Talk:Factitious disorder imposed on another

Confusion regarding phrasing of who 'has' MSbP/FII
I've found that there are a few different ways phrasing methods used to connect MSbP/FII to the people involved, and not only are they inconsistent, some of them can seem like they are trying to excuse the behavior. Specifically, the problem is with phrasing along the lines of someone 'having' or 'suffering from' MSbP. The confusion seems to come from the question of which party involved is the one that 'has' MSbP, or if it's even proper at all to say that that MSbP is something that someone can 'have' at all. I've seen three distinct methods of phrasing used: that the 'caregiver' has MSbP, that the person in the caregiver's care has MSbP, or that MSbP is simply a 'behavior'. In my own thinking, the latter would be the best one to use. The first, while accurate in a sense, often sounds like an attempt to excuse the behavior, and the second isn't accurate at all - the person in whom an illness is fabricated is suffering from abuse, no more or less. - Pacula 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed major POV
There was a paragraph in the topic heading that was very strongly anti-religious, accusing religious clergy of FII using weasel words like "some." It was sourced, but on a closer look, the sources had NOTHING to do with that paragraphy, and in no way mentioned religion, clergy, or Christianity. I removed the POV, and am very dissapointed that noone has done so before.--Doom777 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed
After reading a newspaper article this morning, I thought I would look into the subject matter, and, as a wikipedian, the first place I turned to was here... ZOMG! To bring this article anywhere near a half-decent standard is going to take some work. In the first instance I have flagged it up with template messages, and I will now read through similar articles we have about medical conditions - particularly potentially discredited ones - and see how they are approached. This is quite a controversial subject and one of the thrusts of future edits should be to ensure WP:POV and also WP:V. Devious Viper 12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should either be heavily edited or deleted. The bulk of it makes no sense. Avocats (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes no sense to whom? You? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Move to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy please
"Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy" is in far more common use than "Fabricated or Induced Illness", plus the latter phrase can also refer to fabricated or induced illnesses in general. Compare Google searches or look in medical dictionaries. --62.251.90.73 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You could suggest that the page be renamed if you think that name is more accurate. Joie de Vivre 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which if either are in DSM? --M a s 13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As the person who originally split this page off from the Munchausen Syndrome article, I do understand the arguements for naming this page MSbP rather than FII - it was a tough call to make. However, from what I could discover, MSbP was never any kind of official name, but rather simply what Dr. Meadow had called the phenomenon. FII was the first and only "official" name that it was given that I could find. Even though MSbP is the more known name by far, it still seems more appropriate to put this article under the more formal name. - Pacula 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is called Münchhausen, with an ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.170.64 (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is also spelled with a double 'H', being a compound: Münch-hausen (i.e. not Münc-hausen, or Münch-ausen).

I think it's problematic that this page contains the term "fictitious" when in fact the illness is sometimes induced on purpose. It's not always about faking an illness. Damien.Otis.x (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The words factitious is spelled with an "a". The article says this:
 * "In DSM-5, the diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, this disorder is listed under 300.19 Factitious disorder. This, in turn, encompasses two types:
 * Factitious disorder imposed on self (formerly Munchausen syndrome).
 * Factitious disorder imposed on another (formerly Munchausen syndrome by proxy); diagnosis assigned to the perpetrator; the person affected may be assigned an abuse diagnosis (e.g. child abuse).".
 * -- Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For further clarity, fictitious comes from the Latin fictus (false or counterfeit) while factitious is from the Latin facere (the act of creating). Also, it's definitely spelled Munchausen. --Equivamp - talk 23:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Should there be a split into two types of FII?
Type 1: FII which is induced for reasons of glory, fame, attention, to play god, or similar. Where someone makes some else ill so they can benefit from it (e.g.: as a careworker treating a patient, or as a parent getting in the papers, or benefiting through fundraising).

Type 2: FII which is induced based on an unshakable "faith" or "belief" that the victim IS ill and MUST be treated, or possibly a belief that the victim is "supposed" to be ill, that there is something wrong with them, even when there isn't. The inducer is somehow unable to understand that there is truly nothing wrong with the child, and that under normal circumstances, the child is well, not ill. They seem to want to make their child better, somehow not fully comprehending that the child would have to become ill first before this is possible (you cannot become more well than healthy, you have to "become ill" before you can "get better"). At the same time as not comprehending, and wanting the child to get BETTER, they seem to take actions ENSURING that the child becomes ILL. In this case, fame, money, attention, seem less important - they WANT the child to be treated, and that is all that matters.

