Munchausens disease and pet abuse

[Willikers]

Bustopher, I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make here.

 

Where I come from, leaping apropos of nothing into a thread and encouraging someone to shove something straight up their ass is considered rude and offensive. You are free to defend away but I do not feel my statement was either unwarranted or unjustified or in any way twisted any "facts". Please note that Miztiki was not a topic of this thread until she aggressively interjected herself into it. I merely remarked upon what she herself posted.

 

If you want to start a fight, look elsewhere. I don't do that.

[Miztiki]

No, I'm the one who should apologize. I really am on a hair trigger right now and I haven't been easy to live with the last couple days. I shouldn't have talked like that to Willikers (or Julie for that matter) and I'm sorry. It's been an emotional rollercoaster ride this month and it's wearing me down (hubby too), but that's no excuse. Boyden's doing much, much, MUCH better and I'm hoping this is all over.

 

I don't want to interrupt this thread anymore than I already have, so please go back to your discussion.

[Beth G]

I too have also been posting alot of my two pups health probs. Seems this breed is prone to alot of allergy probs all on their own.

 

PS

 

Let's calm down eveyone. Maybe the individual isn't even on this board?

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Actually, Miztiki, you are not alone.

Well, yes, and there's my perennially ill Ben, also - who was just in the hospital last Thursday. I don't think anyone would be suspecting ME of MSbP - especially since my mention of Ben's problem last week went pretty much unnoticed and undiscussed and I didn't really care. So there's no finger pointing on that basis!

 

Munchausen is a mental disorder, not a crime. Therefore using the term "accuse" is misplaced in any case, and "diagnosis" is inappropriate outside the clinical context. That would be my answer to Mr. Tiki. No harm no foul.

[juliepoudrier]

Oh well, it's sad that what could have been an informative and interesting thread was turned into a sandbox fight. Believe it or not, there are actually some of us who are interested in medical/scientific topics, and those topics don't have to *be* about anyone!

 

 

J.

[lance]

One sure give away if someone is Munchausen is if they tell you to Follow the yellow brick road!

[JacknKegsDad]

I think that everyone on these boards is somewhat "obsessive" about their dogs. After all, none of us would join/participate in such a forum (which is effectively a use of our "spare" time) if we weren't.

 

Our best mates, surrogate or additional children, soul mates, life partners...call them what you will - our dogs - I would imagine.....are better cared for than many other pets...or people, for that matter.

 

Statistically, I'd imagine that folks here would have visited the vets for "minor" complaints that other pet owners would not have bothered with....so I think there's a little Munchausen's (or at least a genuine sense of responsibility for the wellbeing of our dogs) in all of us.

[Willikers]

Oh Julie, don't bury it yet. It is still an interesting thread, with just a little detour.

 

The intriguing thing about the idea of MbP with animals, is it is virtually unconfirmable. There is barely enough money to prosecute heinous acts of abuse, let alone subtle ones in which vet professionals are unwittingly complicit. Are there mandated reporters for animals? The animal services here is so strapped for money that if a dog has crappy food, water, and a crappy doghouse, it is receiving adequate care as far as the law is concerned, so by that token, if a critter is recieiving a torturous degree of vet care, how could that possibly be classified as abuse? Would the vet stand up and say, "I will not treat this animal" ? Would animal services get involved if reported by a vet? If they DO get involved, what would that officer's visit look like? "Ma'am, there have been reports of excessive vetting". I'm asking because I don't know. It is very complicated, and seems like a person with this manifestation of the syndrome would be virtually untouchable.

 

As fascinating as this is, I feel like it is a very frustrating thing to consider. I am dealing with a case where a dog was dragged to death, and there is a clear villan there. MbP with animals as the proxy is infuriatingly nebulous, it is hard to feel angry at a sick person. Hmmm...

[Meg's mum]

There are times when ordinary events of life make me forget this place and I come late to a thread. Like this time. I think such rarified community as this abstracts us to such a degree that while our keen interest is satiated, our emotions thin to volatile vapors. Like agitated sheep we need someone to sing to us.

 

Every now and then someone like Willikers will stand up and say "Its alright lads and lassies, its about our dogs afterall isn't it?

 

Thanks much. This IS an interesting thread.

[Catu]

I don't really know if the following is really Munchausens properly such or if it's some other mental disease.

 

A couple of months ago here in Chile, there appeared in the news the case of a woman who was supporting more than 200 dogs and an indeterminate number of cats in a plot, inadequately fed, dirty, sick, without any type of division between sizes or temperaments, so much so there were dogs that had managed to kill among themselves or others who had died of starvation because the dominant ones had not allowed them access to the food and whose desiccated bodies layed there where they had died.

