Home Exaggeration/Prudence or Munchausen syndrome?

[Steel]

At what point does stretching the truth become Munchausen's (or Munchausen by proxy) syndrome?

If Munchausen's syndrome allows that a condition actually be in existence (not just fabricated) then at what point is the person or caregiver simply responding to the needs or demands of that condition? Meaning if the person or their ward has an illness and that person takes further (excessive) preventative measures isn't that simply being prudent?

So, when exactly does the attention which is gleaned confirm the condition of Munchausen's syndrome?


(This is nothing to do with any PS'ers!)

 

[somethingshiny]

I've always thought of Munchausen as manifesting a symptom(s) so that you CAN be treated. Then the medical staff is prudent in taking care of the "patient" and that's why they keep coming back. As far as the proxy, I think that's also inducing a symptom. If there is no actual physical symptom, could they even be treated? (which is the whole point)

When does the attention verify Munchausen?? I'd assume only when a psychological evaluation has taken place.



I gotta know...WHY??

 

[packrat]

I was under the impression that Munchausen Syndrome was along the lines of making up illnesses or purposely making them worse, to get attention, and the "by proxy" meant that is was by a parent/caregiver etc. Like a mom who has her kid in the hospital b/c she insists he/she quits breathing at night and doctors can't figure out why, but come to find out the mom is covering the kids face, the kid quits breathing and the mom runs screeching out into the hallway for help from the nurses. I watched a show like 20/20 or something once years ago where they had a hidden camera, and caught a mom doing that.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Neither conditions are hypochondriacal, but based on real physical symptoms (brought on purposefully by non-illness related factors). Obviously there's a severe mental aspect to these conditions, which is why they can't be "diagnosed" without a psychological evaluation.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I was under the impression that Munchausen Syndrome was along the lines of making up illnesses or purposely making them worse, to get attention, and the "by proxy" meant that is was by a parent/caregiver etc. Like a mom who has her kid in the hospital b/c she insists he/she quits breathing at night and doctors can't figure out why, but come to find out the mom is covering the kids face, the kid quits breathing and the mom runs screeching out into the hallway for help from the nurses. I watched a show like 20/20 or something once years ago where they had a hidden camera, and caught a mom doing that.

This is correct, it is known in the DSM IV as "factitious disorder" which is an intentional production of symptoms with a goal to assume the sick role and gain attention for that. If a parent does it to a child, that is "factitious disorder by proxy."

Malingering is similar in that there is an intentional production, or a gross exaggeration of symptoms. But the goal is not to assume the sick role, but to obtain secondary gain. This would be the person faking a work related injury to get worker's comp.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

At what point does stretching the truth become Munchausen's (or Munchausen by proxy) syndrome?

If Munchausen's syndrome allows that a condition actually be in existence (not just fabricated) then at what point is the person or caregiver simply responding to the needs or demands of that condition? Meaning if the person or their ward has an illness and that person takes further (excessive) preventative measures isn't that simply being prudent?

So, when exactly does the attention which is gleaned confirm the condition of Munchausen's syndrome?


(This is nothing to do with any PS'ers!)

So taking the phrase Munchausen out of the picture, are you asking about a parent who really thinks something is wrong with their child? Are you wondering at what point are they taking their concerns too far?

 

[Steel]

Thanks all for posting.

Being "hypothetical"....

If it were that a friend were manipulating a situation whereby her family member is undergoing treatment which is really unnecessary. Now nobody is being fed arsenic or having surgery here; think on a really really minor scale here is a crap example: my daughter is allergic to every substance on earth type annoying condition when the girl is just lactose intolerant). I feel that the treatment which is elective anyway is really unnecessary and the person who is having the treatment isn't really sure why they need it. Any 'condition' they might have; anybody else in the world probably has yet he/she needs treatment. The friend is making a big to-do about it; hence the emotional benefit.

I didn't really put 2 and 2 together until reacently and having discussed it with DH, he thinks I am making something out of nothing.

