Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy

It's an interesting topic Russiandoll and certainly saner than some of the theories which have been appeared in recent days! It can be very hard to tell the difference between a wind-up merchant and someone who is genuine but a little wacky.

The McCanns seem to me to be more indicative of the original Baron von Munchausen who made up fantastic stories about himself rather than the behaviour which manifests itself in the syndrome and the proxy version.

russiandoll wrote:
Possibly not, there is no evidence. Just some indications imo that this might have been what was going on. Health appears a major issue due to Maddie's withheld records. We do not know if these would reveal numerous or hardly any visits to her GP or hospital[s].
There is evidence of Kate McCann's ego and narcissism, and a lack of bonding with her eldest daughter. Her "truthful" book for sure is one source.
I agree this discussion might reach a dead end very soon, however its controversial nature should not be a reason why.
I have read more than one post on this forum with the very controversial opinion that Maddie was taken on a planned family holiday in order for her to disappear because she was " surplus to requirements" !

Even though there is no hard evidence of which we are aware, it would be unwise to dismiss it out of hand. As you point out, there are signs. Without a medical record it's difficult to be sure of much. I suspect as I am sure many do, it would make interesting reading. And of course, if one listens to the evidence of Eddie and Keela taking into account their proven track record, it tends to point to the presence of a body, which was moved, hasn't been found, and thus no autopsy. Again no medical evidence.

russiandoll wrote: quote jmac
I agree with Jean that MSP is not relevant to the McCanns and is in fact too controversial to be useful

Possibly not, there is no evidence. Just some indications imo that this might have been what was going on. Health appears a major issue due to Maddie's withheld records. We do not know if these would reveal numerous or hardly any visits to her GP or hospital[s].
There is evidence of Kate McCann's ego and narcissism, and a lack of bonding with her eldest daughter. Her "truthful" book for sure is one source.
I agree this discussion might reach a dead end very soon, however its controversial nature should not be a reason why.
I have read more than one post on this forum with the very controversial opinion that Maddie was taken on a planned family holiday in order for her to disappear because she was " surplus to requirements" !

Thanks for your comments. I have particularly enjoyed your views about the book `Madeleine` and your novel way of looking at things.

Yes, you did seem to be a bit up against it here, but you have stimulated an interesting cyber conversation which seems to be converging to some sort of conclusion. Well, that`s the way it looks at the moment...

From what I have read of this syndrome, the child is in and out of doctors surgeries and hospitals.The two Mccann gps questioned via the rogatory letters stated there was nothing wrong with her that they knew of and never had any reason to believe she was other than healthy. Not in so many words but that was the gist.

Dr. Christian Lüdke mentioned the Münchhausen syndrome by proxy, when he talked about the McCann´s in 2007. It would be so interesting to hear what he has to say today, 5 years later. He is one of few who early identified and stated the preplanning of Madeleine´s death. I don´t know how much weight he lent to the Münch.by.pr, but he mentioned it as an option. I guess there are more syndromes that fit in with their odd behaviour.

Maybe Maddie's medical records were withheld on account of what they had to say about the mother rather than the child.

friedtomatoes wrote:From what I have read of this syndrome, the child is in and out of doctors surgeries and hospitals.The two Mccann gps questioned via the rogatory letters stated there was nothing wrong with her that they knew of and never had any reason to believe she was other than healthy. Not in so many words but that was the gist.

am having problems accessing the second doctor's statement, the following is interesting....
Witness Statement of Philip Hussey (McCann family doctor) 2008.05.15

I am the abovementioned person living at the address previously supplied to police.
I am a GP at the Center for Health at Syston and my qualifications are as follows: MB, CHB, MRCGP.
I have practised my profession at this location for 22 years.
I was visited by police officers from Leicestershire who are conducting an investigation by order of the Portuguese authorities regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007.

When the McCann family lived in Queniborough, Leicestershire they were included in my consultancy; Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were all my clients.

Kate's first consultation was on 20 October 2000, and Gerry on 19 December 2000, Madeleine was included since birth.

