|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2002 : 16:49:31
|
The mainstream media haven't said much about this, but imho it goes a long way toward explaining how a "good mother" could drown her five children:
quote:
BEHIND THE YATES KILLINGS: STERN RELIGION, PATRIARCHAL TEACHINGS AND A RANTING STREET EVANGELIST
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/ayates1.htm
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980.
Edited by - Piltdown on 03/15/2002 17:10:41
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2002 : 13:41:17 [Permalink]
|
I think this paints a good picture of radical religious fundamentalist. These kind of people aren't "sane." They are irresponsible when they teach people these kind of things. I don't even know how to express it, it just absolutely digusts me.
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2002 : 14:32:52 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
I think this paints a good picture of radical religious fundamentalist. These kind of people aren't "sane."
[/quote]
But do they become fundys because they aren't sane? Or did they lose their minds BECAUSE they were fundys? Is it a symptom or a cause?
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2002 : 15:43:38 [Permalink]
|
Obviously, somewhere along the line it should have been seen to that her mental illness was monitored and adequately treated, but unfortunately that doesn't happen too often in our society, possibly due to inadequate mental health resources/funding (when involuntarily hospitalized by police, such people are usually stabilized and discharged ASAP with a script they'll ignore,) and well-intended safeguards against inappropriate commitments backfiring and keeping those badly needing treatment from getting it. Usually, it takes a suicide attempt or violent act before anything can be done. That's all clear in hindsight, and although I doubt the influence of a funde extremist did any good to put it mildly, I fall short of slamming the role of twisted religion too hard. If one thing was to be learned from such tragedies, I hope it would be the importance of recognizing and treating such severely ill individuals.
Ron White |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 05:25:13 [Permalink]
|
[quote](when involuntarily hospitalized by police, such people are usually stabilized and discharged ASAP with a script they'll ignore,) and well-intended safeguards against inappropriate commitments backfiring and keeping those badly needing treatment from getting it. Usually, it takes a suicide attempt or violent act before anything can be done. [/quote]
Yes and no.
A quibble first: the police don't hospitalize anyone, they act as both a safeguard and as transportation (at least in Colorado and Kentucky which are the state where I have dealt with this issue; I think other states are similar).
Someone (anyone) must be willing to sign a document stating that the behavior of an individual is indicative of mental illness (not a clinical diagnosis, just a layman's best guess). A police officer or deputy sheriff must be convinced enough to also sign a document. If both sign the document, then an individual can be held for up to 72 hours (not counting weekends, so it could theoretically be 5 days) pending evaluation.
Additionally, any physician can sign an involuntary admission order good for up to 72 hours; no second opinion is required.
Suicidal and dangerous behavior are common reasons for such involuntary admission, and they are a requirement for longer committment, but they are not, I think, the predominant reasons for the initial admission.
Incoherence, wandering naked along the highway, paranoid claims, signs of schizophrenia--these are more common.
Law enforcement then transports the individual to the designated evaluation facility (the last hospital I worked at was the designated evaluation facility for most of central Kentucky; the current hospital I work at is one of three state treatment facilities after positive evaluation).
You are correct in your assessment about safeguards sometimes backfiring.
An individual cannot be kept merely because they demonstrate that they are mentally ill, nor even if they demonstrate that they are a danger.
Involuntary commitment can occur only when ALL three of the following conditions apply, as determined by a licensed mental health practicioner (not necessarily a psychiatrist or psychologist; usually a licensed social worker) and approved by a judge. These are copied from the Kentucky Revised Statutes.
1. Who presents a danger or threat of danger to self, family or others as a result of the mental illness;
2. Who can reasonably benefit from treatment; and
3. For whom hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative mode of treatment presently available.
Note the wording that any danger must be as a result of the diagnosed mental illness; just being a homicidal type is not sufficient.
Note also that the treatment afforded by hospitalization must be expected to be of benefit. This means that even if everybody agrees the guy is a complete loon and of extreme danger to everybody, if there is no treatment currently known that could be expected to help, he goes home.
Sorry for the length, but it applies, I think.
