Munchausens disease and pet abuse

[kaos]

Well here is a peculiar topic....

 

I'm sure most people have heard about Munchausen's disease> wherein the diseased person makes themself ill in an effort to gain attention, they become addicted to the sympathy attention.

 

There is also Munchausen's by proxy wherein a person will make some one else ill inorder to receive sympathy or acclaim as a great caregiver. (I am reminded of the lady who killed her son with salt in his IV)

 

So here is my question... Do you think it could ever occur in a pet relationship?

 

Our pets are completely dependent upon us for survival and well being, much like children except they cannot even speak to betray the true nature of their illness. Sadly they are the perfect victim for a disease of this nature.

 

Maybe some of the groomers, vet techs, and vets could speak up and say if they had ever encountered this before. What do you all think? Certainly a bizarre topic, but one that may bare some discussion too.

Sara

[Claire Owen]

Hmmm never heard of that disease but I dont see why people who suffer from this illness wouldnt do the same to animals although I wouldnt have thought it to be as likely. Vets bills can be expensive for one reason. And another is, I know if Bailey was ill I wouldnt get that much sympathy from people as if it were my hubby for example... except maybe here. If it was a person who wasnt a member of a similar forum then would they get enough sympathy/attention???? But as we can see here many people are members of forums and would get all the sympathy/attention (although over the internet a pet wouldnt really need to be ill at all). But then they couldnt get attention off real life people as well.

 

Interesting subject! It'll be really interesting to hear if anyone else has any insight as I know someone whose possibly doing something similar (not quite the same but still...)

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

I dont think the need would be fufilled by using a pet those people need large amounts of attention and it just wouldnt be there for a pet. Case in point the mom who was slowly poisoning her daughter they held benefits for the family. The need in munchausens is big.

[Caroline]

I think it is possible to do Munchausen's via a pet. What do I base that on? The concern we all show here for everyone, with pet health problems. It is complicated but I think it is possible.

Caroline

[Guest amylobdell24]

I've been a vet tech for ah... a while And I know of 2 clients I've met who have self-professed they have this disorder, and that it affects their pets' medical history as well. Fortunately, both times I don't believe the clients did anything to hurt their pets, but they would make up symptoms, greatly exaggerate things or blow things out of proportion, and generally muddy the waters diagnostically to have the attention of doctors/medical staff. However, as a result I do think their pets were subjected to medical tests and stresses they did not necessarily need. One would think there have been other owners who were not so forthcoming with their personal medical histories. That being said, we recently had to put one of these clients' young pets to sleep due to a hard-to-find bladder cancer that explained most of the symptoms the client reported...so it's hard for the doc to decipher what is pertinent information, and what isn't. I guess it solidifies your point that pets are an ideal outlet for this disease. Vets can't ignore a client's history - they must recommend what is best for the patient based on that history and their own assessment of the patient's condition. Either way, I guess I haven't seen it often, but perhaps it happens more than I realize....

[donna frankland (uk)]

my old vet told me he had a client who had this, he never said that the dog was harmed, but it got to the point that the vet insisted that the owner remained in the car and the dog would be seen by the vet inside. he was doing it this way so the owner wasnt able to 'feed' the illness. from what he said and the way i heard it, it sounded like the owner was in agreement that this was the best thing all round.

whilst talking about munchausens by proxy, have any of you read the book 'sickened'?

[AK dog doc]

I'm pretty sure I had at least one in internship, and I've had a couple of people since that were just odd enough about this that I have wondered. I think that it depends on the particular manifestation of the Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy whether the person is trying to get attention from "the public", friends, family, the medical staff, and/or any combination of the above. I believe some of the victims of MSbP are trying to get the attention of the medical staff, not so much others; if so, it'd be easy for them to get our attention, since that's what we're there for. If their agenda is more about getting sympathy from the world at large - that might not be very satisfying for them, depending on the venue, but it's true that in some cases (such as something that catches the news attention as a "human interest" story or, as some have pointed out, a BB such as this) there might be enough "public" sympathy to make it worth it. I don't actually know - I'm speculating - but it would seem to make sense.

