Problems
with the accusation of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
|
What
is FRAME?
|
|
| Information package | |
| About the database | |
| Publications | |
| Library | |
| Research Topics | |
| Links | |
|
|
- Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy as a diagnosis has never been peer reviewed or properly scrutinised.
- Several American Courts have excluded the mythical theory of MSBP because it lacked scientific credibility and acceptance.
- MSBP is not recognised as a diagnosis. MSBP is a form of child abuse and appears in the in the appendix of the DSMIV as a research entity.
- There is a lack of agreement among doctors as to who can diagnose MSBP. Some say psychiatrists while others say paediatricians.
- The signs and symptoms of MSBP are often highly subjective, biased and open to interpretation and misinterpretation (see Clive Baldwin’s contradictory list in publications). Once the allegation of MSBP is made, a mother’s otherwise ‘normal’ actions are often re-evaluated and re-interpreted through the ‘lens’ of MSBP and seen in that light. A mother’s normal actions are pathologised and are documented in the notes in this way. Medical notes abound with such notations as: "Mother wants to take the child out of the ward…", "Mother says the child is in pain" "Mother says the child has vomited today" without the validity or reliability of the mother’s statements being checked. The suspicion/allegation of MSBP makes everything the mother says suspect and, and, as it is the mothers who generally stay with their child in hospital these notes then contributed to the profiling of the mother as having MSBP, and only serve to confirm her "guilt".
- The allegation stands alone as confirmation of the guilt of the mother, without any evidence being presented to support the allegations
- Profiling and hearsay, rather than evidence, is relied upon to conform the mother's guilt.
- The self-professed ' experts' in this syndrome are unable to agree among themselves as to the morbidity associated with this syndrome. See Meadow’s criticism of Rosenburg. We have seen mortality rates quoted from as low as 3% to as high as 50%. Hardly the standard deviation that one would normally expect in scientific research.
- There appears to have been no peer review of the MSBP literature. We can find no journal article that states what scientific methodology was used in validating MSBP and its variant forms.
| All rights reserved. No reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without the express written permission of F.R.A.M.E. (International) and F.R.A.M.E. (NSW, AUSTRALIA). Any views posted to this website are not necessarily those of F.R.A.M.E. Copyright © 2001. |