Any thoughts?--Athcnv 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for commenting. We should not make such a split unless there is medical documentation of two types.  Wikipedia's purpose is to document existing, verifiable knowledge, not to publish new theories (per WP:No original research and WP:V).  Do you have documentation of medical knowledge regarding two types?  Joie de Vivre 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of there being any medical documentation which mentions 2 specific types. I just got the impression from the article that there could be 2 distinct groups of reasons - greed and "belief". --Athcnv 14:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Well said, Athcnv. I might add: within type 2 can be a caregiver seeking confirmation of being a good caregiver by seeking out help for their charge, who might not be in the position to seek out help, even if he/she needs it (small child, senior, pet). Seeking out help for conditions "diagnosed" by the caregiver may also be an attempt to mask a condition that does exist but is difficult to diagnose. Helenetoile (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Helene


 * Yeah, sure, I realize the following will be quite anecdotal, but the proposed Type 2 certainly exists, as I have unfortunately grown up a victim thereof. Nearly all my childhood memories revolve around doctors, hospitals, or meds. My dear old mum once browbeat a doc into planning to hospitalize yours truly, then aged 5, for a YEAR, in a bloody FULL-BODY CAST, because I would apparently otherwise never grow properly (however, I'm a muscular broad-shouldered built 189 cm at age 24 today). That incident occurred after prolonged doctor shopping of maybe a dozen different physicians. My grandfather fortunately rescued me from said hospitalization, by bullying my father into confronting my mother and making her back off. However, that was nowhere near the end of it. Over the course of my childhood and adolescence, I've had surgically removed a hernia that almost certainly was not there, and been subjected to 9 months of daily antibiotics for tuberculosis undetectiblisis, to be continued for another year or so if my grandfather hadn't again bullied all parties involved to reason. Btw, this time, 10 yo me was implicitly instructed to not talk to grandpa, a pharmaceutical executive (!) no less, about the pills I was taking daily, and to dodge any questions that he might have. Furthermore, I was later often treated with antibiotics for anything whatsoever, and given optional immunizations to everything under the sun, including illnesses never seen on any continent I would be expected to ever visit. That course of antibiotic treatment is still messing with my gut flora and immunity over a dozen years later: ever since, I've had persistent dandruff, any old opportunistic fungus sticks to me like to a terminal AIDS patient, and my gastrointestinal system is about as predictable and reliable as a Soviet automobile. In later adolescence, I was constantly treated for asthma, which miraculously resolved itself the very day I moved out to go to college at age 17, and predictably hasn't reared its head since. Thinking about it, I realize the MSbP has even affected me in my adult years, with mum convincing me to have an unnecessary deviated septum surgery at 22, under the rationale that I wouldn't be covered by the parents' medical insurance for much longer. Failed attempts included trying to persuade me to have a circumcision at an adult age, persistent nagging about using the services of a full-time nurse employed by my ailing grandmother to make me injections of vitamins, nootropes, and myriad other beneficial compounds that yours truly apparently wasn't expected to live without, and constant bullying to go see a shrink about something or other (suggested problems and issues varied greatly with time). Ever since I've told her off, my father seems to have been undergoing a surprising amount of invasive testing procedures (transference, perhaps?). Also, don't know if this might be of any help, but dear mum's medicine cabinet is ALWAYS stocked with the entire top20 list of prescription meds in the US *and* loads of Russian prescriptions that she definitely hasn't been prescribed for lack of seeing a single doctor in Russia in the last 15 years. That's including stuff she has never, ever taken, even (legitimately acquired) prescription narcotics despite never having had any surgery or condition, most of which she acquired by bullshitting her meek and terrified little Japanese physician, and which she keeps on hand for "just in case". Oh, and why Type 2? Because I am beyond certain that the old bat believes in all her crap, religiously so. Sure, she's manipulative as hell, but she only ever manages to get herself worked up and go into crusade mode when she has a cause, and she's pathetic at lying unless she honestly believes it to be for the greater good. HOPE THIS ACCOUNT HELPS SOMEONE. Aadieu (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS about the "making subject ill so that he can be made well again": come to think of it, I recall being obsessively walked as a small child during winter, even despite a tanked system with constant colds and ear infections, AT LEAST 4 HOURS PER DAY IN -25 CELSIUS CONDITIONS, to the point that she had to cover my face with a thick layer of goose fat salve preparation to keep me from suffering severe symptoms of exposure. Mum rationalized it aggressively as good for the immune system, citing some rearing children manual never read by anyone, and supposedly written by a California doc (who almost certainly never, ever saw snow except on skiing trips). Aadieu (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

