Canine Munchausen's by Proxy - Page 2

Additionally, most also resist or refuse any therapy.

For as much as any practitioner will cringe at the idea of being sucked into such a malignant client-clinician vortex, it is also readily apparent that there are problems with both the definition of this condition and its diagnosis. Obviously, even if veterinarians suspected a client of such deception, few have the wherewithal to orchestrate hidden camera monitoring. Even if they did, the legal implications of this could be quite complex. Furthermore, one insinuation, let alone accusation, that a client might be deliberately undermining his/her animal’s well-being could destroy a practitioner’s reputation. Even in the case where the clinician feels reasonably certain that the client is actually abusing an animal in this way, barring the existence of concrete evidence, it makes sense to seek legal advice before making any accusations. Also, MBP should not be used as a diagnostic dumping ground for all patients that never get better. Currently, there is no shortage of chronic, immune-mediated problems in animals, the signs of which will wax and wane in spite of the most conscientious treatment by the most truthful and truly dedicated client.

Given the small amount of information regarding this form of abuse in children and the even lesser amount regarding it in veterinary practice, as well as the confusion generated by all those legitimate chronic and recurring problems, prevention once again should be the focus. In spite of its rareness, MBP serves as a valid reminder of the need to maintain balance in all client interactions and relationships. Surely nobody questions that a supportive veterinarian and veterinary staff are crucial to owner compliance and animal recovery. However, that support should reflect a professional standard to which all clients and animals are entitled.

Does this mean that strict objectivity must be maintained when interacting with clients? Not at all. Nobody wants his/her animal treated by a “robodoc.” Although Dr. Haggarty might turn off any potential Ms. Safers with such a cool, detached demeanor, she runs the risk of alienating a much larger population of quality clients.

On the other hand, most people do want their animal treated by someone they perceive as a professional, so that elusive quality known as professionalism, and the equally elusive presence that goes with it, is the best protection practitioners can have from a whole host of problematic client-animal interactions. Unfortunately, some practitioners mistakenly believe that professionalism simply reflects a certain scientific and medical competency and ignore the powerful role that presence plays in the process. This is understandable because, although most people recognize when another person has presence, they can’t define exactly what it is. It is also sometimes especially difficult for new practitioners to summon it, because presence is also a function of experiences, both good and bad.

However, while specific definitions of presence may evade us, 2 qualities exist in those who have it. The first is that these practitioners generate an aura of genuine caring for their patients and clients. The second is that they simultaneously also create just enough space between themselves and the animal and client to maintain their integrity and objectivity under the most emotionally challenging and seductive cir