There was a period in which the family did not use our services, which coincided with the change of residence to the Netherlands where he spent a season, but upon their return resumed their affiliation with us.


When the twins Sean and Amelie were born, both were registered in my clinic.
It could be said that I know Kate well, the couple faced some problems of conception and I recall that Kate was particularly desperate for a family. After treatment for infertility and when pregnant with Madeleine she could not be more happy because she wanted that child so much.

I met Kate and Gerry once at a social event at the home of Professor Gershlick who is a colleague of Gerry.
I remember sitting close to Kate during the dinner. We spoke about the difficulties of medicine in general and of the problems within the National Health Service. I got on well with both of them.
I never had any doubts about the state of mental health of Kate and Gerry and I never prescribed them sedatives or any medication that could alter the psychological state of Kate or Gerry.

Also, I never had doubts regarding the physical or psychological well-being of the children. Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born and by our nurses during the routine vaccinations. If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen.

The last time I saw Kate as a patient was on March 10, 2006.

Knowing how much the couple wanted a family, I do not believe that they would have had any kind of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

This testimony was made by me and it is true according to my understanding.

Inference made by me,,,,,,,apart from standard post- natal check and routine jabs [by a practice nurse] no sign of Maddie having any GP consultations. Is it right to presume health because a child has not been brought to see you?
Did the parents as doctors diagnose and prescribe for her, if so was this ethical?

That simply doesn't square with Kate's own testimony in the book that Maddie cried non stop for 8 months? That they thought she might have colic and that she was a hyperactive and even difficult child, needing constant attention.

Surely some visits to the doctor would be advisable if she cried so much and even her doctor parents couldn't establish the cause?

found the other statement...

Testimony from Ian Richard Schofield 14 May 2008
3—Witness statement of Ian Richard Schofield (Dr. at Alpine Practice) 2008.05.14
Testimony of: Ian Richard SCHOFIELD
Age is less than 18 years:
Occupation: Physician (General Practice)
This deposition (comprising 1 page and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding. I am aware that, if proven to the contrary, I will be subject to prosecution if I have voluntarily testified to something with
knowledge of it being false or not corresponding to the truth.
Date: May 14, 2008
Signature ______________________________________

I am a GP and senior partner in Alpine Practice in Rothley Road, Mountsorrel and in summary my qualifications are respectively at MBChB, DRCOG, MRCGP.
I am currently, and have been for 14 months, the GP of the McCann family. Before Madeleine's disappearance, I had only consulted Kate McCann once and never had assisted Gerry, nor ever had reason to deal with the twins Sean and Amelie and only saw them once after the disappearance of Madeleine.
As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children.
I never prescribed Kate or Gerry any medication that could alter their behaviour or demeanour.
I never had any doubt about the psychological welfare of the children.
The only thing I can affirm is that Kate and Gerry are a very genuine couple, affectionate and careful [caring] parents. They always kept me, social services and other authorities informed on the progress of the investigation that followed the disappearance of Madeleine.
After the disappearance of Madeleine, I met Kate and Gerry at their home and never had any cause for concern about the twins.
This testimony was prepared from a series of questions raised by DC Ferguson and DC Holliday of the Leicestershire police, following the request by the Portuguese PJ.
This testimony was made by me and it is true according to my understanding.

so only the family GP since Maddie vanished.
Had not to date seen the twins.
Maddie therefore appears never to have been seen by any doctor apart from a duty doctor for a post-birth check.

So the question remains, who was responsible for Madeleine's health ? If she had any prescriptions, they do not appear to have been written up by her GP. Her medical records are imo of major importance. And is there any explanation for why the family GP changed in March 2007?

