Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

Zylstra, Robert G.; Miller, Karl E.; Stephens, Walter E.

doi:10.4088/pcc.v02n0202

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(p. 146). Malingerers are aware that feigning physical or mental illness can result in financial or other material benefit [12,42,53]. Lee et al (2002) [25] have used fMRI to investigate the neurophysiology of malingering.…”

Section: Deception In Psychiatrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Developments in Deception Research

Hughes¹,

Farrow²,

Hopwood³

et al. 2005

CPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lying and deception are common human activities and may occur in a wide variety of clinical contexts. These behaviours implicate higher neural systems within the brains of humans and other primates. Recent functional neuroimaging studies suggest that prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices are particularly engaged during certain forms of deception, hence, that executive processes support deceit. Congruent with the latter position is the finding that lies take longer to execute than truthful responses. To date, no functional neuroimaging study has demonstrated brain regions exhibiting greater activation during truth telling (compared with lying). Although the latter may reflect a Type II error, it also supports the hypothesis that truthfulness comprises a relative baseline in human cognition and communication. Those psychiatric disorders particularly associated with the practice of deception are varied both in aetiology and the degree to which deceit is central to their conceptualisation. Nevertheless, the deceiving human is likely to be engaging components of their cognitive executive system, a proposal with implications for societal notions of responsibility and mitigation. A successful lie denotes a functioning executive.

show abstract

Section: Deception In Psychiatrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Developments in Deception Research

Hughes¹,

Farrow²,

Hopwood³

et al. 2005

CPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In relation to the third indicator, consistent denial of how the child's illness or injury was caused, several authors note that the perpetrator's denial is most commonly entrenched and unshaken, even when the illness fabrication is proven by video surveillance or other means (Berg and Jones 1999;Feldman 1994;Parrish and Perman 2004). The fourth indicator, in which the caregiver has been denied access to the child and the child's physical symptoms have resolved, is also noted consistently (Atoynatan et al 1988;Zylstra et al 2000).…”

Section: Review Of Symptoms Of Mbp/fdpmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…In the medical and social work literature, there are several anecdotal examples of MBP in which the physical conditions fabricated would require health-related services in schools (Schreier 2002a;Stevenson and Alexander 1990;Zylstra et al 2000). The medical conditions falsified in these cases included cerebral palsy, seizure disorders, apnea and breathing difficulties, hearing loss, pneumonia, and gastrointestinal problems such as diarrhea and vomiting.…”

Section: Examples Of Fdp In Educational Settingsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Factitious Disorder by Proxy in Educational Settings: A Review

Frye

Feldman

2011

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factitious disorder by proxy (FDP), historically known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, is a diagnosis applied to parents and other caregivers who intentionally feign, exaggerate, and/or induce illness or injury in a child to get attention from health professionals and others. A review of the recent literature and our experience as consultants indicate clearly that FDP has emerged in educational settings as well. Variants of educational FDP include parents of children with real or fabricated physical disabilities who request excessive or unneeded school health services and parents who request extensive education-related evaluations for children who do not demonstrate any educational need. If such cases continue to emerge, school districts will be asked to test more students who do not have disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Also, special educational directors will be weighing the cost of providing unneeded testing and educational services against the cost of defending themselves in litigation to prove that the testing and services are unnecessary. A table of guidelines is provided for school and other personnel confronted with repeated requests for unwarranted special education services. Suggestions for future research are included. "I think my child has a disability I read about on the Internet. I want to request a medical and psychological evaluation for it. Don't you think it would help my child if he had additional services and accommodations?" Teachers, special education administrators, Educ Psychol Rev (2012) 24:47-61

show abstract

“…Typical warning signs of MBP are presented in Table 1 (Meadow 1982; Jones et al . 1986; Forsyth 2000; Fulton 2000; Zylstra et al . 2000; Hettler 2002; Schreier 2002; Galvin et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%