 

The woman was crying out that she was "helping", that they all had been rescued from the streets (where with complete certainty they would had been better), that the authorities were committing an abuse and a cruelty taking them from her and that since many of the dogs would have to be putted to sleep due to the bad conditions in which they were found, were the authorities who were committing animal mistreatment.

 

And this one is just the last case of many cases that I have heard throughout the years, cases that cannot be compared by no means with refuges of responsible people that look for new homes for the dogs, but people that "collects" street dogs, that them accumulates and accumulates without control, convinced that they are doing a good thing. And probably in a beginning, the society admired them for their good heart, until product of theirs obsession they remained without friends or family, but the "Need to feel needy " in this case to be needed for the animals, was stronger, pathologically stronger.

 

As I was saying in a beginning, I don't know if Munchausens applies only to problems of health and this one is a different disorder or if MbP disease might be applied to the same one. I would like to hear oppinions.

[muddy bob]

I'd like to emphasize what Rebecca just posted. This is a MENTAL DISORDER and however much you deplore the acts perpetrated on pets or children you must remember no one CHOOSES to be that sick.

 

muddy

 

P.S. I'm now going to post about my little cancer dog. Hope that does not make me suspect.

[lance]

Ok. No more attempts of humor on my part for this thread. I know it's a serious topic to many. But with tempers flaring I thought I would try and inject a little humor.

[nancy in AZ]

Catu, the mental illness that you described in your post is generally known as hoarding.

[KrisK]

I have found this to be a very interesting thread. I just hope that everyone will take a deep breath, calmer heads will prevail, and the discussion can go on.

I cannot imagine being a vet in this kind of situation..How on earth do you proceed? I suppose it would need to be proven that the client was intentionally harming the dog but if you take that idea to the next step...they are now seeking vet care! So it is abuse, but will the powers that be even consider taking action?

A dilemma for sure!!

[AK dog doc]

FWIW, vets can (and on occasion do) refuse to perform diagnostics or that they feel would be harmful to the patient. I've done this... I had a client who had some sort of mental disorder (not MbP) and wanted to have repeat antifreeze tests done on his dog. The first one was most probably unnecessary, though there was no proving that until the test was run. Then he wanted another one immediately upon completing the first one, which I declined to do. He did accept that, but the next several days drove all of us (every doc and every receptionist) completely mad with incessant repeat calls about his dog who he was always sure was dying, poisoned, or otherwise in some terrible trouble. I don't think it was MbP because his goal wasn't attention-seeking... I think it was some form of obsessive &/or compulsive disorder, +/- an anxiety disorder. I finally told him in so many words I was concerned about him becuase his extreme obsession with his pet's health and the imagined threats to it was abnormal and unhealthy for both of them. When I pointed out that he was potentially bringing harm and suffering to the dog by his behavior, he stopped and got help. Hence I'm pretty sure it was another disorder(s) - the thought of harming his dog was so disturbing to him that he got help. Since he had told me that I wasn't the first to point it out, but had not gotten help UNTIL his pet was at risk, I think MbP does not apply.

 

There's also a syndrome which in THINK is called parasitosis, in which the client is convinced that the pet is covered in parasites, though it is not. Those clients will bring in an endless supply of things they say are "bugs" (usually bits of skin or dirt). I had a boarded veterinary dematologist expain this one to me - I'm sure she gets to see it more often than I do.

 

It IS sometimes hard to shake out the pathologies from the legit emotional reactions.... people respond to stress differently, and when I have people who I think are milking a situation (even if in not as extreme a way as the overt MbP's), I try to sidestep it and not to play into it to avoid rewarding the excessive behavior - and worse, getting sucked into it, if it IS a mild form of MbP or another disorder. At best it tends to interfere with the work at hand, and at worst it may involve harm to the patient. Plus, it's one thing to help a client through a real grieving process, but another thing entirely to end up being their therapist. I'm not qualified to do it, and it's not what I'm there for. But it really CAN be hard to figure out what is just someone having a more extreme than usual reaction and someone who is working it. If in doubt, I err to the side of assuming they're just very emotional but otherwise normal. Doesn't always turn out to be true, but it's the best I can do. [shrug].

[kaos]

I love the way topics evolve around here.. never a dull moment is there?