L.A. Law episode
There was an episode of the tv show L.A. Law where MSbP was a plot element, but I don't know the year or episode title. If anyone can find it, it should be added to the "popular culture" section. Also perhaps add a reference to this article from MSN Entertainment. It gives the "Worst Medical Overkill" award to the use of Munchausen Syndrome and MSbP in various medical dramas. --Mathew5000 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
over???
 * No. The article is flatly wrong: "It was subsequently shown that once other factors (e.g. genetic or environmental) were taken into consideration, the true odds were much greater, i.e., there was a significantly higher likelihood of two deaths happening as a chance occurrence than Meadow had claimed during the trial. Those odds in fact range from a low of 1:8500 to as high as 1:200." The cited article mentions this number, but they are misrepresented in the article. The 1:8500-1:200 range is indeed the probability os SIDS for ONE child, depending on risk factors. In the absence of risk factors, 1:8500. This is PRECISELY the figure Meadow used, by squaring it, to get 1:73millions. The wording, pretending to debunk Meadow's use os statistics (it's indeed wrong...) is doing an even much worse probabilistic error than Meadow did. As I am a proponent of the MBP label, I won't modify the article (at least not now), but would rather some opponent of the MBP label do it. By courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyske Tanjong (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Although the court case is an interesting read- the controversy insuated in the first paragraph and the cases themselves don't directly tie into the subject (at least the way this paragraph is written). This is information directly related to Roy Meadow himself almost outside the context of Fabricated or Induced Illness. Great information on Meadow, but I learned nothing of "Fabricated or Induced Illness" from it.

NPOV in intro
I have changed this:

''In FII a caregiver, usually a parent, guardian, or spouse, feigns or induces an illness in another person, usually a vulnerable child or adult, to gain power and control over the victim as well as attention or sympathy from others. Although cases with feigned or induced physical illness receive the most attention, it is also possible for a perpetrator who emotionally abuses a victim to simulate and fabricate conditions that appear to be psychiatric and/or genetic problems. Health professionals can also be guilty of intentionally or unintentionally inducing or creating the illusion of illness. An iatrogenic condition is defined as a state of ill health induced by medical treatment. 'Iatrogenic' literally means "caused by a doctor", although such conditions can be the result of malpractice perpetrated by therapists, nurses, pharmacists, or other caregivers as well.''

... to this:

''In FII a caregiver, usually a parent, guardian, or spouse, feigns or induces an illness in another person, usually a vulnerable child or adult, to gain power and control over the victim as well as attention or sympathy from others. Although cases with feigned or induced physical illness receive the most attention, it is also possible for a perpetrator who emotionally abuses a victim to simulate and fabricate conditions that appear to be psychiatric and/or genetic problems.''

The explanation of iatrogeny belongs in an article about that topic, not factitious disorder by proxy. Also, there is no source backing the statements about iatrogenic factitious disorder by proxy. When physicians obey some patients with extreme desires - such as treating them for cancer when they have none - they can get sued (under Forensic implications). Ante lan  talk  01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a duplicate article- not needed
People will not search for this term, and it's all already here under the correct terms Malingering and Munchausen syndrome, terms to which most of the sources here refer in their titles.Merkinsmum 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is a duplication of Factitious disorders, but not of Munchausen. There many more distinct diseases; Morgellons (delusional parasitosis) is making the news these days, but there is also malingering, neurodermatitis and more. I suggest these two pages are fused into one which would be reduced to a list of wikilinks to individual diseases. In other words, the article would be converted to a category. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oups, the Category:Factitious disorders already exist! Emmanuelm (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

move/rename Munchie's S by P
Oh I've thought about it some more- if as the lead says this is about Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy why is that a redirect to here rather than this being there, when that is a term for which people might actually search?Merkinsmum 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The act is verifiable while the the motive often is not
The previous article somewhat seems to imply that fact that some children are harmed, by default, prove MSbP. This is grossly inaccurate claim. I believe my edit made clear where the controversy is. 130.88.25.181 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

response to wiki's request to "clarify" just above the table of contents
I understand this as: the perpetrator can lie to or about the victim to people on the outside and/or "push the victim's buttons" to draw out a reaction that, taken out of context, may be seen as psychotic. By later exaggerating the reaction, inventing it, or lying about the circumstances, the perpetrator can make the victim seem to be psychotic. Helenetoile (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Helene

Munchausen syndrome by proxy: pet -- Factitious?
Why does this article say that Munchausen syndrome by proxy: pet is a factitious disorder? If it's factitious, why is described in medical literature?