 

To a normal person, the expense of medical tests/treatments would be a deterrent against this behavior (even supposing that forcing the pet to undergo unnecessary treatments would not stop them first!), but by definition the MSbP victims are not normal. I don't think the money would be enough of a deterrent to stop them.

 

Mind you, I HAVE had people tell me they wanted a test I thought probably unnecessary - as in one poodle the owner suspected had a broken leg, which I was virtually certain it did not; however, the owner had had a previous experience with the same dog in which a fracture that was undetectable on palpation actually was present, and detected a few days later. As a consequence, she wanted the Xray though I told her I didn't THINK it necessary - but admittedly I could not PROVE it without the film, so I took the Xray. I did tell her "I'll be happy to do this diagnostic, so long as you understand I'm not expecting to find a fracture and you are not going to be unhappy we spent the money if we don't." She wanted the film, the dog had no fracture, she thanked me for listening to her concerns and acting upon them, and everyone was happy. Admittedly this was not an invasive procedure, but the more important thing, I think, was that it was not part of a pattern, and it WAS done in the pet's interest for a legit reason. There was no sense that she was exaggerating, and no sense that she was enjoying the attention or in some way benefitting from it on a personal level.

 

So I guess I DO think this happens, and I too wonder if it happens more often than we realize.

[Firchow]

Originally posted by kaos:

So here is my question... Do you think it could ever occur in a pet relationship?

An opinion from which I will unlikely be swayed:

 

Absolutely, positively, undeniably yes (and thank you for pointing it out).

 

Glenn Firchow

[Willikers]

I absolutely think it happens. I have been contemplating this very question alot recently, with a particular individual in mind, and I do think it is the ideal set-up for someone to get a pathological need for attention met, at great detriment to the animal. Moreso than children, animals are just about the perfect vehicle to meet this need, so long as the owner has money to spend. And there is not a damn thing anybody else can do about it. I think this is an uncannily timely question to be posed, in light of my recent wonderings. But what do YOU think, Kaos?

[juliepoudrier]

I must admit that the thought has crossed my mind. I wonder if any research has been done on the subject? I imagine if you have Munchausen's, anything will do, be it your child or your pet.

 

J.

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

To do it in an internet venue though you will eventually be revealed that it's all a hoax.

 

I was on a board where a woman who was previously sick claimed to be Ill again (dying) got people to send money gifts and such only to do something totally inconsistant with her disease and be found out. (showed up to cash the western union @@)

 

There wouldnt have to be a single bad thing done to a pet.

[Miztiki]

What particular individual do you have in mind?

 

Considering that I'm the only one recently posting alot about my dog's health problems, I can't help but think you are referring to me. If that's the case then you can take your sympathy and shove it straight up your ass. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate people's kind words (and have had plenty of sympathy for others) but they don't make my dog feel any better.

 

I'm fairly stressed and could very well be overreacting to this thread and if so, I apologize, but if anyone thinks I'm posting for some sick need for attention then they can kiss my ass.

 

I just wanted to make that clear.

[AK dog doc]

