Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

because she is likely to suffer from Munschausen's syndrome by proxy

mamazon it was interesting...but then I really do believe that something must be very wrong with any person to be able to do anything morally very wrong, like killing, abusing, etc.....

Thanks 3andnogore, it was awful.And this woman was a counsellor on the NHS, which made it worse, she was in the system, IYKWIM. She left me with the most terrible feeling of betrayal, as i had felt betrayed by the midwife before her. I am lucky i was able to go to someone else, someone with much more experience and training, and someone just with more compassion and common sense, IMO. Personalities vary so widely and have such a huge effect - that is my concern.

absolutely ruty....but glad you were able to find someone that was able to help you!

I think it's possible to be "bad" and not "mad" iyswim, ie to have no underlying mental illness but to still committ appalling crimes.

I think that our experiences shape our future actions and sense of right and wrong but people who have had negative experiences or who's lives have shaped them to be capable of doing very terrible things are not necessarily mentally ill.
Frontal lobe damage is an interesting idea, we know that the frontal lobe controls some of our higher reasoning functions, our ability to make appropriate decisions and be sociable creatures. Patients who have frontal lobe tumours or other damage in adulthood can have massive personality changes that can be quite frightening. I'm not convinced that it accounts for the "bad" in all of those who commit terrible crimes and aren't "mad" though.

Sorry to cause thread to drift even further off topic though.

Also sorry to hear of your awful experiences ruty. Did you feel able to complain about your delivery or your counsellor?

mentally ill maybe not, but disturbed surely...hm...

trying to cling to my naive outlook...desperately....

Just wondering if anyone else has read the book Sickened by Julie Gregory

I haven't read it though I know that it's been a best seller.

I somehow feel a bit uneasy reading childhood abuse memoirs though I'm not sure why that should be, especially if the author feels that writing about their experiences has been helpful or catharic in some way.

Info about MbP

This scares the hell out of me.
My cousin is fighting SS right now as her latest SW has decided to make a case against her on rather ridiculous grounds.My cousins twins were put on reg while she was PG as her then partner was brought up in care.This was the reason they gave orig.They placed them in a hostel to wait for a home during this time the man who was supposed to run things reported my cousin as unable to cook or clean.This was not only untrue but was caused and said after she refused him entry into the room while alone.He tried repeatedly to get her alone and he scared her.When she told her SW she told her not to be so silly!Her partener became unstable the more SS got involved as they kept saying some horrendous things.He became violent and they gave my cousin a choice him or dc's she chose her dc's no contest.The twins were prem which has meant that they are prone to catching colds etc but in general they are healthy,happy dc's who are well looked after.
The last SW she had said that once she was settled in her new home then the dc's would be able to come of the reg.This hasn't happened as she got a new SW who has made life hell for her.
The new SW has no dc's and in fact(and this is shocking)isn't keen on dc's in general.
She has to date made my cousin do such things as take a draw that was at ground level out of a unit because the dc's might hurt themselves(they used it as a boat).She has told my cousin that she believes that the dc's are scared of her because when they are told to go to time out(she uses the 1 warning and if you do it again you go in the corner method)they go and sit there for 2 mins(their age).She said that my cousin doesn't care for them emotionally as they sometimes cry when friends or rels leave.My dc's both did this as couldn't understand why people they liked couldn't live with us.
She is now saying that as my cousin has been in abusive relationship's she puts the dc's in danger(she has got rid of her bf as he hurt her)
She is being in my eyes punished for having bad luck with men.
The woman stands there and tells her this stuff and then follows it up by telling her to allow the dc's dad who once tried to set them on fire to have contact unsupervised also advising the father to go for custody in the event that she gets her way and the dc's are removed from my cousin.She has recently forced my cousin back into a house which is near both ex's and has even been broken into.My cousin tried to refuse and asked to move closer to myself so that she could have some better family support and get away from these men.The SW told her that if she did not return within a week then she was putting the dc's into emergency care.
I have now discovered that the SS where she lives have a terrible rep within the ranks of SS and are well known for trying to remove children where other SW's wouldn't.

It's time SS were honest and open about what they are doing and came out from behind the veil of secrecy that allows them to act badly for the sake of those dc's who need to be removed from their parents for real reasons and so that those SW's who are honest and damn good at their jobs can finally do so

Sorry for length of post but I feel quite strongly on this issue

This is the article where it all started where Meadow first invented the term Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Read here how a mother was accused of causing her child's illness. Read also how Meadow and his medical staff dosed the toddler in question with 20g (that's a little less than an ounce) of salt to work out how the mother was causing the illnesses.

I'm not sure what medical ethics he was operating under but if a mother was found to be giving that much salt to an infant, the child would probably be removed from her immediately. On the other hand if a doctor does it he can write it up in the Lancet as medical research.

www.msbp.com/hinterlands.htm

"We did not know how she persuaded her toddler to ingest such large quantities of salt (20 g of sodium chloride given with difficulty by us raised the serum-sodium to 147 mmol/l only)."