I do find it hard to believe that Madeleine didn't see her GP for almost 4 years.
My 2 yr old suffered from what I thought was colic for 6 months, in that time she was taken to the GP about 4 times, only due to the fact that I was desperate for some sleep. OK I'm not a doctor, but I'd of thought that if Madeleine was constantly crying for 8 months, even the Dr's Mccann would have taken her to the GP to maybe get a second opinon or try & get some sort of help. So maybe she really wasn't that bad or they just assumned that they were better than any GP & if they couldn't sort the situation out then nobody could.
Even so Colic aside, surely there would have been times in almost 4 years that she would have needed some sort of medication ( my daughter has had antibiotics twice & been to the GP's probably 4-5 times) Either Maddie was a really healthy child OR they were prescribing their own meds for her.
As for MSP (sorry if I went off topic) I'm not sure whether it can be applied to Kate or not, some aspects I'd say yes, but not the constant Doctor/Hospital visits.
The more I read the more confused i get

John Holden

VIEWPOINT
Dr John Holden
Medical Defence Union adviser

People are often tempted to ask a friend who is a doctor for help

Doctors sometimes get asked to treat friends and relatives but it is a situation they should avoid if possible, according to the Medical Defence Union.

Its adviser, Dr John Holden, argues that it is all too easy for the doctors to put their livelihoods at risk.

Most of us are more than happy to use family connections or call upon friends in the know when we need expert help or advice, whether it's 'the car has a puncture' or 'the computer is infected with a virus'.

After all, it makes sense to seek the help of someone we trust and eliminate the time and uncertainty of trying to find someone available, willing and qualified to help.

As the old adage goes 'What are friends for?'

'Significant pitfalls'

As any doctor will tell you, many people also call on such connections when a health problem arises.


Treating friends and family is something doctors should avoid, not least because they could be putting their livelihood on the line

Many doctors will identify with the scenario of being asked to reassure a relative with a worrying mole or prescribe antibiotics to a friend with a temperature, often in the middle of a busy restaurant or at a house party.

The problem is that treating friends and family holds significant pitfalls for the doctors themselves and is generally not in the long-term interests of patients either.

Of course, there are some situations where there is little alternative.

In remote communities with only one practice, a GP's family will usually register with another doctor in the practice but it's still possible that GPs may find themselves treating a patient one day and sitting down to dinner with them the next.

And in an emergency where there is no one else available, doctors have an ethical obligation to provide immediate medical care to anyone who requires it, whoever they may be.

Risk to livelihoods

However, doctors are expected to follow this up with the patient's own GP.

In general though, treating friends and family is something doctors should avoid, not least because they could be putting their livelihood on the line.


It is easy to assume that you know what medication a family member is already taking but how can you be certain without access to their medical records?

The General Medical Council (GMC) repeatedly makes this point in its guidance to doctors.

It states: 'Objectivity is essential in providing good care; independent medical care should be sought whenever you or someone with whom you have a close personal relationship requires prescription medicines' (Good Practice in Prescribing Medicines, 2008).

In particular, doctors should avoid prescribing controlled drugs to themselves or their family.

In rare cases, this has led the GMC to investigate a doctor's fitness to practise, putting their career in jeopardy.

Clouded judgement

So why is treating family and friends such an ethical minefield?

The MDU advice to our medical members is that it is all too easy, when treating someone close to you, for your judgement to be clouded by your relationship with them.

Who would feel entirely comfortable, for example, in asking their elderly mother whether she had had suicidal thoughts?


If you need medical treatment, please don't be tempted to keep it in the family

It is easy to assume that you know what medication a family member is already taking but how can you be certain without access to their medical records?

A teenage girl may not volunteer to her doctor-father that she is taking the contraceptive pill, but if he unknowingly prescribes antibiotics in an emergency which prevent the pill from working, the risks are obvious.

And what if an intimate examination was required?

Imagine how awkward it could be if a father asked his GP daughter about symptoms which would usually require an intimate examination to be carried out to diagnose the patient's condition.

That is why it is almost always in patients' own interests for their own GPs to be responsible for their medical care to ensure clinical objectivity and continuity of care.

The message for those who are friends with or related to someone in the medical profession is simple: if you need medical treatment, please don't be tempted to keep it in the family.

