After contemplating the three levels of psychological analysis in regards to the case of Andrea Yates, I have deemed the neuroscience and behavioral genetic perspective the most convincing. Although I do see the roles the other perspectives may play in her psychotic actions, I feel that there must be a sense of insanity originating from the brain, most likely a form of depression. The fact that she had been off her meds does not seem a coincidence to me because if she was prescribed them in the first place, she clearly experienced frightening symptoms. I do question the doctor's incentive to take her off her meds though if she was so unstable at the time of the murders. Furthermore, I think it is another red flag that both her siblings also obtained mood disorders; clearly something was not right in her family. While it may have been a combination of her social environment and her unstable mental perception, I believe that her delusional thoughts of the Devil possessing her as well as her questionable history with depression and mood disorders points the most convincing level of psychological analysis to the neuroscience and behavioral genetic perspective.
This case illuminates many principles about psychology that I had not even comprehended. One that stood out to me was that the number of perspectives that must be taken into consideration when evaluating a patient and their brain functions. Andrea Yates, for example, had numerous bizarre symptoms and explanations throughout the duration of the murders, as well as her trial, such as claims of the Devil within her and her children's developmental issues. As you conveyed the three different perceptions to choose from I found myself nodding to each one, thinking, "well yes this could be why" and "oh yeah that too". To me, this emphasized that not only one thing could be wrong within a person's brain and it opened up the number of possibilities that I would not even think of, which furthermore excites me for the surprises this class holds in store for me. In other words, I think it has become clear that there is not necessarily one right answer when it comes to the imperfections of each individual's brain.
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI also spoke of the neuroscience and behavioral genetic perspective posing as the most convincing level of psychoanalysis. When speaking of the medication as Nick had also said in his blog, it does not pose a coincidence in my mind because she had to of been put on the medication for a reason in the first place as you said, so for the doctor to take her off the medication in my opinion is completely irresponsible and stupid in the first place. Even after the doctor was pleaded to by the husband to put her back on it because she was not acting right again the doctor refused. Now although he did refuse, there is a reason at the same time as to why he took her off in the first place. After a while, any psychoactive drug can become ineffective due to her bodies "immunity" to it as one could say, so eventually it wouldn't help her and if she were to have been taken off of it early, her state of mind would've been worse than when she started.
Lastly, im just as excited to be in this class, i hope it poses a lot of great opportunities and fun concepts to learn about a living being and its mental processes/ behaviors.
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI too stated that the neuroscience and behavioral genetic perspective was the most convincing. I agree with you that since the time she was off of Haldol was so short, that it is most likely not a coincidence that she committed the murders in that time frame. What continues to intrigue me is the fact that her doctor took her off the medication, despite her husband's attempts to put her back on. As Alex Goebel and Nick Lenart previously stated, the medication may have been ceased for her own health since long-term use has been known to create more mental issues and possible cardiovascular disorders. Although the drug usage may have affected her health, I think that if she had stayed on it, then the lives of her children would have been saved instead.
Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and the comments above. It does not seem like a coincidence that Andrea committed this horrific act right after she was taken off her meds. Which leads to the question of if this crime would have even happened if Andrea was still on her medication? Also if her social environment was a little more sane, would that of changed this scenario as well? Could of Andrea's bipolar and depressed family members influenced her actions/thought process?
I also agree with you and the above comments. It seems obvious to me that her actions were a result of being taken off her medication. I also find there to be answers in each type of perspective; each and everyone of them should be taken into consideration to determine the cause.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the case of Andrea Yates, her genetic mental instability only forms the base argument. You bring up good points about the several red flags in the process of Yates' treatment. However, in the end, the case comes down to what Yates believed and whether or not the audience chooses to agree. A treatment process this severe relies on how people perceive and choose to handle the situation at hand. With Yates' case, I believe her mistake came from a lack of communication and great disillusionment.
ReplyDelete