Malingering

Perhaps Nika was just basing what he was told as the source of credibility? At a young age, it might be hard to remember such incidents so its easier to base the experience off from word of mouth through others.
I mean after all, it doesn't change much of the fact that he has a visual impairment overall.
But in light of the various symptoms being explained through this thread, I'm beginning to understand the importance of identifying the exquisite detail of various medical diagnosis in detail.
 
Hear Again said:
that's what i don't understand. no offense to nika, but i don't. my medical records indicated that i was severely malnurished, but they didn't indicate when that took place.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with some illness... it's sometimes difficult to determine what caused it.

Some illnesses have accurate causes and some have multiple causes.

Also, when an illness happens... it could be caused by something that happened recently or something that happened a long time ago. For instance, I could become deaf one day because of something in my ears that stopped working. It probably happened when I got sick years ago and that sickness caused something in my ears to decay. The decay didn't cause my deafness until years later. With that, doctors can't determine the specific date when it happened... just that it might have happened that way. :dunno:
 
naisho said:
Perhaps Nika was just basing what he was told as the source of credibility? At a young age, it might be hard to remember such incidents so its easier to base the experience off from word of mouth through others.
I mean after all, it doesn't change much of the fact that he has a visual impairment overall.
But in light of the various symptoms being explained through this thread, I'm beginning to understand the importance of identifying the exquisite detail of various medical diagnosis in detail.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. I've had health problems from birth, myself. My medical record is quite extensive and admittedly, I don't remember every single thing. However, my parents do. Whenever I see a new Dr or have medical procedures done, I always bring my Mother with me so we can give as complete a history as we possibly can. Even if Nika doesn't remember everything, somebody has the info and he should have access to it.
 
VamPyroX said:
That's the problem with some illness... it's sometimes difficult to determine what caused it.

Some illnesses have accurate causes and some have multiple causes.

Also, when an illness happens... it could be caused by something that happened recently or something that happened a long time ago. For instance, I could become deaf one day because of something in my ears that stopped working. It probably happened when I got sick years ago and that sickness caused something in my ears to decay. The decay didn't cause my deafness until years later. With that, doctors can't determine the specific date when it happened... just that it might have happened that way. :dunno:
Click to expand...

if that's the case, nika can't indicate the exact cause of his blindness.

by the way, malnutrition isn't considered an illness.
 
naisho said:
I mean after all, it doesn't change much of the fact that he has a visual impairment overall.
Click to expand...

actually, yes it does. since nika experienced varying degrees of blindness, it's important for his doctors to understand the cause so they can take appropriate steps to control it if indeed that's possible. background history is *very* important when it comes to determining future treatment. if it wasn't, none of my opthalmologists would ask me the cause of my blindness even though i was born totally blind and have no hope of being able to see due to the fact that i have a retinal disease (retinopathy of prematurity).
 
Hear Again said:
actually, yes it does. since nika experienced varying degrees of blindness, it's important for his doctors to understand the cause so they can take appropriate steps to control it if indeed that's possible. background history is *very* important when it comes to determining future treatment. if it wasn't, none of my opthalmologists would ask me the cause of my blindness even though i was born totally blind and have no hope of being able to see due to the fact that i have a retinal disease (retinopathy of prematurity).
Click to expand...

Exactly. Etiology, or cause, very often determines treatment, but also red flags for other difficulties that might present at a later date. Sometimes, of course, etiology cannot be determined immediately, but can be assumed from a complete medical history.
 
eating disorder vs malingering... very easy answer "oh I'm so stressed I can't eat!" = malingering=looking for attention.
If you really have eating disorder, you try anything to hide it. I know, I been there.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Etiology, or cause, very often determines treatment, but also red flags for other difficulties that might present at a later date. Sometimes, of course, etiology cannot be determined immediately, but can be assumed from a complete medical history.
Click to expand...

that's right. if etiology weren't important, doctors wouldn't see the need to keep medical records.
 
mandy said:
eating disorder vs malingering... very easy answer "oh I'm so stressed I can't eat!" = malingering=looking for attention.
If you really have eating disorder, you try anything to hide it. I know, I been there.
Click to expand...

That's right, Mandy. So have I. You would be SURPRISED at how many people wish they were anorexic. It's sick. :roll:
 
Sorry I did not clarify that properly,
Yes I understand the need to have detailed information about blindness in technical reference form. Believe me. It's just like hearing as we all know. Our hearing problems attributed to each and every one of us differ from another. That is, if you suffer from one. Of course, if I was a MD, putting myself in the shoe of one, I would advocate for clear concise background information in the best format possible in regards to my client or patient...