 

Well, I guess the overwhelming consensus is that the behaviours that go along with Munchausen's DO occur in pet relationships... really the question is how do you draw the fine line?

 

front line pet care workers have my immense pity for trying to decipher the puzzle of whether or not a person is genuinely concerned for their pet and simply too involved/obsessed or truly using their pet as a vehicle to feed their need for attention.

 

Which brings me to my next question; in lieu of a confirmed doctor's diagnosis, and considering the insidious nature of the disease and or symptoms... what can the dog community do to try and protect the victims ?

 

No one wants to be the a$$ who brings further pain and suffering to a fellow pet owner just trying to help their animal... yet at the same time... no one wants to just sit idly by if a pet is at risk or suffering from unwarranted medical tests/attention or direct harm....

 

I think we have two different situations being examined in this thread:

 

1.real life/witnessed behaviour consistent with munchausens

 

2. Internet behaviour and posting attempts that appear to be consistent with the syndrom.

 

What type of protocols would you all follow in each case? what tell tale signs do you look for and that certainly tip you off?

 

I'm looking forward to this discussion and hope that we as a pet owning community can find some kind action plan or at least awareness

 

Sara

[Kyrasmom]

I agree that they are two very distinct behaviors and the latter is probably a lot more prevalent then anyone really wants to believe.

 

The specific case I witnessed was a woman who had been abused as a child, thus rendered to feel helpless and invisible for many years. As an adult, she became an avid rescuer or dogs, to the point of obsession, but at one point, began to poison them in the most creative of ways. Mind you, there has never been proof, and I don't know if this can even be categorized as Munchausens, but it gained her the attention and sympathy of the community, on which she thrived.

 

In my opinion, her "benefits" were two fold, she got attention from professional caregivers, thus verifying her social status and importance in the community, and second, it made her feel powerful over the dogs, perhaps allowed her to feel the control she was denied as an abused child.

 

As I realized this, I distanced myself noticibly. I had no proof, it was just something I knew inside. And after a rather nasty confrontation (about other things and marginally this) one of my dogs died a mysterious death.

 

Now, I'm at the point where I can distance myself from the pain and assess that she is mentally unstable and has experiences which have scarred her, but for a long time, I just hated her....but she still scares me and there is so little that I can do about it without risking another loss.

 

As for the internet, it's a hard call, I think everything needs to be taken with a really big grain of salt. It's the perfect breeding ground for people with emotional issues to gain sympathy or create alter ego's but it's also a wonderful support system for people to reach out to each other. My experience has been that the internet has created more illusions then actual cases of abuse, but as we enter this age where internet communications and relationships are almost akin to real person to person ones, perhaps a syndrome like Muncheusens is redifining itself.

 

Maria

[Willikers]

It's the perfect breeding ground for people with emotional issues to gain sympathy or create alter ego's

This is so true! On another message board I briefly posted on, fake accounts were so prevalent that it was truly disturbing. People would create whole personas, incredibly detailed alter egos, and after a few were found out, it cast a pall of suspicion over the whole board. The internet gives people incredible power and freedom. Where else can one share anything at all, divorced from the normal restricitons of face to face interactions, and be given utter credence and virtual support, for what it is worth, by dozens or hundreds of people?

 

In this regard, the advent of the internet and virtual communities have probably provided many people with these tendancies who were restrained in real world relationships the means to slide into compulsive lying or pathological attention seeking.

 

As far as what it means to this topic, well, animals are well known to haul on the heartstrings and bond people who have little else in common. I admit that I automatically feel more charitable and trusting toward folks who are animal lovers, and feel concomitant suspicion toward people who profess to have no affinity for animals. A community such as this or any other established pet themed board is ripe for exploitation, because I'll bet most of us feel a similar automatic extension of charity toward fellow animal lovers.

 

And Maria, that case you described? If that is not Munchausen by Proxy, I'm not sure what is. Poisoning creatures in mystifying ways in order to look like a heroic caregiver and to gain sympathy sounds textbook to me.

[Jack & Co.]

Willikers wrote

In this regard, the advent of the internet and virtual communities have probably provided many people with these tendancies who were restrained in real world relationships the means to slide into compulsive lying or pathological attention seeking.

Beautifully put, Willikers. There even seems to be a name, Munchausen by Internet . Check out the article here: http://www.healthyplace.com/site/article_faking.asp

[Kyrasmom]

It does to me as well, I guess my doubts came about because of her background. I just don't know enough about the disorder to know if the need for validation can be caused by previous abuse. I agree that the end result is very much the same.

