Tragedies of Postpartum Psychosis Essay Example for Free

Tragedies of Postpartum Psychosis Essay Tragedies of Postpartum Psychosis: Ethical Decisions and Sentencing Postpartum depression affects approximately ten to twenty-two percent of women and as many as about eighty percent of women suffer from some sort of â€Å"baby blues†. Even so, the much more serious problem of postpartum psychosis only occurs in as few as one in every five hundred births (Williams, 2002). Postpartum psychosis can have catastrophic outcomes, like in the case of Andrea Yates. What should happen to women like Andrea? Prison, the death penalty or a mental institution? Ethical issues, such as postpartum psychosis crimes, are debated using various theories of ethics. Postpartum psychosis tends to have a rapid onset within the first four weeks after giving birth, whereas postpartum depression has a slower onset occurring around weeks six through twelve after childbirth (Williams, 2002). In postpartum psychosis, the symptoms include mood changes, delusional thoughts, paranoia and hallucinations. Symptoms can intensify or lessen. Women suffering are often afraid to ask for help due to the paranoia and guilt felt surround the disorder. Left to manage symptoms themselves, tragedies often occur as affected women committing suicide or infanticide. When such crimes occur, people debate how to deal with the women accused. Being committed to a mental institution is one course of action for such women. The argument for this is that these women are in need of psychiatric treatment, that they are unable to distinguish between right or wrong at the time of act due to their altered view on reality. Andrea Yates, for example, believed that she had Satan inside her and that she was unable to raise the children properly because of it; that they couldn’t be saved and were going to burn in hell (Roche, 2002). Andrea believed that her being evil was causing her children to not be righteous and that she needed to be executed. The only way for that to happen was for Andrea to kill her children. Women accused of such crimes can get the help they need in an institution, where they are unable to harm themselves or their children. These women always carry with them the horror and guilt for what they have done, once they are no longer sick. Postpartum psychosis is a mental disability and should be treated as such. It would be a huge injustice to the affected women to be placed in prison, or worse yet sentenced to death. The crimes that they commit, infanticide and the like, are unspeakable; however it would not serve them or society well to have them locked up in prison and continue to suffer from this illness. If placed in a mental institution they may be rehabilitated into productive members of society once again. However there are opposing views on this subject. One of the opposing thoughts is that the crimes are so heinous that these women must pay retribution for what they have done (Anonymous, 2008). Many believe that convicted women should be paying their debt to society from behind prison bars, that these women are a risk to society like any other murderer and should serve time accordingly. Complicating the situation are the callous women who commit such crimes and then use postpartum psychosis as a defense when they are not suffering from this illness. One example of uch would be Susan Smith, who lied about the disappearance of her two young sons and then later claimed that she suffered from postpartum depression causing her to kill her children. Investigators on her case found that she was dating a man who â€Å"wasn’t ready for a ready-made family (Gibbs, Booth, Gregory, Monroe, Towle, 1994). † Therefore, doubt is cast in the minds of society and they see all infanticides as horrific crimes where justice must be sought for the innocent victims. Committing capital offices such as the murder of children and infants are offenses that are eligible for the death penalty. Due to the appalling nature of the crimes committed many want to see the offender to be put to death instead of wasting tax-payer dollars to keep them in prison for life. This is just another way society seeks retribution for these horrid crimes. People believing that the women accused of these crimes are not really mentally ill may have a couple of different viewpoints for deciding their fates through sentencing. Viewpoints on sentencing convicted women to prison or the death penalty may depend on Kantian and cultural relativism theories of ethics. Kantian views on ethics rely on reason to apply categorical ethical principles (Waller,2008, pg. 21). In applying reason to the murdering of innocent children, ethically the convicted women belongs either in prison or sentenced to death. Kantian views believe in the â€Å"golden rule† – do to others what you would have them do to you. Keeping that in mind then the killing of another person would bring upon punishment to the accused. Kantian also believes that we are responsible for our actions, good or bad, and is a product of free will (Caswell, 2006). In keeping with this view then, these women are morally responsible and choose, due to free will, to end their children’s life; therefore they should be held accountable. Another theory that would support imprisonment or death penalty sentence, for non-believers of the women being truly mentally ill, would be cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is defined as ethical judgments made relative to a given culture. Cultural relativism is basically the relativity of its society’s values, and murder is wrong no matter who is the victim. specially when it involves innocent victims such as infants and children. Therefore, if the murdering of children is wrong then there should be someone held accountable for the crime. It is hard for society to imagine that a child could die at the hands of their own mother. Unfortunately, with the blood on the mother’s hands she is placed in front of the firing squad, so to speak, so that justice can be served for the children. Under cultural relativism then, anyone convicted of such a crime should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But is this the right solution to the problem? Possibly taking on a more sympathetic view, such as care ethics and intuitionists, can help us in choosing the right sentencing for these women. People who believe in care ethics are more about caring for the person than for justice for the crime (Tong and Williams, 2009). Women committing these crimes need medical help more than they need to be placed behind bars and people looking at this from the care ethics viewpoint can see it this way. They are not blinded by the need for justice and have sympathy for not only the innocent victims, but also the accused. The accused are victims in many ways also. These women have been let done by the medical community and some by their families who have seen the signs and have not gotten them help before it had escalated into tragedy. Care ethicists can see that there truly is a problem and by placing the woman behind bars or worse yet, sentencing them to death, there is a bigger tragedy occurring: the continued victimization of a mentally ill woman. Intuitionist feel they know what is the right thing to do, as in the Waller (2008) he told of Huck Finn debating over whether or not to turn in his friend Jim, a slave owned by someone who had always been kind to him. Huck decided not to turn Jim in and let him go, knowing that ultimately slavery is wrong. This won over the fact that he was â€Å"stealing† Miz Watson’s property by helping Jim escape. The same can be applied to the women that have committed crimes while suffering from postpartum psychosis. Intuitionists know that the act was wrong and should require retribution for their crimes. However, the bigger issue is identifying postpartum psychosis as a medical condition and treating the accused accordingly. In conclusion, I believe that people choosing not to recognize postpartum psychosis as a medical condition seek out more severe punishments for the crimes. In doing so, Kantian views and cultural relativism are two ways that they justify their beliefs on severe sentencing. Kantian views are very strict and absolute – breaks a rule, you need to be punished accordingly. Cultural relativism is based on the societal ethics, break a societal rule punishment ensues. I believe this side of the debate just wants to see justice done for the innocent victims. Whereas care ethicists and intuitionists want justice, but they also want what is intrinsically right done. Sending the accused to prison or to death row, does not provide justice for the innocent victims, it would only add to the family’s suffering and create more victims. Care ethicists look at taking care of the accused as opposed to being out for revenge or justice. Intuitionists look at what they feel is the right decision, and sending someone away for a crime that they committed when they were not in control of themselves does not feel morally correct to them. References http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218445,00.html http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/feminism-ethics/