Well, it's more than illuminating - it makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what the rules are about prescribing drugs for your own family, but a 4 years old who's hardly ever been to the GP and yet doesn't look at all well in many photographs imo.- should at least have had a few visits a year. The colic especially, since it struck me as a strange thing to say for a doctor that they 'thought' that was the reason for her crying.
It affected their own wellbeing to such an extend that they sometimes all three sat crying in the kitchen. (in the book).

No - I don't see it. Not only that, Gerry said that she had frequent nosebleeds (to explain the blood in 5a I believe) .

In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic.
Speaking about Madeleine's upbringing, Kate, a 39-year-old GP, told Portugal's Flash! magazine: "She cried practically for 18 hours a day. I had to permanently carry her around."

Hmmm.

tigger wrote:Well, it's more than illuminating - it makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what the rules are about prescribing drugs for your own family, but a 4 years old who's hardly ever been to the GP and yet doesn't look at all well in many photographs imo.- should at least have had a few visits a year. The colic especially, since it struck me as a strange thing to say for a doctor that they 'thought' that was the reason for her crying.
It affected their own wellbeing to such an extend that they sometimes all three sat crying in the kitchen. (in the book).

No - I don't see it. Not only that, Gerry said that she had frequent nosebleeds (to explain the blood in 5a I believe) .

In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic.
Speaking about Madeleine's upbringing, Kate, a 39-year-old GP, told Portugal's Flash! magazine: "She cried practically for 18 hours a day. I had to permanently carry her around."

Hmmm.

Having grown up in a medical family, I never saw the inside of a Dr's surgery until I left home. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she only went for her vaccinations and scheduled health checks. She was probably treated by her parents, or if there were more specialised questions, they would phone Dr's who were friends from uni and had gone into paediatrics. Dr's are not supposed to prescibe for relatives because of ethical considerations, but I'm not aware that it is illegal - what if you were the only Dr available? I haven't met one yet that hasn't done it on the odd occasion. Kate was a GP, what could the GP tell her that she wouldn't already know, or couldn't find on the internet?

Although self prescribing for yourself or family members isn't illegal, it is against GMC rules, so could lead to being struck off.
Also if you've got a child that is crying for 18 hours a day, you are obviously lacking in sleep, so perhaps not thinking all that straight? I would of thought that a visit to the GP would be a good idea.

tigger wrote:Well, it's more than illuminating - it makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what the rules are about prescribing drugs for your own family, but a 4 years old who's hardly ever been to the GP and yet doesn't look at all well in many photographs imo.- should at least have had a few visits a year. The colic especially, since it struck me as a strange thing to say for a doctor that they 'thought' that was the reason for her crying.
It affected their own wellbeing to such an extend that they sometimes all three sat crying in the kitchen. (in the book).

No - I don't see it. Not only that, Gerry said that she had frequent nosebleeds (to explain the blood in 5a I believe) .

In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic.
Speaking about Madeleine's upbringing, Kate, a 39-year-old GP, told Portugal's Flash! magazine: "She cried practically for 18 hours a day. I had to permanently carry her around."

Hmmm.

I havn't read the book yet (I've been holding off as i didn't want to put more money into the Mccann fund) but if Madeleine was suffering from regular nosebleeds that should of definitely been checked over by her GP.

As before the more i read, the more confused i am

"Knowing how much the couple wanted a family, I do not believe that they would have had any kind of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine."

But one way or another they DID, didn't they??? If, and BIG IF, she was abducted it was BECAUSE they'd leave her alone night after night in a dark foreign country, yes?

"As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children.
I never prescribed Kate or Gerry any medication that could alter their behaviour or demeanour.
I never had any doubt about the psychological welfare of the children.
The only thing I can affirm is that Kate and Gerry are a very genuine couple, affectionate and careful [caring] parents. "

To be honest I am stunned that a so-called medical professional would write this bilge.

Firstly, to decide that they are perfectly good rational people and parents on the basis that they were 'general practitioners' is very presumptuous and dangerous. Had they really never heard of Harold Shipman? Beverly Allitt? Dr Crippen?