Thanks for that link 3andnogore, the "symptoms" of the syndrome outlined there show just what shaky ground these paediatricians are on when making their so-called diagnosis -

" * a child who has multiple medical problems that don't respond to treatment or that follow a persistent and puzzling course

• physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, don't correspond with the child's medical history, or are physically or clinically impossible

• short-term symptoms that tend to stop when the perpetrator isn't around

• a parent or caregiver who isn't reassured by "good news" when test results find no medical problems, but continues to believe that the child is ill

• a parent or caregiver who appears to be medically knowledgeable or fascinated with medical details or appears to enjoy the hospital environment

• a parent or caregiver who's unusually calm in the face of serious difficulties with the child's health

• a parent or caregiver who's highly supportive and encouraging of the doctor, or one who is angry and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions, or transfers to more sophisticated facilities"

Those so-called symptoms read like a concerned parent reacting in the face of doctors unable to make a diagnosis. Great for the doctors that rather than admitting there are limits to their skills they can simply blame the parents.

I do think that a condition such as that can exist.My SIL was happy to discover that her dd was going to have speech therapy like her.The child only needs speech therapy because she neglected dd .It's become the same with other probs my niece has.
However I also think that they need a lot more proof of a parent causing purposeful harm against a child than they are concerned that doc's aren't doing job properly.Doc's hate to admit when they are wrong

Evolution of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy as a Diagnosis

Munchausen syndrome by proxy derives from adult Munchausen syndrome, which was first described in the literature in 1951 by Asher. In adult Munchausen syndrome, the patient fabricates and/or induces his own symptoms and presents himself for treatment. The description of Munchausen syndrome by proxy was first made in 1977, after British pediatrician Roy Meadow recognized that mothers of two children in his practice were engaging in dissimulations that put their children in the patient role, using the children as proxies. Subsequently, Meadow has collected and presented a number of cases, noting from the outset that is was often the doctors who harmed the child most through their unnecessary tests and treatments.

slight hijack

It was this particular part of that qoute which I thought relevent.

Meadow has collected and presented a number of cases, noting from the outset that is was often the doctors who harmed the child most through their unnecessary tests and treatments.

The man may have made mistakes in his career, but he was not averse to pointing out the failing of his contemapries.

So which tchie genius on mumsnet is going to incorporate spell check to prevent my boobs

No I'm not WWW. I actually don't have any interest in this apart from the fact that I read up on what people like Meadow and David Southall were doing and was completely shocked.

I can't believe anyone would still defend Meadow after what his 1 in 72 million evidence did to Sally Clark and also the story about him and his staff dosing a toddler with large amounts of salt. It's hair-raising.

As the sister of an MH patient I just find it intolerable in todays society that we should be contemplating this. Whatever the story behind Frans history & whether or not she is currently needing MH intervention she has the RIGHT to be a mother to her child just as Molly has the RIGHT to have her mother looking after her. Why are there so many cases where there is a PROVEN violent history yet on balance the family is kept together for the good of the children(a difficult call for the SS)yet this child is deemed at so great a risk that she has to be whisked away at BIRTH? She may or may not have MBP but all these cases quote have been happening over a period of time NOT within hours of birth.

Sorry for the shouting, (it's a case close to my heart!) but this is the basic arguement here & we need to remember that

Can I ask you all to read this posted by a colleague of Frans?
**

"The more I read about this story the more angry and more scared I get.
I work with Fran, I have a huge amount of respect for her as a colleague, a friend and just plain as a human being. It really scares me that someone as together as her who has overcome so much can be
targeted in this way. And it scares me on a personal level as well.
What does this mean for any of us who have a mental health problem
either now or in the past?

I have the same diagnosis as Fran was given and has recovered from.
Sometimes I am fine and sometimes, yes, I am a bit loopy. But I make as much effort as I possibly can to be responsible for myself and my condition and ask for help when I need it. I have worked to develop
strategies to deal with it, as would anyone with a chronic illness.

I also have good highers, a degree and a diploma, a teaching qualification, several years experience teaching, including with
teenagers. I have worked for various mental health charities including advice and support work and have even been a trusted babysitter from a young age, if that counts for anything. I am a contributing member of
society, I don't have a criminal record, and yet the second 'mental health problems' are mentioned this all seems to go out the window.

I know Fran's case is an unfortunate and exceptional one - I'm being
very polite here - but what kind of precendent does it set for the
rest of us? How can any professional think they are doing the right
thing in acting this way?

It terrifies me, especially now that I am in a stable relationship, that if I one day decided to have children, my partner and I might have to go through something like this. This questioning of us
fundamentally as people, because of an ILLNESS that I neither want nor
appreciate, that is not my fault, but I cannot make go away.

It just makes me want to curl up in a corner and cry, but it does make
me realise that we have to stand up and be counted in these situations, even if they're not directly related to us. Because if
someone, however small and insignificant doesn't - then who will? "

**

Makes me want to weep.