Okay, I just did a quick literature search and located a study that indicates that MSbP DOES occur as a recognised entity with animals as the vehicle. Some of the symptoms ('vet shopping', multiple presentations and re-presentations to the vet, etc) are pretty confirmatory for me of at least the internship one (possibly others)... In the most obvious one, the owners once presented three patients to two different hospitals in one night, each with the same EXACT array of physical injuries - the owners apparently either not recognizing or not caring that both the emergency hospitals were owned by the same group and they were likely to get caught when we put our heads together. I was on overnight at one hospital, at which two kittens (littermates) presented with identical injuries. An intern-mate was on at the other hospital, and after her overnight shift there, brought over the third kitten to see the specialists, who did the day shift at the hospital I was at. "Her" kitten was older - about 10 or 11 months, "my" two being about 12 weeks - but it was the same injury, only older and more progressed. The owner claimed that the kittens (which, BTW, were absolutely gorgeous little Himalayans, three sets purchased sequentially in littermate pairs, of whom only three were still alive) had been exposed to some mysterious toxin at the owner's place of work (a tire store). On questioning it became evident that the first pair of kittens had suffered similar injuries and eventually died. The second pair had the same maladies and one had died (the other had, amongst other things, an eye that still haunts me, just a horrific injury). The third pair had similar eye and other injuries, though less progressed. I actually reported this to the SPCA, who investigated - it was just too fishy. Unfortunately I moved to AK before the investigation was completed, so I'm not sure what happened in the end. I did, however, tell the SPCA that I was concerned that the owner or someone in the household was doing this, and that I was concerned that a human in the household might suffer a similar injury if it went unchecked. I know they brought this concern to the owner's attention, but am not sure what the upshot was. One thing I didn't tumble to at the time was that MSbP perpetrators are usually female, for some reason. That might have narrowed it down.

 

Good point about it being hard to shake out (in such cases) how much of the history is real and how much is fabrication or exaggeration - you basically have only the owner's word about the history, unless you have prior medical records to look at. But sometimes you just get that hinky feeling that something is not quite right...

 

It is, of course, possible to fabricate tons of things on the net for personal gain of any type, without it actually occurring IRL... recently I visited a BB where someone had gotten caught in a lie and started a big sympathy tantrum, claiming that they had been orphaned by 9/11. Luckily several members cottoned on and confronted the ranter (who was lying about 9/11, a shameful act for which they were evicted from membership.)

 

Anyway, a very interesting subject, and one I should probably keep in the back of my head for those just-in-case scenarios...

[Keegan's Mom]

Miztiki,

 

I, in no way, even thought this post was referring to you and found it to pose an interesting question.

 

I think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your post...don't take things as a personal attack when they are in reference to an unrelated thread.

[kajarrel]

I took care of a handful of actual (human) child victims of Munchausen's. It is found with pets. In one case we found a mother, in whose child we were r/o apnea/Munchausen's, holding a pillow over the child's face so that it would set off the apnea monitor while other times the "symptoms" would mysteriously disappear when the child was in the hospital. Funny, I was looking up this topic today online too and found this good article which I imagine would apply to pets too: http://earthops.org/munchausen/munchausen.html

[Kyrasmom]

Undeniably, without question, yes. I've known one person who definitely hurt a few dogs to get attention and it spooked me beyond any reason.

 

Maria

[Miztiki]

I know Rachel, which is why I put that little disclaimer in there. I'm a little irritable (hubby says bitchy) and need to catch up on some sleep. Hubby read this thread and thought it was referring to me, so I wanted to make my stance very clear in case it was.

 

And if it's not then carry on.

[lance]

I really don't think Munchausen really exists. When I was a kid, I thought the "Wizard of OZ" with Judy Garland was real.

 

Oh! wait a minute! The little people were called Munchgins, not Munchausens!

Never mind!

 

Just kidding! Just trying to lighten up things on this topic.

[Dixie_Girl]

I've been around the world once and across Texas twict, and one thing I know is that with people, any thing is possible! Sometimes I think because of humans very complex brain, it leaves it more open to screwing up! Think about it! Any animal on earth, the more complex it's brain, the more diverse and weird behaviour you will find! People do not surprise me, just piss me off! Sometimes I just wanna shake the snot out of them! Two things that will get me riled quickest is abuse to youngins or animals. Well, abuse to me too!

 

Miztiki, I hope no one was thinking of you! I certainly wouldn't! How is Boy BTW?

 

never mind! I just read update in the other thread!

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

Having spent a thousand dollars I didnt have to save my dog when he ate the kitchen carpet at 5 yers old. I still find it hard to imagine but, I know in this vast world it has to be possible.

