Justice For Families

VK Somani, a practititoner in the Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Princess Esra Hospital, Hyderabad, India made the association of the term "Witchcraft Syndrome" with MSBP. The terms seem interchangeable, particularly in countries where women can still be burnt-to-death for being witches;

http://in.news.yahoo.com/reuters_ids_new/20080530/r_t_rtrs_nl_general/tnl-villagers-burn-woman-accused-of-bein-223dd93_1.html

His 1998 paper was peer reviewed and accepted by academic journals and sites, but below is a longer extract;

A 28-year-old man presented to the Dermatology Outpatient Department with a complaint of a burning sensation and soreness over his left cheek and left ear of 10 days duration. It had started suddenly one morning when he woke up from sleep. He noticed a large blister with intense redness over his left cheek, associated with a burning sensation. There was a history of similar episodes over the past year, and all were sudden in onset, involved the cheeks, and were noticed after waking up from sleep. The patient volunteered that the episodes were always associated with a drinking spree the previous night. The individual was a healthy man with a wife and two children. The patient had been dependent on alcohol for the past year, and had been consuming alcohol for many years. On examination, there was an eschar occupying almost the entire cheek, with a few scattered lesions over the left tragus and left external ear. Peripheral scarring was noted with hyperpigmentation. While the angle of the mouth was superficially involved on the left side, the oral mucosa was normal. The right cheek also showed a few areas of scarring with patches of alopecia. There were no similar lesions elsewhere on the body. The peculiar history and the morphology of the lesion, that defied any classical diagnosis description, prompted us to interrogate both the man and his wife with regard to any serious differences. After much persuasion and on assurance of secrecy, the wife admitted that her husband was an alcoholic and was neglecting his family. When her efforts to prevent his drinking failed, she resorted to this drastic measure. Each time he passed out after a drinking bout, she poured acid on his cheek, hoping that the sequelae would frighten him from drinking. The acid was readily available to her as she used it for domestic cleaning. The couple were sent for psychiatric evaluation as Munchausen's syndrome by proxy (MSBP) or witchcraft's syndrome (WS) was suspected. Detailed psychiatric evaluation, together with psychometric assessment, revealed that the patient had an alcohol dependence (Axis-I diagnosis) and had a cyclothymic personality. Severe marital discord due to alcohol dependence had been present for the past 2 years. Evaluation of the patient's wife revealed that she was under significant psychologic distress. She showed major depressive symptoms with a histrionic personality. She revealed that she had resorted to using the corrosive out of frustration and anger over the behavior of the patient while he was in an inebriated state. The couple are currently undergoing psychiatric treatment.

I had trouble with this at the start, but it does infer that MSBP, is well, Medieval in concept, so it's good. I get annoyed that the SS are allowed to hide behind Linguistics, if MSBP is banned, we'll rebadge it FI. This annoys me, as it's going to the core of the mischief, and the mischief is MSBP, whatever it may be called next week.

So WS sounds good to me, after some thought on it.

I've always believed that people should say what they mean. MSBP allegations are almost exclusively made against women. Yet a huge number of mothers of autistic or Aspergers children have been accused of causing their child's symptoms - in effect in using a method of alleged abuse that scientists have been unable to fathom. So the Secret Courts have resorted to a crank science theory to cover when science can't easily explain a condition.

As MSBP allegations require the use of "profiles" I've found (as have others) that many elements of these profiles are lifted from witch-finding courts of the past. As in the case of P,C &A an LA can use any number of profiles, even if they conflict with one another-in an effort to prove MSBP. Rochdale LA (no stranger to accusing women of being witches) used 4 profiles in this famous case. One profile might state that a mother who shows concern for a poorly child's treatment is MSBP whilst another profile will state that a woman who shows no concern is MSBP. This "ducking stool" analogy is too obvious to ignore; MSBP's relationship with witchcraft allegations is too deep seated and IMHO I think it is right that this pseudo science concept be given the moniker that better suits it's heritage.

Hum,

4 votes in total hardly constitutes a consensus, and one of those votes (25%) was in favour of keeping the current naming of MSBP.

On a personal basis the term "Witchcraft Syndrome" seems to be appropriate for the somewhat complex and myried terms used to describe what we used to know as MSBP, but which "experts" prefer to be known by any other name.