So I was wondering if the presence of a legitimate (however slight) condition excluded a diagnosis of Munchausen's (by proxy*) OR is it the fact that the caregiver* (or individual) gleans an emotional benefit from the treatment/attention from treatment of the exacerbated condition.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I don't think the presence of the condition rules it out, but I think there have to be other things that add to the situation. Agreeing to an unnecessary treatment doesn't mean she has the disorder, she could just be a hypochondriac or overly neurotic. Now, if she had a compulsion to sabotage the procedure or recovery to continue the "condition," for the purpose of gaining attention and sympathy then THAT would be MS-BP.

It sounds like your friend is just neurotic and exaggerating for the purpose of getting attention, but I don't think she has MS-BP.

 

[Steel]

HH You are probably right; sorry to have been so cryptic.

I think the whole thing is a little sad but it is not my place to say anything and as I said nobody is in danger. Still, it makes me sad.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I was discussing this subject with a child abuse expert, and she called it "medical abuse." But when I looked up "medical abuse" it had a whole different meaning.

I think when a child has a condition and a parent is concerned, it is worth sending them to a specialist for an opinion and reassurance if nothing is wrong. But if a child has gone to multiple specialists, and they are all agreeing that the condition is not worrisome as the parent thinks it is, or the parent keeps trying to switch doctors the minute they don't agree with them (doctor shopping), than questions start being asked. If the parent is not willing to take an expert opinion, a second opinion, accept the negative tests ect, you have to wonder if they have the best interest of the child at heart as procedures are not without risk.

In the real world it is very hard to tease this out from Munchausen syndrome, and you are often left looking into both possibilities at the same time.

In my (limited) experience, the normal reaction of most parents is to push back a little when an invasive procedure comes into question. They will usually allow it, but they need good justification.

 

[Steel]

I was discussing this subject with a child abuse expert, and she called it "medical abuse." But when I looked up "medical abuse" it had a whole different meaning.

I think when a child has a condition and a parent is concerned, it is worth sending them to a specialist for an opinion and reassurance if nothing is wrong. But if a child has gone to multiple specialists, and they are all agreeing that the condition is not worrisome as the parent thinks it is, or the parent keeps trying to switch doctors the minute they don't agree with them (doctor shopping), than questions start being asked. If the parent is not willing to take an expert opinion, a second opinion, accept the negative tests ect, you have to wonder if they have the best interest of the child at heart as procedures are not without risk.

In the real world it is very hard to tease this out from Munchausen syndrome, and you are often left looking into both possibilities at the same time.

In my (limited) experience, the normal reaction of most parents is to push back a little when an invasive procedure comes into question. They will usually allow it, but they need good justification.

That is my thinking too. Esp. the highlighted bit (where has the regular highlighter gone?).

I find it difficult to understand why treatment would not be a last resort when it is troublesome to the patient and down right unnecessary; to the point that the patient had to ask - why do I need this; s/he had no clue there was anything wrong that s/he needed the elective perhaps cosmetic 'treatment'? In my 'example' it is a first resort; hence my concerns. I'm gonna go look up 'medical abuse' - I'm not familiar with the term.

 

[partgypsy]

I don't know if this helps, but my brother before he gained custody, was told by the mom that the youngest had severe GERD and had to be on a very strict diet. So, initially she was on a particular formula, and after that was on a strict, strange diet where almost all foods were forbidden. My brother was concerned because the diet didn't really match what he read about GERD on the internet and the child didn't didn't exhibit any of these severe symptoms that the mom described when he watched her. As an experiment began giving the child regular food, which is the point she finally started gaining weight. Anyways it went on to the point the mom said she needed surgery! At that point my brother stated he would not agree unless he had a note from a doctor that it was medically appropriate (she couldn't produce the note). What we hypothesize is that it is possible that the baby did have some amount of reflux as a baby that she grew out of naturally, but the mom magnified the problem to make herself feel more important. So I don't think it is important whether or not there is a grain of truth to the diagnosis, it is more whether the treatment of the disease becomes more harmful than the disease itself.