Elizabetth, I do not wish to appear confrontational, I think arguements for both sides in any situation are good, but you do not seem to be in any way open to anothers opinion if it disagrees with yours.

You have said that you that you have no interest apart from reading and being shocked at what you read.

Perhaps you would be more shocked if you had had to care for a dying baby, dying because the parents didn't care enough!

And yes, I have been there.

Perfect is a word in the dictionary.

Life can be horrendous.

Meadows may not have been totally correct, he may have been totally flawed in his judgement and so may others, but people do try to prevent tragedies.

I don't know what you are doing to better the situation apart from reading and posting.I'll be interested to know if you have a strategy to help others in this situation.

I hope that Fran's situation is resolved to the best for her and her baby,.

It may however be that none of us here will agree with the result.

NoNameToday, I could equally say the same thing of you - that you do not seem to be in any way open to another's opinion if it disagrees with yours. We could say that about anybody basically who is voicing an opinion. It's a stupid accusation.

As for me having no interest in this what I mean is that I am not directly involved either as an accused parent or even a friend of an accused parent, or as a doctor who supports the diagnosis or as a social worker. In this instance I'm a disinterested observer who is shocked when I have read the background information about Meadow and Southall and what has been done to parents and children.

To twist that into saying that I have no interest apart from being shocked is either dishonest on your part or extremely poor reading of what I said. You decide.

Rather than flinging out accusations at me perhaps you'd like to address the so-called symptoms that Meadow came up with and also the story of him and his medical staff dosing a child with salt.

NoName i think the correlation you make is nonsensical, sorry. Of course anyone here would be outraged if a child was suffering because of neglect, because 'the parents didn't care enough.' I think a lot of the frustration here comes from hearing about other cases where [rather often fathers] and mothers have harmed their children and the SS have not intervened despite frequent warning signs. However, this Munchausen's by Proxy diagnosis is extremely dangerous. It is not even proven as a real pyschological affliction as yet. It reminds me of Freud diagnosing women as 'hysterical'. It depends very much on a subjective perspective which varies from the personality of each doctor. If it does exist, I think it is probably extremely very rare indeed. It is also dangerous in many other ways. For example, if a child has a inexplicable and recurring illness, it seems as if the mother may have the finger pointed at her, now this syndrome has been discovered/invented. If the mother has any history of mental health problems, then god help her.
A mother may be overly anxious about her child's health, for various reasons, because of trauma at birth or PND or a number of things. She may be a bit of a hypochondriac herself, and go to the doctor with lumps [imagined or otherwise] here or there, and try the doctor's patience. Now, the mother may need some sort of help, but a mother who is overly anxious/hypochondriac is very different from a mother who is deliberately harming her child. I worry that doctors and SS cannot always see the difference. I do not think that medical practitioners really know what they are dealing with here, as M by P is a sort of umbrella term that can be used for a number of concerns, as it seems to me, is being done in Fran's case. I really don't think the SS or the medical profession have a clue about what they are dealing with here.

Elizabetth, I have no doubt that Meadows acted dubiously in some circumstances and the ethics of his actions can at times be seriously questioned.

I do however think that FII exists and that he did something useful in highlighting it's existence. I'm interested to know if you believe in FII at all and if not why not? Also if you do believe in it, or perhaps you could still consider it hypothetically if you don't, how do you think it should be recognised, eg after what signs and symptoms do you think doctors should consider the possibility of FII and how should they then act to protect the child?

These questions are not meant to reflect your views on the FL case particularly but on FII in a much wider context.

Elizabetth, I was quoting your own words

No I'm not WWW. I actually don't have any interest in this apart from the fact that I read up on what people like Meadow and David Southall were doing and was completely shocked.

I did not put an interpretation upon your statement, it is as it was written.

I repeat what I said earlier, no one on here knows the true facts of Fran's situation, which is what this thread is about.

I have in no way suggested that she is right or wrong, I do not know.

Please do not accuse me of flinging out accusations, that would be on a par with what is happening all around.

I admire your support for Fran and others in this area and I neither agree or disagree because I don't know the facts.

I do know the harm that can be caused to children and have been professionally involved with cause for concern issues, protection orders and other terrible situations, terrible for mothers, babies and the professionals involved.

The point I did try to make earlier regarding Meadows was alluding to doctors harming the child most!

Meadow has collected and presented a number of cases, noting from the outset that is was often the doctors who harmed the child most through their unnecessary tests and treatments.

Buyt Elisabeth, no one is saying that any of those symptoms (standing on their own) would be a reason to accuse anyone...it's just if many of those come together and another one may also be constant Doctor change (which is why it used to be easy ish to hide, I believe...but probably wouldn't work as well now)and there really isn't anything wrong, or the parent/carer has been seen giving their child somehting, etc....surely such thing can't be ignored...

as I say, I really have no opinion if Fran would be a danger or not, as I really do not know enough....however...it's going a bit far to completely dispute the possibility of this happening in other families....whatever you name it, when it happens the child is in danger and then action needs to be taken...simple as....but this is more my general line of thinking, nothing to do wiht this particular "case"