But that's not what I was getting at in terms of what I was speaking earlier - was stating Nika might be addressing his experience based on another person's, but it does not change the fact that he is visually impaired at this moment in time. I did not imply what kind of blindness, just that it is a blindness in general, as in not getting into the technical specifics. I mean.. he does have a visual impairment, am I right? Or am I missing something here in regards to the definition of malingering?

I do understand conciseness of having to be clear and concise on the details, as I stated above. No need for further corrections on this, or I'll feel like I'm getting overtly corrected for something I already knew.

I'll stay out of this should it seem that these further comments are warranted as unwelcome.
 
Last edited:
Oceanbreeze said:
I don't buy it. I've had health problems from birth, myself. My medical record is quite extensive and admittedly, I don't remember every single thing. However, my parents do. Whenever I see a new Dr or have medical procedures done, I always bring my Mother with me so we can give as complete a history as we possibly can. Even if Nika doesn't remember everything, somebody has the info and he should have access to it.
Click to expand...

Neither I, nor my mother, remember Every Single Thing, and I know quite a bit more than she does in the past few years (and gd knows it's a quite extensive list of things) but I do keep copies of all my records from birth to consult to, save for a few that were not aqiured for some reason, were lost, ect. Anyone with any medical condition should know this drill- you are, after your GP, the central information keeper of all your care being managed by specialists, both now and in the past.

I might not remember the details (all tests performed, especially at a young age, or specific results like "130mg/dl on x back in 03/01/2001" or whatever), but pretty much anyone, especially an adult, will know their diagnosis, the cause(s), treatment, so on.

This is fairly normal.

I've had quite a few people, disturbingly, that I've encountered and it seemed very much like they were 'faking blind'-- one of the most obvious red flags for me is when someone said something along the lines of "I'm going blind, I have a family history, all the men in my family went blind by x age" but they were not able to identify the disease name and said that although they were born legally blind (how can you be going blind when you're already blind? You can lose more sight...) they are not seeing an ophthalmologist, do not know their diagnosis, so on. HUGE red flags all around.

On the flip side, I do not take having an extensive knowledge of one's disease to be a 'flag', especially with disabling conditions. I think many of us arm ourselves with up to date information and can scare off pros with our 'unacceptable' levels of understanding.. unfortunately, the relatively clueless patient, or worse, the one who hit WebMD is the standard...
----

Either way, I don't think it's OK to accuse people unless you're absolutely willing to call them out as a liar.

I had a neuro-ophthalmologist tell me that I could see more than I said I said I could see, and this person made my parents think the same thing (that I was 'faking/imagining' my vision being as bad as it was... despite having a diagnosis proven by several objective tests...) and it was a very distressing time where I felt like I was being accused by a lot of people when I knew I was telling the truth. I didn't see her again and saw another doctor who in the first appointment told me she believed me which relieved a lot of the stress and anger, but the time in between that was not great all the same, and people still kept pulling the "but that doctor said.." card some time later.

Mine was a very short period of time, but some people might go years being not believed, perhaps even a lifetime... and I don't want to, unless it's absolutely obvious that the person is lying, not believe someone when they say something is wrong, for the chance that they might be telling the truth.
 
Nika said:
Not always.

Okay, here is where I am getting confused. Please note the text in red.

