Factitious Disorders - 1539 Words

FACTITIOUS DISORDER Facticious means artificial or unnatural, a definition that could not be more appropriate. People who suffer from factitious disorder (FD) â€Å"are great con men or con women, although what they obtain through their conning most people would far rather not have†[1]. The earliest accounts of factitious disorders are recorded in the times of Galen, a Roman physician in the second century A.D. The term ‘factitious’ itself, is derived from a book, published in 1843 by Gavin, On Feigned and Factitious Diseases. Most aggressive study of the disorder began in 1950s, when an article published by a British psychiatrist, Richard Asher who initiated use of the term, Munchausen’s Syndrome[i], to describe a subtype of†¦show more content†¦Specific symptoms |Specific symptoms (n*=47) |number of cases (% of all cases) | |Dramatic (false) stories |36 (77%) | |Care eliciting behaviors [Total = 40 (85%)] |suicidal threats and gestures |13 (28%) | | |factitious disorders - physical |28 (60%) | | |other |5Show MoreRelatedMunchausen Syndrome : A Rare Mental Disorder And The Most Severe Type Of Factitious Disorder3346 Words   |  14 Pagessyndrome is a rare mental disorder and the most severe type of factitious disorder. Those afflicted with Munchausen syndrome fabricate or cause injuries and illness in order to seek attention even to the point of undergoing painful, intrusive and unneeded medical and surgical procedures. Psychotherapy is the main treatment option for Munchausen syndrome, however there are no standard therapies or medications for treatment. Medications may be utilized for other mental disorders that the patient mayRead MoreAnalysis Of Mommy Dead And Dearest1146 Words   |  5 Pagesfinally realized that she was perfectly fine, she was not mentally incapacitated, her whole life was a lie. Like I mentioned in my introduction, Dee Dee has a disorder Although Gypsy was the one who was made out to be ill her whole life, it was Dee Dee who had the real issue. It is thought that Dee Dee had what is known as factitious disorder, more commonly referred to as Munchausen by proxy. An individual with Munchausen by proxy will fake symptoms in a victim, or even go so far as to induce physicalRead MoreEssay Taking a Closer Look at Mà ¼nchausen Syndrome1026 Words   |  5 Pages Mà ¼nchausen syndrome is a psychiatric disorder that is distinguished by the patient causing or faking physical or psychological ailments for the sole purpose of being admitted to the hospital. A psychiatric consult nurse sees about one or two Mà ¼nchausen cases a month (Interview with John Hauber, RN). Out of the entire United States population, only half to two percent of people have the disorder (medicinenet.com), but the number is probably higher than that because the statistic shown only representsRead MoreDefinition Of Labeling Theory And Strain Theory2241 Words   |  9 PagesBeverley’s actions and why she acted in this manner can be explained from the psychiatric, sociological and psychological perspective. Psychiatry viewpoints explore the motivation behind an individual’s criminal behaviour. Factitious disorder and multiple personality disorder can explain the reasons behind Beverly’s choice to kill four children under her care, and the reasons behind these horrendous acts. The sociological perceptive looks at factors including level of education, a persons socialRead MoreThe Case Of Leslie Wilfred1743 Words   |  7 Pagesthe couple asked the community for donations to pay for medical bills. Leslie then brought up her other child who was supposedly raped by a former co-worker when she was 11-years-old. Leslie stated how her children suffered from psychological disorders, yet the children were so well dressed and looked healthy, that the community never questioned their illnesses. Throughout all these statements, Chris was told that Leslie would handle all the bills and treatments, so he did not have to worry aboutRead MoreSymptoms And Treatment Of Psychiatric Disorders1369 Words   |  6 Pagesmany unexplained disorders. Most of these psychiatric disorders occur for no reason and without conscious control. However, in the section of somatic symptom disorders there exists diagnoses of people with factitious disorder whom intentionally pretend illness in order to fulfill their emotional needs. For the FD client, there is a strong urge to assume the role of â€Å"patient.† The disorders one witnesses are actually the client feigning symptoms of sickness. Thus the word factitious translates in LatinRead MoreThe Dsm Diagnostic Process Can Be Broken Down Into Six Essential Steps1483 Words   |  6 Pagessteps. Step one consists of ruling out Malingering and Factitious Disorder. Step two entails ruling out a substance etiology. Step three involves ruling out an etiological medical condition. Step four consists of determining the specific primary disorder(s). Step five comprises differentiating Adjustment Disorder from the residual Other Specified and Unspecified conditions. Step six involves establishing the boundary with no mental disorder. These six steps provide a diagnostic framework for cliniciansRead MoreMunchausen Syndrome : A Mental Illness Essay1470 Words   |  6 Pages Munchausen syndrome, also referred to as factitious disorder, is a mental condition in which sufferers cause or pretend to have physical or psychological symptoms that are not actually occurring. Munchausen syndrome is considered to be a mental illness because it is associated with severe emotional difficulties that are present with the illness. Due to the fact that there are no reliable statistics regarding the number of people in the United States who suffer from Munchausen syndrome, it is consideredRead MoreA Brief Note On The Medical Child Abuse1929 Words   |  8 Pagesabuse Denise Eversole Lord Fairfax Community College Abstract Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS) is a disorder of which should bring awareness to the medical field. It is not well understood and brings a lot of controversy. This disorder is when a parent, usually the mother, who purposely causes illness to her child rather physically or emotionally. The disorder was named after Baron von Munchausen, from the 18th century who gained fame from his tales. The child only becomes sickRead MoreExplain The Etiological Models Of Schizophrenia Essay2151 Words   |  9 Pages†¢ Environmental o Dutch Famine ï‚ § Evidence of in utero effect - early prenatal famine shown to be greatly associated with three conditions (congenital anomalies of the central nervous system, schizophrenia, and schizophrenia spectrum personality disorders) o Viruses ï‚ § In utero viral exposure possible risk factor for development of schizophrenia – when influenza rates were higher than seasonally expected, birth rates of future schizophrenics were higher than seasonally expected o Season of Year ï‚ §