 

Maria

[Willikers]

Jack & Co,

 

WOW. That link and the one contained within the first are crystalline. Absolutely fascinating. Particularly all the bullet point lists of what to look for and how the groups are affected. Everyone interested in this thread should check out this link. There is so much pertinient info contained within that there is no point trying to quote any one part.

[juliepoudrier]

Wow, Jack, thanks for the link. As Willikers noted, the two articles there are quite illuminating. And although they refer specifically to Internet health/illness support groups, I think even regular groups/forums encounter the same sorts of behaviors.

 

In response to Sara's comments, I think:

 

1. If I were suspicious of a real-life, in-person case of Munchausen's, I suppose I would try to enlist the aid of a mental health professional, either for advice or intervention (if it turns out the problem really is Munchausen's). I don't know how one keeps track of a peron who moves from hospital to hospital or takes his/her pet from clinic to clinic, but I guess if I were a doctor or vet and I became suspicious, I might ask the patient outright for a medical history and request records from the other instititions/doctors/vets involved. For example, if I suspected an owner of deliberately abusing or somehow creating or faking illness in a pet, I would try to find out from other vets in the area if they had experience with this person. As I said, it's really a fine line for the medical professional to try to determine what's genuine and what's faked or deliberately induced, but I think that most doctors and vets network with each other locally and so would know of people who are hopping from place to place (this would be more difficult in large metropolitan areas).

 

2. As for the second point, I think the link Jack & Co. provided details exquisitely what to look for. If I personally think that someone is posting simply to gain sympathy, I will simply quit responding. That is, I may try to help at first, but once I realize that things seem a bit "fishy" I just stop. Unfortunately, in such situations you can't stop everyone else from responding without outing the person and declaring your suspicions, which opens you up to attacks from more sympathetic/less suspicious members of the forum or list (we see it here time and again where one member comes to the defense of another over a perceived slight by a third). Confontation is problematic because if the person is willing to lie and exaggerate to gain sympathy in the first place, then I doubt they will suddenly confess and mend their ways when confronted. Plus in the case of a forum such as this one, such deception isn't quite as morally corrupt in my book as when someone goes to a site like those listed in the links and deceives people about a serious illness. To me it's a matter of degree--seeking attention in a general sort of forum isn't likely to have the same detrimental impact on the members as it would in, for example, an illness support group. (In other words, although attention-seeking behavior by one individual clearly will divide members of any group, I don't think it's as detrimental to some groups as it is to others.)

 

I don't know if that really answers your questions Sara, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment.

 

J.

[Jack & Co.]

Julie - Excellent, pragmatic summary.

[BustopherJones]

we see it here time and again where one member comes to the defense of another over a perceived slight by a third

And I am probably not going to change...

 

When I am not certain, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt; a key component of my management style has always been the belief that people will tend to live up to, or down to, your expectations.

[juliepoudrier]

I am taking the liberty of quoting from the linked site, though I would hope that everyone would follow Willikers' suggestion and read both links, as they aren't very long articles.

 

Clues to Detection of False Claims - Based on experience with two dozen cases of Munchausen by Internet, I have arrived at a list of clues to the detection of factititous Internet claims. The most important follow:

 

?the posts consistently duplicate material in other posts, in books, or on health-related websites;

?the characteristics of the supposed illness emerge as caricatures;

?near-fatal bouts of illness alternate with miraculous recoveries;

?claims are fantastic, contradicted by subsequent posts, or flatly disproved;

?there are continual dramatic events in the person's life, especially when other group members have become the focus of attention;

?there is feigned blitheness about crises (e.g., going into septic shock) that will predictably attract immediate attention;

?others apparently posting on behalf of the individual (e.g., family members, friends) have identical patterns of writing.

 

Lessons - Perhaps the most important lesson is that, while most people visiting support groups are honest, all members must balance empathy with circumspection. [emphasis added]

Bustopher,

I don't see anything inherently wrong with folks who want to be "the white knight," but I think the comment above about balancing empathy with circumspection applies. I also generally give people the benefit of the doubt (although by coming to one person's defense you--the generic you--certainly are not giving the *other* person any benefit of the doubt--something to consider), but there are certainly times when a person's behavior can wear thin, which is why in general I just stop posting. But as the links indicate, if someone is in effect abusing the other members of a board through his/her behavior (Anyone remember Destructo? He appeared on--and was kicked off of--a couple other border collie lists I'm on), even if you might consider such behavior generally harmless, it can adversely affect all members of a group. Just my opinion of course.

 

J.