Secondly, Kate and Gerry are such careful! parents they leave a three year old and 2 two year olds alone in a dark foreign holiday apartment, and sooo 'affectionate' they do it AGAIN* even AFTER the three year old tells them she cried and asked where they were;

Thirdly, no concerns about the twins when a friend of the parents statement clearly shows they were drugged up to the eyeballs. They are also being fed tales where evil raptors fly in through bedroom windows and steal children from their beds!!!

No concerns? The 'doctor' who wrote that should be struck off.

So, the lack of GP visits seems to rule out MSbP.
I vote for pure old fashioned narcissism with a bit of psychopathic tendencies thrown into the mix. Add Gerry with his megalomania and that is a recipe for a very nasty tasting dish indeed...

*I do NOT believe the 'neglect' story, just to be clear.

Secondly, Kate and Gerry are such careful! parents they leave a three year old and 2 two year olds alone in a dark foreign holiday apartment, and sooo 'affectionate' they do it AGAIN* even AFTER the three year old tells them she cried and asked where they were;

Just to add to this....jane tanner and russell o'brien KNEW their daughter was sick during the day on May 3rd 2007....yet they still left her on her own to go to the Tapas bar to be with their friends guzzling red and white wine, in a bar that they could not hear, let alone see anything from the apartment whilst their daughter was alone sick in the apartment

This from Jez Wilkins in his statement on meeting gerry mccann outside the apartment at 9.10pm just sums up the mccanns attitude to parenting "I remember that Gerry told me if he had stayed another week, he would likely do as I was doing and would stay with the children one night. It appeared as though he was jealous of what I was doing, but given that he was with a big group, he felt the obligation to meet with them every night, and the chosen location was the Tapas bar".....friends are more important than his kids

I am a GP and senior partner in Alpine Practice in Rothley Road, Mountsorrel and in summary my qualifications are respectively at MBChB, DRCOG, MRCGP.
I am currently, and have been for 14 months, the GP of the McCann family. Before Madeleine's disappearance, I had only consulted Kate McCann once and never had assisted Gerry, nor ever had reason to deal with the twins Sean and Amelie and only saw them once after the disappearance of Madeleine.
As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So if Schofield only consulted Kate McCann once before Madeleine's disappearance how can he possibly say that he never had any doubts about her capacity or mental ability as an individual or as a parent to her three children. How long would that consultation have lasted, 10 minutes, 15 minutes. Was he also a mind reader by any chance.

Children in their early years will often get fevers, sore throats and other minor ailments from time to time. Those who attend nursery will tend to pick up more infections. So it is quite unusual that the doctor is never called out to see Madeleine nor is she ever taken to consults the family G.P.

What is more worrying is that we are informed that Madeleine probably had severe colic for 8 months. Checking `NHS Choices` website it is recommended that if a baby`s symptoms of colic do not improve in 4 months there should be further testing and the baby is likely to be referred to a paediatrician. We know that did not happen for Madeleine.

Further we have been made aware that the parents used calpol to medicate the children and the twins comatose` state on May 3rd 2007 strongly suggests they were drugged. All of this indicates that the McCanns were used to treating their own children, a practice which is discouraged by the medical profession.

It is a puzzle why the family G.P should have been changed after Madeleine`s disappearance but what Dr Schofield has to say about the McCanns is interesting:

`They always kept me, social services and other authorities informed on the progress of the investigation.`

There is no mention that the parents had to undergo any kind of assessment as to their suitability as parents given their recent risky parenting. No it is enough that they are general practitioners. Had Kate and Gerry been two unemployed people from an inner city area there is no doubt that social services would have insisted on it.

quote FH
Having grown up in a medical family, I never saw the inside of a Dr's surgery until I left home. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she only went for her vaccinations and scheduled health checks. She was probably treated by her parents, or if there were more specialised questions, they would phone Dr's who were friends from uni and had gone into paediatrics. Dr's are not supposed to prescibe for relatives because of ethical considerations, but I'm not aware that it is illegal - what if you were the only Dr available? I haven't met one yet that hasn't done it on the odd occasion. Kate was a GP, what could the GP tell her that she wouldn't already know, or couldn't find on the internet?[/quote]

We're very lucky to have a new member such as you FH, with virtually identical experiences to the kind of life the McCanns seem to have led. E.g.
You have three children, you have experience of holiday apartments with these children and find it impossible for 7 children to have slept in such spaces.
You even have three springer spaniels, how lucky can we get?