Could Russell Yates fit these conditions? Possibly in a clinical sense, but not politically or socially. Any such finding would likely be found to be oppressive to religious beliefs.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 14:41:01 [Permalink]
|
The guidelines you described which apply in CO and KY sound fair and sensible. I've witnessed the police evaluate and hospitalize someone here in CA, and they seemed very professional and reasonable, especially considering that's only a small facet of their job. Aside from the police, I don't know whether another signature is required; if it is, that's just a formality. Regarding (2.) “Who can reasonably benefit from treatment” it's a curious point that if one weren't treatable, they'd run the streets regardless of how bad they were; in practice, I doubt that's ever happened (or extremely rarely has, anyway.) Anyway, it's possible that early medical intervention could prevent some of the senseless acts.
This isn't substantiated, but I think it possible that when henious crimes with a religion-component are concerned, mental illness may be the base cause, with religion only acting as a lens to focus or direct their madness. For lack of religion, something else probably would fill the void, with similarly destructive results. Maybe delusions involving covert mind control technologies, conspiracies, (who knows.) That is, convoluted religion might be more of a symptom than a cause(?) so I'm not comfortable pointing fingers in the general direction of religion when it comes to senseless, brutal crimes, or at least not without some considering.
Edited by - ronnywhite on 03/27/2002 17:33:59
Edited by - ronnywhite on 03/27/2002 17:35:37 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 18:16:03 [Permalink]
|
You don't think that the people around her and her environment actually encouraged and aggravated her delusions? I think that religion, at least in this case, played a significant role. You would hope that there might be people around to help you at least try to differentiate between what's real and what isn't. Andrea Yates had people confirming her fears.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 08:01:44 [Permalink]
|
 That is what the church is for. They confirm what the others believe. Kind of a buddy system for religious wackos. It is kind of hard to believe that she didn't have any family or friends that were not a part of this "ministry" that would have seen through it.
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 13:29:36 [Permalink]
|
Doesn't it strike anyone involved with this case that to have five kids by five separate births in four years is a bit irresponsible? This is clearly a case for forced sterilization, and don't anybody get on my case about "the specter of eugenics."
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 08:49:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doesn't it strike anyone involved with this case that to have five kids by five separate births in four years is a bit irresponsible?
I don't have any numbers, but wouldn't one expect this to be the norm for many Catholics, as they don't believe in birth control?
quote:
This is clearly a case for forced sterilization, and don't anybody get on my case about "the specter of eugenics."
Now that would be a very interesting thread. To be honest, I'm a bit horrified at the thought that you might be serious...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 10:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Doesn't it strike anyone involved with this case that to have five kids by five separate births in four years is a bit irresponsible?
I don't have any numbers, but wouldn't one expect this to be the norm for many Catholics, as they don't believe in birth control?
I haven't seen any figures lately either, but I don't think Catholics in the US have significantly larger families than people of other faiths nowadays.
Among American Catholics (and probably others), it's quite common for the Vatican's position on birth control to be ignored.
Of course Catholics "believe in" birth control, but the Church teaches that no technological methods of same should be used by its flock. Abstinance from sex, coitus interruptus, and the rhythm method are all acceptable (afaik).
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:01:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course Catholics "believe in" birth control, but the Church teaches that no technological methods of same should be used by its flock. Abstinance from sex, coitus interruptus, and the rhythm method are all acceptable (afaik).
Thanks for setting me straight.
Why I mentioned it, however, was because I was wondering if having 5 kids in pretty much the minimum amount of time possible to give birth that much was really something so out of the ordinary?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/29/2002 13:03:31 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:17:52 [Permalink]
|
Personally, I think that it's selfish to have so many children. Obviously it would be next to impossible to regulate lifestyles like this but I do think that people having families this large should be made to feel that they are not acting responsibly.
Sure it's everyone's right to have as many damn babies as they want and many do but in many of these cases the children won't have as much as a family with fewer children and their chances of going to college must surely diminish significantly. There are only so many resources to go around. Of course, the government can always step in to help out but that's the rest of us who may have decided to live our responsible lives.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:26:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doesn't it strike anyone involved with this case that to have five kids by five separate births in four years is a bit irresponsible?
It's what we called in the old country "Irish twins" ---well in this case "Irish quintuplets"
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:04:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Personally, I think that it's selfish to have so many children.
I would agree with this only if the couple was unable to independently support them.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
