By Deeksha Puri
TW: Mention of Homicide
The popular imagination of psychotic disorders presents them as extending from and confined to, the individual—from exhibiting symptoms to arranging for treatment. Media representation of psychotic disorders also individuates this experience; occluding that every individual is situated within a context—be it familial, social, or cultural. Thus, it becomes noteworthy to consider whether psychotic symptoms can extend beyond individuals and if the socio-cultural dynamics of one’s community can alter the likelihood of intervention. Hence, this blog looks at shared psychosis in the Madanapalle Murders Case through episode 16 of The Desi Crime Podcast called “Madness in Madanapalle: Andhra Double Murder - India” (Misra & Singh, 2021). Through this, it will elucidate the symptoms of shared psychosis in this case, and how socio-cultural factors converged to make the case’s events culminate in the perturbing way that they did.
Therefore, it is imperative to understand the influence of socio-cultural factors on the manifestation of psychotic symptoms. Under a diathesis-stress perspective, genetic-predispositions towards developing psychotic-disorders have been shown to be influenced by factors like familial environment (Hooley et al., 2021). Even “high communication deviance”, characterized by confusing and unclear communication in the family, can increase the probability of an at-risk person developing a thought disorder (Hooley et al., 2021). It is socio-cultural factors like these that make the Madanapalle Murders Case worth examining, undergirding how their interplay can determine timely and proper intervention for those exhibiting clear psychotic symptoms.
Misra & Singh (2021) narrate Purushottam Naidu’s phone confession to his friend, entailing him and his wife, Padmaja, murdering their two daughters. When police reached the crime scene, they found the daughters dead, wrapped in red saris, with missing chunks of hair from their heads as an “offering to Lord Shiva” (Misra & Singh, 2021). They were also met with resistance from the parents, who kept asking them for some time to “resurrect” their daughters, never denying the homicide (Misra & Singh, 2021). Both parents were found in a “trance-like state”, and Padmaja said the police interrupted a ritual and destroyed a “majestic heaven on earth” (Misra & Singh, 2021). After the arrest, both the parents underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which outlined that continual proximity to Padmaja, who was already showing psychotic symptoms, might have affected Purushottam, as well as the daughters, inducing delusions in them (Henry, 2021).
The events of the case, as well as the psychiatric evaluation, make apparent that it is a case of shared psychosis called folie a famille. This disorder is characterized by similar psychotic symptoms in two or more individuals in a family where one is a “primary”, who develops the psychotic symptoms first, Padmaja in this case (Wehmeier et al., 2003). It then entails psychotic symptoms being induced in the “secondaries” who are members of the same family sharing a proximal space with the primary—in this case, Purushottam and the two daughters (Wehmeier et al., 2003). Purushottam and Padmaja’s delusions are also characteristic of shared psychosis; beliefs in “resurrecting” their dead daughters, in addition to Padmaja’s statement that a ritual had been “interrupted” (Misra & Singh, 2021). Persecutory and religious delusions are the most commonly reported symptoms of shared psychosis, followed by delusions of grandeur (Menculini et al., 2020). Furthermore, religious delusions are correlated most with safety risks (Menculini et al., 2020). Thus, Padmaja and Purushottam’s ritualistic assertions evidence strong religious delusions, becoming a safety risk for their daughters. Furthermore, when Padmaja was being apprehended, she claimed that she was a “reincarnation of Lord Shiva”, which also showed a manifestation of delusions of grandeur in this particular case (Misra & Singh, 2021).
However, it is also extremely imperative to note that social dynamics surrounding the family also have a role to play in the outcome of this incident. Misra & Singh (2021) illustrate how, after her father’s death, Padmaja mentioned seeing her father’s apparitions around the house, to her family. They also mentioned that Padmaja’s father had a history of psychotic symptoms (Misra & Singh, 2021). Employing the diathesis-stress model, it becomes apparent how experiencing this stressor, possibly amplified Padmaja’s genetic predisposition. Furthermore, Padmaja’s family members also noted that they noted as “bizarre”; Padmaja apparently told a relative that he was like “Buddha” and that she wanted to hug him (Misra & Singh, 2021).
One major factor known to exacerbate shared psychosis is that the familial unit is isolated from the rest of the community (Silveira & Seeman, 1995; Wexler, 1992). Assessing the socio-dynamics of the familial unit, Wexler (1992) notes how extended family members can be “laissez-faire” and back away from the “apparently idiosyncratic” mannerisms that the family adopts during shared psychosis. This exacerbates the symptoms, making the family unit even more indulgent in their delusions and cut off from reality. Padmaja and Purushottam’s families’ attitude towards only reporting concerning behaviours after the violence, illustrates this same process of backing away. That being said, it can also often be difficult to distinguish culturally sanctioned religious behaviour from behaviour that is indicative of psychosis early on, especially when certain beliefs form a cultural norm (Catanesi et al., 2013). Hence, this is also a potential socio-cultural factor that could have prevented Padmaja’s extended family from initially reporting the religious behaviour that later turned pathological (Pierre, 2001).