Yes that is true you can see into the eye during a cycloplegic exam. First off, my eye doctor did not do a cycloplegic exam every time, which contributed to him missing many of my eye problems. It is very easy to see a damaged optic nerve--during a cycloplegic exam. Without it, the irises constrict too much and you cannot get a very clear image into the eye. A lot of my eye problems are also in the brain--my occipital cortex has a hard time interpreting what information I receive. This is treated by a neurologist, not an optometrist, nor an opthomologist.
Because I was born blind (light perception) due to severe malnourishment in the orphanage, If the malnourishment occurred in the ophanage it couldn't possibly be congenital. my retinas were not fully developed and I didn't have those crucial years for my brain to learn to fully interpret visual information. When I was adopted and my diet changed completely, I gained a lot of vision, but I still could only see light and colors. I had other eye problems such as accommodation insufficiency, This is the inability of the eye to properly focus on an object, is actually quite common in infancy and childhood, and is very easily observed and diagnosed. It doesn't require any specialized testing or equipment.exotropia,This is the tendency of the eyes to deviate outwards, and is a form of strabismus. Again, easily observed and diagnosed, as well as treated with visual exercises incyclophoria This is a tendency of the eyes to drift inwards again, easily noticeable and easily diagnosed--all eye problems that are only noticeable upon close examination.All of the problems you have cited are really quite common, especially in childhood, and easily diagnosed. The eye problems I just mentioned are routinely checked only by behavioral optometrists (vision therapists), not ophthalmologists (eye surgeons). That is not true at all.Another problem lay in the fact I was going to an ophthalmologist, who was not trained to look for certain eye problems. Opthamologists are highly trained medical doctors, and receive far more intensive training that does an optometrist, who is not a medical doctor. Opthamologists are trained to treat all diseases of the eye, and receive specalized training over and above general medical training.My eye doctor, along with my parents, also directly denied my complaints. If you had the vision problems you have stated above, it would be very difficult to deny what is obvious. A child whose eyes drift inward is easily recognizable, and a child whose eyes drift outward is easily recognizable, although you have been very unclear as to which it actually was, claiming to do both As a result of their being so convinced of my malingering, they missed a lot of obvious signs.It would appear that they picked up on some very obvious signs.gns. When my ophthalmologist finally realized this whole time he had ignored my eye problems, they were a lot more progressed. With surgery and two years of intensive vision therapy (where I went to a behavior optometrist one hour four times a week with exercises every day) I was able to improve my vision to a point that I could read large print with very strong reading glasses. However, even my behavioral optometrist has failed me. He did not give me the tonometry test (airpuff test) to test my intraocular pressure.rogressed much farther than it would have, had they caught it earlier--go figure.
Behavioral optometrists do not do this test. In fact, they don't test for diagnosis. They offer behavioral therapy to treat a condition already diagnosed.
Another thing to keep in mind is that doctors are human too. They mess up too.
Click to expand...


Yes, they do make mistakes. It would appear that you have run into every single incompetent in the U.S. given the number of times you have been misdiagnosed and underdiagnosed, and told that you were simply malingering.

So perhaps you can now see why some of us are so confused about your posts.
 
when i saw my current psychiatrist i really needed to be careful as to how much knowledge i shared with him about bipolar because i was afraid he'd suspect me of malingering even though 2 previous psychiatrists already diagnosed me with the disorder. when he told me i had atypical bipolar I disorder and said it was more severe than bipolar II, i knew this was true, but pretended as if i didn't because i didn't want him to think i knew about as much as he did. well, as it turned out, he "caught" me anyways and ended up complimenting me on the "amazing level of insight" (his words) that i had. he also said that insightful patients were some of the best to treat since they have more of an understanding about their illness and take therapy, psychiatric appointments and med-compliance seriously.
 
So would a person that frequently malingers be mentally ill in some sort?

For someone to go so far to seek attention or look for excuses doesn't seem too stable. So my question is what help do malingerers get?
 
jillio said:
In that case, you should be seeing a neurologist and not an opthamologist. The opthamologist didn't miss it, he wasn't the doctor to diagnose it.
Click to expand...

Neuro-ophthalmologist, jillio. And yes I've been to one.
 
Babyblue said:
So would a person that frequently malingers be mentally ill in some sort?

For someone to go so far to seek attention or look for excuses doesn't seem too stable. So my question is what help do malingerers get?
Click to expand...

To me, well, since it mostly seems to be a disorder pertaining to a personality issue, it would relate to either of/or both psychological and neurological background, as it has to do with specifics in either department.

It could be completely psychological, therefore looking into a shrink or something as simple as that,
but if it's due to a neurological disorder.. regarding fixing the brain, I don't have any background to say, probably jillio would be more credited to reply in this, and I think lobotomies were banned a long time ago.
 
I think Hear Again has an excellent idea. I don't wish to discuss my medical problems if I'm only going to be interrogated with the assumption in mind that I'm malingering.

I only had the experience of being misdiagnosed in the eye field, and that is because the combination of eye problems I have is highly unusual and many doctors go in looking for one thing and as a result miss other symptoms.

In any other field (psychiatry, some other conditions I'd rather not disclose) I have been luck to not have been misdiagnosed or left undiagnosed.
 
People that fake illnesses obviously have issues!

I'm not speaking of calling in work claiming you are sick or getting out of active duty.

I'm speaking of the ones that frequently do it for attention. It is obvious that the person may have some sort of mental illness. It may not be the illness they claim to have. Got to be an underlying cause of a person going to extreme of wanting to be sick.
 
Back
Top