Andrea Yates Murder Case Analysis

1.  Which level of psychological analysis is the most convincing to you? Explain why.
          Andrea Yates suffered from a severe case of postpartum depression with psychosis.  Shortly after her removal from her treatment of Haldol (Haloperidol), she drowned her five children in her family bathtub in order to save them from burning in Hell.  The fact that she murdered her children a month after she was taken off of her medication leads me to believe that the neuroscience and behavioral genetics perspective is the most convincing of the three psychological analyses. 
          Since Haldol is used to treat people with delusional thoughts, Yates removal from Haldol seems to be an unwise decision in hindsight because drowning her children to save them from Hell appears to be quite delusional.  Yates claims that she killed her children because if she had not, then "they would be tormented by Satan."  In addition, although Yates' husband was an unfit husband and an unfit father of her children, he attempted to persuade the doctors to put her back on the Haldol.  I believe he wanted the medication back because he noticed that she was acting strange and that she needed Haldol in order to maintain her sanity.  If Yates had remained on the medication, she may not have committed the murders.

2.  What important principle might this case reveal about the nature of psychology?
          This case reveals that there are many levels of psychological analyses.  Although I only looked at one perspective in the previous question, there are many perspectives that all contribute into answering why Andrea Yates murdered her five children.  Psychology is different than other sciences in that there is no plain answer that explains everything, it must be viewed upon by many different fields of vision in order to determine a solution or reason.