Now we find that your medical experience is also very nearly the same and you'd never seen the inside of a surgery until you left home at what? 18?
So I must conclude your vaccinations have been done at home too.
You apparently meet a lot of doctors since you haven't met one yet who hasn't broken the rules on the odd occasion. That's a conclusion based on how many doctors?
What a good GP could have told Kate what she may not have known, is to consult a psychiatrist.
As for looking symptoms up on the internet, I take it that you are joking - it's highly unreliable and no substitute for a second opinion which is the logical next step to take, certainly by a doctor who has more than two working braincells.

`They always kept me, social services and other authorities informed on the progress of the investigation.`

It would standard practice where Social Services are involved for information to be shared between any agencies that are involved. Normally the parents would be asked to sign a permission to share form, enabling social services, police, doctors, schools etc to talk to each other. I imagine that the McCanns would perhaps wanted to get their version across first so would have been keen to keep everyone up to date with events.

I would also be surprised given Madeleine's colic and the severity of it that the McCanns didn't ask for help or see if their doctor could recommend something. Colic is completely exhausting for parents to have to deal with.

After some more research on this

"here is a profile of a parent who is likely to cause MSP. They are usually the mothers. They are often health professionals, especially nurses and respiratory therapists. They often are very friendly with health professionals and cooperative with medical procedures. They appear quite concerned about their child, and are sometimes described as overly concerned. Some psychiatrists believe that this is an attention-seeking behavior. Obviously, not all health professionals who are nice to deal with have MSP."

In some cases, the parents also inflict injury and can kill their children in the process.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And then a very long piece about Munchausen by proxy in the "medical profession" VERY interesting reading [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have also been informed that uUnpublished research with practicing anaesthetists suggests that they gain overt satisfaction from what some of them described as 'killing patients and bringing them back to life again',_ but there is nothing convincing published on anything but superficial and perhaps
rationalised understandings of the gratification of medical practice.

THE MOTHER-CHILD-MEDICAL SETTING RELATIONSHIP
There are internal dynamics in the mother and mother-child dynamics that play a crucial role in the development of MBPS. This has been explored in other clinical papers (See footnote 3). In this context, it may suffice that it has been recognised that the mother would be capable of limited intimacy outside of the medical setting, but enthralled by playing with things that it is ordinarily forbidden to play with, such as her own body, her babies, sickness, death and pain in herself and others, and doctors as figures of authority and as caregivers. Through her pretence and deception, she would thereby create a scenario in which she could be the heroine. She would feel entitled to subjugate her baby's needs to her own on the basis of her
disappointment that the baby had failed to offer her the meaning or nurture that she had (unrealistically) expected from it, thus making the baby a focus of resentment.

Brilliant research Sweetex! Thanks.

We also have a child who has trouble sleeping - or according to the priest whom Kate phoned - sleepwalking.
Who has nosebleeds - perhaps frequently.
Who had colic for over 6 months.

Who was apparently never seen by a GP for any of the above.

Thoughts.....as it seems the opposite was going on, under rather than over-consultation with doctors, MSP seems unlikely, however health and the missing records are very significant imo.
How can you treat your own child objectively? How can a medical record for that child be created as official, one accessible by the NHS as hard copy/ on a a database? Who is going to accept as an official and credible health document one you create yourself as a health professional who treats your own family?

Why is it unethical to treat your own family, especially a child? Because you might be an abusing or negelctful parent, despite being a middle class professional with a veneer of respectability. As with spousal abuse, child abuse occurs in even so called respectable homes.
When my children were very young, as soon as they could string a semi-coherent sentence together, their GP asked them, not me, to describe their symptoms. I was out of the loop for the basics. Clearly it is the person experiencing the symptoms who can best describe them, also a parent might misdirect a doctor, deliberately or in error. Child abuse has to be in a GP's mind, even if on a backburner, he or she needs to be on the alert for a red flag and a parent talking for a silent child is a huge red flag .