[juliepoudrier]

The worst part of this kind of attention-seeking behavior is trying to determine what's real and what's not. Unfortunately the whole "Boy who cried wolf" thing will eventually come into play, and if the medical experts quit believing the caretaker that there is a problem, then the result for the patient can be a sad one (especially if there really is an illness that's not being caused by the caretaker). I don't envy the doctors/vets who have to walk that fine decisionmaking line and decide whether an illness is being caused by a caretaker, whether the caretaker is just exaggerating a pre-existing problem, or whether no illness exists at all. All three scenarios are a cry for attention, but of course they can all have different outcomes for the patient....

 

J.

[Carson Crazies]

I once read a Jonathan Kellerman book (I forget which one - maybe "Devil's Waltz"??) that was about MSbP. I'm not a medical professional by any means, for people or animals, but I can see where the possibility could exist. The problem WITH this type of thing is diagnosing it, and like Julie says the scary part is the Boy crying wolf. To me it seems like it wouldn't be much of a stretch to go from children to pets. Unfortunate on both accounts.

[Willikers]

In my work I deal with myriad vets and vet techs and Animal Services on a daily basis, as well as people seeking financial assistance to afford medical care for their pets. Unfortunately, I have concluded that this kind of abuse is not uncommon. I have clients who apply for assistance repeatedly for ever changing bizarre problems, I get feedback from the vets, and I have excellent instincts about people. Certain individuals I deal with I strongly suspect have an element of MbP at work in their pet medical dramas. As they need to apply for aid, there are some controls on what can be accomplished on the Foundation's dime. People who can afford to pay for it have no such restrictions. This is a fascinating, distressing topic.

 

So Miztiki, as this is, I believe, the first time I have posted a response to you, it would be quite impossible to shove my sympathy up my ass. It isn't my fault if your husband sees you in this thread, or if you see yourself in it. I believe that this topic was posed in an academic light to consider an abberation of pet ownership that is worth considering.

[Deb Mickey]

The way some feel about their dogs ("she's my baby" - and they ain't kidding ) certainly would lead me to believe Munchausens could be found in the dog owning public. For those suffering from Munchausens and who are childless, it seems their pets would be the next likely victim.

 

What about hypochondria, not for themselves but for their pets? I had a student who claimed her dog had all kinds of illnesses but to my totally unmedical eye the dog looked and acted healthy and fit (disclaimer?I am not a vet nor well versed in canine medicine). The owner's behavior seemed especially odd to me and subdued the dog to listlessness.

[BustopherJones]

Considering that I'm the only one recently posting alot about my dog's health problems

Actually, Miztiki, you are not alone. As you may recall, Missy has had her share of health problems recently, and I have posted about them as well; and over the last couple of years, I have also talked about some of Annie's health issues. Personally, I do not see anyone on this board that would fit this description; we all care for our dogs, and many of us address the issues on this board. And I would never even think of you in this context; you have been willing to share your misadventures with Boyden, and have always asked for support, never sympathy. But rest assured that if anyone did make such an inference about you, or attacked you openly, I would be one of the first to jump to your defense; and as some may have already figured out, I am not a pleasant person when I am fired up. So if you ever need my support, you know you have it; I'll deal with the reprimands from Eileen afterwards...

 

And speaking of support,

It isn't my fault if your husband sees you in this thread

Willikers, that is NOT what Miztiki said or infered. She stated that Mr. Tiki thought that the thread might refer to her, NOT that he "saw" his DW in the thread. Miztiki admitted that she may have overreacted to the thread, but that is understandable, considering the difficult time she is going through; and those of us who have respect for our fellow posters should be ready to take this into account and be understanding and supportive. But in making the statement you did, you were rude and offensive; your twisting of the facts to formulate a personal insult is totally unwarranted and unjustified. I hope that you are far more empathetic, and far less judgmental, with your "clients" than you have been with Miztiki.