Malingering

Bottesini said:
On the subject of an eye doctor being unable to diagnose a problem for seven years, how could that happen?

Eyes are pretty easy to see what is wrong. My doctor can see exactly the scar on the macula in my right eye just by dilating the eye and looking in.

What was missed for seven years and how possible?
Click to expand...

i'm wondering the same thing. (no offense to nika. i'm just curious.)
 
dreama said:
Things that are not true are said everywhere. Including books. I like Wilko as it gives what seems to me to be a non biased opinion. This is hard to find in this day and age.

Although totally unbiased opinion is impossible. Everyone is biased. Just more sources are more biased then others.
Click to expand...

yes, but the difference is that legitimate websites back up their information with sources. wiki doesn't.
 
typeingtornado19 said:
There is a lot of trouble with people putting thinks on wiki that arent true, and dont have good backing.
Click to expand...

exactly.

in fact, if you read some articles on wiki, you'll see notations that say certain pieces of information cannot be verified for accuracy.
 
Hear Again said:
exactly.

in fact, if you read some articles on wiki, you'll see notations that say certain pieces of information cannot be verified for accuracy.
Click to expand...

Well that would have been a good thing I would have thought? Shows they are trying to be honest and impartial.

Plus their is a list of credentuals on Wiki too.
 
dreama said:
Well that would have been a good thing I would have thought? Shows they are trying to be honest and impartial.

Plus their is a list of credentuals on Wiki too.
Click to expand...

no one regards wiki as a credible source. if you do, you're simply laughed at.

wiki is good for basic informational purposes, but not much else.

by the way, the resources cited in wiki are often severely outdated.
 
Hear Again said:
no one regards wiki as a credible source. if you do, you're simply laughed at.

wiki is good for basic informational purposes, but not much else.

by the way, the resources cited in wiki are often severely outdated.
Click to expand...

By whom?
 
dreama said:
By whom?
Click to expand...

professors, lawyers, doctors (unless you are using wiki for basic information to ask about a possible diagnosis), psychiatrists, social workers, journalists, financial advisors, anyone in the internet community, people on forums/message boards...

shall i go on?
 
jillio said:
In Munchausen's, the person actually does something to create real physical symptoms of illness.

In hypochondria, the person is not sick, but actually believes they are.

In malingering, the person knows that they do not have the illness, and they do nothing to create actual symptoms. They study up on the illness, and then fake their description of the symptoms.
Click to expand...

sounds like my neices boyfriend. ive always said hes a hypocondriac but with the definitions its clearly malingering. hes been to cardiologists and neurologists and a slew of other dr's and theyve never found anything. and once when he DID have his appendix removed he ended up sending everyone a pic afterwards of the thing right before they cut it out outside the incision saying "look at my damage before they removed it". ive been down there a few times and hes had a auto checking blood pressure cuff on his arm checking himself. and yes its for attention and its annoying as heck! :mad:
 
jillio said:
Yes, I have dealt with clients who were malingering, beginning with my internship in a MH clinic. Usually, the malingerers are the ones that have tried this treatment and that treatment, have gone through several therapists and pdocs, and claim that nothing helps and sx persist. They also will appear to be more sophisticated about the illness than the majority of patients would be, using a lot of technical jargon and quoting professional journals, but still not really have an in depth understanding. If they feel they are about to be exposed for their malingering, they will simply find a new tdoc and pdoc and start the process all over.
Click to expand...

jillio,

is a therapist or psychiatrist able to tell someone is a malingerer by looking at their past medical records? for example, if a person goes from therapist to therapist or psychiatrist to psychiatrist, is the new therapist and/or psychiatrist able to know this and identify them as a malingerer?
 
jillio said:
In Munchausen's, the person actually does something to create real physical symptoms of illness.

In hypochondria, the person is not sick, but actually believes they are.

In malingering, the person knows that they do not have the illness, and they do nothing to create actual symptoms. They study up on the illness, and then fake their description of the symptoms.
Click to expand...

i completely missed your post. :ty: for the explanation, jillio
 
how is a doctor able to tell that someone has munchausen's? by looking at the frequency of their doctor and/or ER visits? how do you differentiate between a person having true symptoms vs. someone who has munchausen's?
 
speaking of malingering, something i'm intrigued by is feigned psychosis. this is where someone pretends to experience auditory and/or visual hallucinations when in fact they are 100% aware of their surroundings.
 
Hear Again said:
how is a doctor able to tell that someone has munchausen's? by looking at the frequency of their doctor and/or ER visits? how do you differentiate between a person having true symptoms vs. someone who has munchausen's?
Click to expand...

my guess - a placebo test can be performed if doctor is suspicious of him/her.
 
one other question for you, jillio.

i understand that the sirs (structured interview of reported symptoms), m-fast (miller forensic assessment of symptoms test) and mmpi-2 (minnesota multiphasic personality inventory) are used to detect those who are feigning psychosis or mental illness. are there any other diagnostic tools used to identify malingerers?
 
dreama said:
That's just your point of view.
Click to expand...

typeingtornado19 said:
There is a lot of trouble with people putting thinks on wiki that arent true, and dont have good backing.
Click to expand...

Sorry but no it's not my opinion. it is widely dismissed by professionals and colleges. You do realize that I can go to abortion information in wikipedia and reword the stuff to make it lean to pro-abortion?
 
dreama said:
Things that are not true are said everywhere. Including books. I like Wilko as it gives what seems to me to be a non biased opinion. This is hard to find in this day and age.

Although totally unbiased opinion is impossible. Everyone is biased. Just more sources are more biased then others.
Click to expand...

uh no? it can be easily edited to lean toward to certain side. Don't you remember hearing in news several times about campaign worker from each Presidential candidate getting caught editing Wiki with distorted facts? btw - there is no such thing as unbiased opinion otherwise why would it be called "OPINION" ???? People ask - How do you like a movie? of course you're going to get a several different opinions. "it is good... it is bad..... it is so so." All opinions are biased. The only thing that is UNBIASED is called FACT because you will get same answer from each person.

If you want a very credible, solid, well-researched, high-quality, thorough source - it's called PEER-REVIEWED SOURCE.
 
Back
Top