As a mental health professional, I was shocked by what I have heard about the whole case. I have heard she was suffering from post-partum depression and other reports that she has schizophrenia (two vastly different diagnoses with different treatments but with some common features) - I don't know which is true. I also heard that on the advice of her doctor her meds were stopped. If she was psychotic from either of those conditions and unmedicated, I cannot imagine how she was found guilty.  There seems to be this misconception that a psychotic person is automatically disorganized and therefore would be unable to "methodically" carry out the killings. This is just not true. This is a horrific tragedy and I feel for the children and the family, but if she was psychotic at the time, she should not be held responsible for her actions legally. Her doctor should be held criminally responsible for not providing appropriate treatment and follow-up. Thank God she didn't receive the death penalty! 

The way I see it, she was convicted based on misconceptions and biases against those disabled by mental illness. JMHO.

Yvonne


>>> Salkin Kathleen <[log in to unmask]> 03/17/02 10:38AM >>>
Sorry t0 bring back a painful topic (which was discussed a few months ago).
As I read about the testimonies of the doctors and families in the Andrea
Yates case, I was wondering who was worrying about the kids during all this?
I wasn't too surprised at the guilty verdict, and even agreed with the life
imprisonment sentence, but I surely do hope someone in Texas starts an
inquiry into the professionalism of the psychiatrists involved in Yates'
case. Yes, I do think she is guilty, but I also think her doctors and family
were negligent in not considering her kids or trying to protect them.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, I don't know.  The senseless deaths of the
children have tended to do that to me.


Kat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betty B" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Ill, Ariz Towns Seek Accessibility


> In a message dated 3/17/2002 7:39:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > Adults can be vocal for themselves and are
> > many more in number than these smallest ones of
> > humanity who has no voice but ours.
> > Joanne
> >
>
> This is a topic of potentially protracted discussion for me.  Suffice it
to
> say that you're words aren't wasted on me and I am in your camp.
> Betty