About MSP, if you are a health professional who keeps childhood ailments within the family, might it be the case that if you want attention from a health professional for your ill child,you do not need to seek attention outside the home? If the attention you crave is from one person only, a perceived distant or negligent partner who is also a medical professional, might you perhaps invent or exaggerate symptoms in their absence, treat them so that when the partner arrives home, the symptoms are still evident but on the wane....proof the child is ill but is recovering? Two things achieved here, you are in control with the child so it never gets out of hand and outside help will not be called on by your partner, who sees on a regular basis that he has a child with recurrent problems that are diagnosed, treated and can be as always, contained within the home?
No real danger to the child, and regular attention for you as a wonderful caregiver.
Just a thought and I am mindful of the danger of making facts fit a theory. There are no facts for MSP, but one parent in this case fits the profile and the medical records might not have been handed over because they are non-existent.

About MSP, if you are a health professional who keeps childhood ailments within the family, might it be the case that if you want attention from a health professional for your ill child,you do not need to seek attention outside the home? If the attention you crave is from one person only, a perceived distant or negligent partner who is also a medical professional, might you perhaps invent or exaggerate symptoms in their absence, treat them so that when the partner arrives home, the symptoms are still evident but on the wane....proof the child is ill but is recovering? Two things achieved here, you are in control with the child so it never gets out of hand and outside help will not be called on by your partner, who sees on a regular basis that he has a child with recurrent problems that are diagnosed, treated and can be as always, contained within the home?
No real danger to the child, and regular attention for you as a wonderful caregiver.
Just a thought and I am mindful of the danger of making facts fit a theory. There are no facts for MSP, but one parent in this case fits the profile and the medical records might not have been handed over because they are non-existent.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I also found this.

"Documented perpetrators are usually knowledgeable about medical treatment options through experience as a patient, through training as a child care provider or health care provider, or through library and Internet research.12 Hall et al37 reported that in 85% of their 41 video-documented cases of MSbP, one or both parents had training in a field related to health care or in day care.

To the public, and to medical personnel, the offender appears ingratiating and extremely concerned about the child’s well-being,31 often refusing to leave the patient’s bedside.16 It is this feature of the disorder that makes MSbP difficult to detect as abuse. However, covert videotapes have repeatedly recorded that these same parents generally ignore or even mistreat the child when convinced no one is there to observe their performance"

"Many reasons for MSbP have been posited—and motivations no doubt vary among abusers—but falsifying a child’s illness presents perpetrators with an opportunity to:

• Gain sympathy, attention, respect, and public acclaim by playing the [b]role of the loving, devoted mother, the only one capable of “rescuing” the child.

• Get back at a neglectful spouse or receive the support and concern of family members.

There are various theories regarding the cause of Munchausen Syndrome. Dowdell and Foster theorize that a mother may feel that a sick child can bring her closer to her spouse. The women are most likely depressed and insecure, and channel their personal inadequacies into abusive behavior, which in turn produces gratifying attention for themselves.

The environment of a hospital also gives the mother a chance to rid herself of parental responsibility while medical personnel (or family maybe?! )tend to her child.

If a mother realizes an increasing detachment from the family in the father of her child, she may resort to hurting her child in order to restore cohesiveness in the family. An absent spouse also leaves the mother plenty of time alone with her child to inflict injuries and sickness that she otherwise may not be able to inflict in the presence of her husband.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

tigger wrote:quote FH
Having grown up in a medical family, I never saw the inside of a Dr's surgery until I left home. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she only went for her vaccinations and scheduled health checks. She was probably treated by her parents, or if there were more specialised questions, they would phone Dr's who were friends from uni and had gone into paediatrics. Dr's are not supposed to prescibe for relatives because of ethical considerations, but I'm not aware that it is illegal - what if you were the only Dr available? I haven't met one yet that hasn't done it on the odd occasion. Kate was a GP, what could the GP tell her that she wouldn't already know, or couldn't find on the internet?