Henceforth, considering that shared psychosis in families is especially rare, making its prevalence difficult to estimate (Srivastava & Bokar, 2010), it is important to also realise its susceptibility to socio-cultural factors to allow for timely and appropriate intervention. Thus, the extension of the aetiology of psychotic disorders from the individual to the familial unit is imperative. Even within family literature, folie a famille receives a lack of reference, increasing the difficulty of its diagnosis (McCartney & Leheup, 1997). Secondly, the social dynamics and structures around the family unit can be major moderators of mental-health warning-sign assessment, particularly when potent stressors such as death, occur. Current outcomes also evidence the need for a treatment strategy that includes the social context as well as the nature of the relationship between the primary and secondary (Menculini et al. 2020). Additionally, this can also better integrate community care into the treatment of those who exhibit psychotic disorders, which has been shown to improve clinical outcomes (Kane et al., 2016).
In conclusion, after having traced the Naidus’case of shared psychosis, with deeply delusional symptoms, and how that led to the eventual homicide of their two daughters, it allows one to assess the many social dynamics both inside and outside the family unit that might have precipitated this descent into psychosis. Furthermore, it also aids the understanding of how, in looking at Madanapalle as a cautionary tale, communities of care can be better envisioned to provide timely interventions.
References
Catanesi, R., Punzi, G., Rodriguez III, W.C., Solarino, B. (2013). Faith, Folie à Famille, and Mummification: A Brief Review of the Literature and a Rare Case Report. Journal of Forensic Sciences 59(1), 274-280. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12264.
Henry, N. (2021, January 30). Andhra Murder: One Parent May Have ‘Induced Delusion’ in the Other. The Quint. https://www.thequint.com/news/india/andhra-parents-murder-daughters-due-to-lockdown-delusion#read-more%23read-more%23read-more#read-more#read-more
Hooley, J.M., Nock, M.K. & Butcher, J.N. (2021). Abnormal Psychology (18th ed.). Pearson Publishers.
Kane, J. M., Robinson, D. G., Schooler, N. R., Mueser, K. T., Penn, D. L., Rosenheck, R. A., Addington, J., Brunette, M. F., Correll, C. U., Estroff, S. E., Marcy, P., Robinson, J., Meyer-Kalos, P. S., Gottlieb, J. D., Glynn, S. M., Lynde, D. W., Pipes, R., Kurian, B. T., Miller, A. L., Azrin, S. T., Goldstein, A.B., Severe, J.B., Lin, H., Sint, K.J., John, M. & Heinssen, R. K. (2016). Comprehensive Versus Usual Community Care for First-Episode Psychosis: 2-Year Outcomes From the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program. The American Journal Of Psychiatry, 173(4), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15050632.
McCartney, M. & Leheup, R. (1997). Folie A Famille — The Need For Family Perspectives In Psychiatry. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 14(4), 149-151. doi: doi:10.1017/S0790966700003414.
Menculini, G., Balducci, P.M., Moretti, P. & Tortorella, A. (2020). ‘Come Share My World’ Of ‘madness’: A Systematic Review Of Clinical, Diagnostic And Therapeutic Aspects Of Folie À Deux. International Review of Psychiatry 32, 412-423. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2020.1756754
Misra, A. & Singh, A. (2021, February 9). Madness in Madanapalle: Andhra Double Murder - India (No. 16) [Audio podcast episode]. In The Desi Crime Podcast. Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/episode/6vFvYs2MlUXyXitlYBFAr5?si=8acaa6a80abe4601
Pierre, J.M. (2001). Faith Or Delusion? At The Crossroads Of Religion And Psychosis. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 7(3), 163-172. doi: 10.1097/00131746-200105000-00004.
Silveira, J.M. & Seeman, M.V. (1995). Shared Psychotic Disorder: A Critical Review Of The Literature. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 40(7), 389-395.
Srivastava, A. & Bokar, H.A. (2010). Folie a Famille. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 52(1), 69-70. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.58899.
Wehmeier, P.M., Barth, N., Remschmidt, H. (2003). Induced Delusional Disorder: A Review Of The Concept And An Unusual Case Of Folie À Famille. Psychopathology 36, 37-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000069657
Wexler, M.N. (1992). Psycho-Social Factors In Shared Family Delusions (‘Folie a Famille’). International Journal of Sociology of the Family 22(1), 161-173. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23029778
Comments
Post a Comment