children Never tried as adults, and folks in prison get some sort of help.
But, it seems to me that based on our society's concepts of right and wrong, murder is murder. There are not extenuating circumstances. Of course a judge has the ability to lessen a sentence. Is that right? I don't know - it's all sujective.
If I had cancer and was in constant pain, I don't get to kill the person who cut me off in traffic because my mood was bad. We have to decide if mental illness is a biological thing, or a "Spiritual" thing. I think it's both, but I don't think we can accurately combine those concepts in our secular society. (I mean all modern societies - yours and mine).
Was that a decent argument, or am I all over the place? I want to go back to school and need to get my rationalization skills back in order.:)
Do let me know how you are.
- KK
Posted by Elizabeth on March 2, 2002, at 19:56:22
In reply to murder is murder, posted by Krazy Kat on February 27, 2002, at 16:33:32
I've just been skimming this thread...can somebody tell me the details of the case? I've been doing a lousy job of following the news lately. :-}
I have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea that people who kill someone else because of (for example) a paranoid delusion or a command hallucination are just as guilty of murder as those who are in full posession of their faculties. But perhaps I don't have all the information here, so I'll refrain from forming an opinion about this case until I know more about what happened.
I know that there are some people who try to abuse the insanity defense by claiming that their crimes were caused by "insanity" even though they knew what they were doing and weren't experiencing any type of psychosis. As OldSchool says, these people make us all look bad (and I might add that it's pretty pathetic if someone can be said to give mental illness a worse name than it already has). They belong in prison, although they should have access to psych treatment while they're there. I'm not clear as to whether that was going on in this case since I don't have the facts, tho'.
One note that may be of relevance here: the medical concept of "mental illness" is not the same as the legal concept of "insanity." (The insanity defense is rarely successful, and even when it is, the defendant still ends up being locked up, only in a hospital rather than a prison.)
-elizabeth
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.