"The medical literature includes a number of descriptions of a subset of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP) caretakers, whose cases are labeled Munchausen syndrome by proxy: pet (MSbP:P). This is a factitious disorder..." Gingerwiki (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because a Factitious disorder is not a fictitious disorder. Paul B (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In Media: Sixth Sense
Some time ago I added the reference to the film, The Sixth Sense. In this, I included the sentence: "Even in the girl's death, the mother is seen embracing the attention given to her at the girl's funeral reception. The mother is even wearing a bright red dress for the occasion." For some reason, this was removed and in its place was added "As a result, the boy is able to save the life of the ghost's sister, who otherwise would have also fallen victim to the mother."

I have corrected this again, by removing the plot line about the girl's sister (which has less to do with MSBP and more to do about the plot of the film) and re-instated the bit about the red dress, which is very illustrative about (Hollywood's depiction of / common perception of) the disease. If one were to change this again, please explain (here) why the changes are helpful. Thanks!

Mkoistinen (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In Media: Night Listener
I'd like to mention [| Night Listener] but I wasn't sure how to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.31.129 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Define FII
The current version uses the acronym FII quite a bit but it is not clearly defined. I would fix this but I have no real knowledge of this subject. Joshua Davis (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what the hell is FII? --75.25.116.135 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, from looking at the history, FII stands for "Ficticious or Induced Illness", but it STILL needs a clear definition and listing of who came up with the term and who tends to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSinjin (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It stands for "fabricated or induced illness". Its used in the UK rather than "Munchausens syndrome by proxy" which rather fell out of use, particularly around the time of Meadows demise. Also occasionally called fabricated or induced illness "syndrome" (pronounced "fizz") which may be a hangover from MBP "syndrome". It would be better if this article were called FII although in popular literature/media, MSBP is probably better known. Fainites barley scribs 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose merge of Münchausen by Internet
I propose the article Münchausen by Internet be merged with this parent article, based on the following: per the literature, with and  serving as two examples, I believe authors to consider Münchausen by Internet as yet another means to enact the original syndrome, but not specifically significant nor an entity as possibly indicated in the corresponding Wikipedia article. Given that, with additional reference to the way the subject is presented within the scope of MEDMOS, and a possible lack of noterity regarding the subject, I believe article Münchausen by Internet would be better served so merged. This was also suggested by me in a second failing GA review of the article. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. That article is not a variant of Münchausen by proxy, as there are no proxies involved. Neither would merging this with Münchausen syndrome make any sense, unless the nominator is suggesting that all of the Münchausen variants be merged into that article for some arbitrary reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Rcej presents two case reports (not meeting WP:MEDRS-- essentially, two authors' opinions, not worth anything in this debate). The article is notable, sourced, and should stand alone.  I've laid out other faulty logic in the above mentioned GA review; even if it were considered medically as two case reports allege, that still doesn't mean it isn't worthy of an article (see my examples on GA review).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Sources do not say that the MbI patterns are specifically related to Munchausen by proxy. Rather, they say that MbI is a manifestation of Factitious disorder expressed online. Furthermore, the internet-related issues about online identities and communities is extensive enough to be irrelevant to either Factitious disorder or Munchausen by proxy. This article deserves its own space. --Moni3 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - there is plenty of well-referenceed material in Münchausen by Internet for a stand-alone article. If it were to be merged anywhere, it should be Factitious disorder, not this page, as it is not specifically about using a proxy. What should happen is that a summary of the MbI article is put into the Factitious disorder article. Lady  of  Shalott  14:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In media: Antichrist
A huge element of the plot of Lars Von Trier's Antichrist revolves around a mother suffering Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. (She deliberately puts her child's shoes on the wrong feet, effectively mutilating the child over a long period of time).