The correlation is faily clear, particularly in the use of MSBP/FII allegations against women whose children suffer autism/Aspergers/ADHD; a popular thread amongst many fundamentalists - including fundamentalist psychiatrists is that such conditions may be caused by "demonic possession" caused principally by the woman - i.e. the woman is a witch who has exposed the child to DP.

As it is tough to accuse a woman of witchcraft in even a Secret Court in England and Wales, the alternate strategy seemingly being employed is to initially deny that the child has any autism spectrum condition, and that the womans concerns are being caused by her having MSBP and therefore unnecessarily having the child exposed to medical practitioners, or that she is actually - through an undocumented and non-peer-reviewed unknown process, causing the child's symptoms - that just happen to look surprisingly like something on the autistic spectrum.

What isn't scientific falls into the category of either "crank"/"quack" science, or mythology/religious conviction. MSBP is unable to comply with the Daubert or Frye standards of scientific evidence in most US courts, and thus tends to either the crank or mythological/conviction side. For sure the theory is valid; abusers do indeed administer noxious substances, and even sometimes cause a child to be ill - however determining that many recognised conditions are caused by MSBP through an unknown mechanism inflicted on the child by a woman takes MSBP beyond the original observations by Sir Meadow and indeed its very concept.

For autism specifically there exists four known responses;

1. Statement the child and provide necessary support and assistance through State provision.

2. Determine that the woman has caused the symptoms through MSBP/FII and forcefully remove the child through a Secret Court hearing. This involves in essence medical staff, social workers and Secret Court judges denying that the child has an autism spectrum condition and that a woman has somehow caused the childs symptoms using a mechanism as yet unknown to science or that no symptoms exist and the child is otherwise perfectly fine but at risk from the woman.

3. Determine that the symptoms are the cause of demonic posession and requires an exorcism by a suitably qualified priest.

4. Determine that the woman is a witch who has placed the child under a spell and the child must be removed at the first opportunity.

Responses 1 & 2 fall within the aegis of the normal range of responses by authorities. I would suggest that certainly within the sphere of autistic spectra, response 2, 3 and 4 can be safely associated together. Response 2 (MSBP) and 4 (witchcraft) can be safely assumed to be the same - but as accusing a woman of witchcraft is not (generally) allowed in English and Welsh Secret Courts at present, I think that it is safe to assume that MSBP allegations are "symbolically-linked" to witchcraft allegations in cases where no scientific analysis subject to peer-review has been performed.

In effect the term "witch" has been replaced with the term "MSBP" or any of its alternate monikers. How is that conclusion reached? Well simple - witchcraft has no scientific basis and as many allegations of MSBP have no scientific basis. It is apparently sufficient in English and Welsh Secret Courts to simply use the term "MSBP" rather than having to actually validate or prove the mechanism being apparently inflicted on a child. Therefore MSBP/FII passes into usage that can only be described as the supernatural; it assumes women are capable of producing conditions and events that cannot be scientifically-explained - which I contend equates to witchcraft. Of course many could argue that no mechanism is being suggested, that women are simply subjecting their children to unnecessary medical testing for conditions that do not exist. However MSBP allegations are also employed in the majority of cases when symptoms are seen, or, even more pertinently, when no symptoms exist, or a child doesn't yet exist - i.e. when "experts" are called upopn to determine that a woman has a propensity to MSBP - although such a diagnosis has no peer-reviewed scientific basis and is perhaps closer to divination in its origins.

As the Secret Courts invariably do not encourage peer-review scientific evidence (because of the implied secrecy) MSBP, which is not allowable in criminal prosecutions in English and Welsh courts, has been relegated to Secret Court-use only. Here it thrives, bolstered by other "quack" theories that wouldn't survive ten minutes in a criminal court, and encouraged by Secret Court judges who allow pet theories to survive and proper within a secret judiciary.

The replacement of the term MSBP with "Witchcraft Syndrome" is I believe, an obvious step - reflecting the true usage of the allegation against women, and reflecting it's historical parantage.

MSBP IS MEDIEVAL IN CONCEPT with its direction without rational basis against women who have "done things by their influence" to their kids.