We're very lucky to have a new member such as you FH, with virtually identical experiences to the kind of life the McCanns seem to have led. E.g.
You have three children, you have experience of holiday apartments with these children and find it impossible for 7 children to have slept in such spaces.
You even have three springer spaniels, how lucky can we get?

Now we find that your medical experience is also very nearly the same and you'd never seen the inside of a surgery until you left home at what? 18?
So I must conclude your vaccinations have been done at home too.
You apparently meet a lot of doctors since you haven't met one yet who hasn't broken the rules on the odd occasion. That's a conclusion based on how many doctors?
What a good GP could have told Kate what she may not have known, is to consult a psychiatrist.
As for looking symptoms up on the internet, I take it that you are joking - it's highly unreliable and no substitute for a second opinion which is the logical next step to take, certainly by a doctor who has more than two working braincells.
[/quote]

Harsh!!

If you want to identify what is "out of place", then you need a baseline. You need context. If you don't like me providing context, then don't read my posts - they are easy to ignore. They have FH at the top of them.

Feel free to stop reading NOW!

In response to the points you made in your post. I grew up with a lot of medical people in my family and know for a fact that they often treat their own, but I'm not allowed to share? I'm supposed to sit back and let people think the fact that there's not much evidence that Madeleine went to the GP's is something sinister, when I dont think it is neccessarily?

Because I own and breed Spingers, I'm not allowed to be 100% behind the dogs. I'm a registered Kennel Club breeder. PM me and I'll send you my details and photos of my dogs and puppies . I have nothing to hide. I will of course expect you to send me some bona fide credentials that I can check out too.

I have probably had a similar life to the McCann's, but definately not identical experiences - I still have 3 beautiful living, breathing children at home. I took them abroad on holiday most years from the age of one, to apartments, occassionally on my own and never once stuck them in creche all day , or went out and left them in the evening, or mislaid them. In addition, TM think dogs are notoriously unreliable, whereas I think the exact opposite. If the dog thinks it smelt cadaver, then it smelt cadaver.

What is your real point ? You don't seem to like it when people question things, or challenge ideas? I thought that was the point of a discussion forum? If something is written in stone, then point me at the evidence, if people are just postulating a hypothesis, then I feel free to challenge it. I have an open, enquiring mind and if someone says something that doesn't tie in with my experience, then I will question it and back it up with information if I can. I'm equally happy to admit if I'm wrong. If you read my previous text, I don't think I said I think it was impossible to get all the children in one appartment - I posed a question as to whether it would be possible and whether any of them would go to sleep. Other people may know what size the rooms were and whether it could be done. Someone posted saying the PJ had evidence, which I wasn't aware of. I have never stayed in an apartment where you could fit all those children, especially as a few would need to be in cots. Then again, I could never have afforded a Warner holiday, perhaps those apartments are bigger. The ones I have been to generally have 2 single beds with just enough space for one cot.

BTW when I was a child (!960's) there were fewer vaccinations and they were done either at the baby clinic, or at school. I do remember getting my polio vaccine from my father on a sugar cube, also hayfever desensitisation injections and shots for going on holiday in his study at home. I do remember a couple of trips to A&E, but the only time I ever remember being in the surgery was working there as a temp in the summers when the receptionist was on holiday. Oh and I left home a lot later than 18. I probably didn't see a GP until my father died when I was 23.

When referring to looking things up on the internet, I certainly wasn't joking and I wasn't talking about google and getting stuff of the Boots health page, I was talking about online repositories for medical information which Dr's can and do subscribe to. You'd be very foolish to think they look things up in books like Gray's anatomy(also online) , or by ploughing through back copies of the Lancet journals (also online), or that they look up drugs, dosages, side effects in books, MIMMS has been available online for many years and with the advent of the world wide web professionals from all walks of life can keep up to date without buying the relevent textbooks annually (which are often out of date once printed).