I think at least a mention of this movie should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.199.220 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Separate section
WP:Lead. If there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. Hafspajen (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable Cases
An editor has added information on the Lacey Spears case, an ongoing criminal trial to which the defendant has entered a Not Guilty plea. The case is relevant to the article, but I have changed the language to include "allegedly." I could easily be convinced that the mention should be deleted entirely in keeping with WP:BLPCRIME - in any case we should be very careful about the language used when discussing an ongoing criminal trial. 192.5.215.215 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Münchausen by Internet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140201215847/http://www.aacn.org/WD/CETests/Media/C106.pdf to http://www.aacn.org/WD/CETests/Media/C106.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Diagnosis section & reference #7
The section on diagnosis includes references to an article on MSbP. In this medscape.com article, 14 different tests "may be considered," ranging from UA to MRI. In the wiki article, it says these tests "may be required." Because the diagnosis section relies entirely on another factitious disorder, it should be revised. The error is particularly egregious given the topic at hand; this misinformation could stand to reinforce pathological behavior patterns in a person with MS. While not always appropriate, many people inform themselves and do research on symptoms using Wikipedia, and this misleading section could urge them to think they genuinely need an expensive or invasive examination. 128.172.49.68 (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Name change
After extended debate, Munchausen syndrome now redirects to Factitious disorder, and Munchausen syndrome by proxy redirects to Factitious disorder imposed on another. Please do not revert without discussing here and at Factitious disorder. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the DSM, this would be the most accurate name for the topic, however, It would be better to restate it as Factitious disorder imposed on another with Munchhausen's syndrome by-proxy following it in some way. When I first looked into the topic, I did not make the connection to the two disorders, and feel a clearer explanation of the link would be helpful to those reading the article. Sarahkimes (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete "Signs and Symptoms" 'copy editing needed' template?
Is the template needed anymore? (See my edit described "prose edits" for the changes made.) Topper13009 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

✅ Did some minor copy edit (serial commas, hyphenated compound modifiers, MOS fixes) and removed the maintenance template. I feel the lead could be expanded a little. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture - Sharp Objects
I found this book to explain very well the aspects behind such type of personality. Perhaps it would merit a mention in the Popular culture section. There's a book, and there's also an HBO series based on the book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_Objects#Synopsis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.138.253 (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Refs needed for this
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Popular culture
Munchausen syndrome by proxy plays a key role in Gillian Flynn's 2006 debut novel, Sharp Objects, and its 2018 HBO TV miniseries adaptation.

"Munchausen by Proxy" is the name of the fictitious band played by Zooey Deschanel and real life band Von Iva in the 2008 movie Yes Man.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is central to the background of the main protagonist, Saga Norén (played by Sofia Helin), the lead homicide detective in Malmö, in the Danish/Swedish TV series The Bridge (2011). In the series, Saga's mother suffers from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, abusing Saga and her younger sister Jennifer, who commits suicide at age 14 due to the abuse. The consequences and long-term, wide-ranging effects of the condition on the victims are explored in depth, especially in the third and fourth (final) seasons.

In Episode 6, "A Man's Price", in the American television crime drama True Detective (2014), detective Rustin Cohle (played by Matthew McConaughey) confronts a woman in custody and questions her actions revolving around her child's recent death in her care, as evidence suggests her behavior is indicative of this disorder.

Madeline Whittier, the protagonist in the 2015 book Everything, Everything and its 2017 film adaptation, is a victim of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, her mother raising her to believe she suffers from severe combined immunodeficiency.

In Stephen King's 1986 novel It, the character of Eddie Kaspbrak's mother is strongly implied to have Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

The film The 9th Life of Louis Drax (2016) deals with the Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

The film The Sixth Sense depicts a mother pouring Pine Sol (a disinfecting agent) into her daughter's soup, poisoning her in order to keep her sick. This eventually results in the daughter's death as she succumbs to the illness her mother caused. Even after this, at the funeral it is mentioned that the younger sister is also beginning to get sick, implying the mother is repeating this process, before a tape proving her guilt is presented and she is confronted by her husband.

Wrong stat
I can't find any statistics that confirm the following: This variation possibly reflects broad statistics on survivors of child abuse in general, where around 30% go on to also become abusers[14]. The article linked to actually states that 35% of perpetrators have been sexually abused, not that 35% of victims go on to abuse. Delete?24.68.22.164 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)AG

nitpick on wording
in the diagnosis section it says “ Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a controversial term.“ maybe you could cite something or provide clarification, because the following lines make it just seem like the FDIA name is just a clearer/better name. nothing makes munchausen look controversial 69.174.157.99 (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations of Clinical Trauma Psychology Fall Quarter2022
— Assignment last updated by AlexJoMcDonough (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello all! I believe I am going to move the Warning Signs section under "Diagnosis" to the above section "Signs and Symptoms" & add the diagnostic criteria under "Diagnosis". Please let me know if you have any concerns about any of these changes or other suggestions!

Best, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexJoMcDonough (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

confusing sentence.
"Those affected by the disorder have been subjected to a form of physical abuse and medical neglect." Those affected by the disorder should be the person who has it, in which case the sentence is wrong or at least not supported by the linked article. If "those affected" means the vulnerable (dependent) who actually get injured, then it should be stated clearly. 142.163.195.3 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)