Ethics with Humans in Psychology Wjec Free Essays

Using relevant examples explain why ethical issues are important in research with human participants in psychology (15m) Rachael Guthrie – 532 words. When using human participants in research there are many ethical issues which need to be considered and dealt with appropriately in order to protect the participants from any physical or psychological harm. BPS guidelines have been produced in an attempt to protect any human participants in psychological research and to prevent disturbing research similar to that which has taken place in the past occurring. We will write a custom essay sample on Ethics with Humans in Psychology Wjec or any similar topic only for you Order Now One ethical issue which must be considered is deception. It is unfair to deceive participants as they are agreeing to something that they believe is true when in fact, the aim of the research differs from their beliefs. Deception may lead to confusion and distress in certain research and participants may be disappointed or humiliated when they find out that they have been lied too. One study that involved deception is Asch’s research into conformity, his participants were unaware of the fact that the other people taking part in the study were confederates that were deliberately giving the wrong answer, the participant felt confused when the others were giving an obviously incorrect answer. However, Asch would not have been able to carry out his research in this way if the participant knew about the procedure of the study as they then would have known what Asch was expecting and why the others were giving the wrong answer. There are many studies in the past which have involved deception or harm to participants. The researcher has responsibility for their participants and should ensure that they are not at risk of any physical or psychological harm. Zimbardo’s study was one of the most unethical and had to be ended after just 6 days after the participants became extremely distressed after taking on the role of prisoners or prison guards, although he did ensure that consent was gained prior to the study taking place, ensuring that the participants knew what they were taking part in. Milgram’s study also involved psychological harm and deception, the participants believed that they were giving the other participant an electric shock, this led to them becoming extremely distressed, some even has seizures. However, 87% of Milgram’s participants were pleased to have taken part and suffered no lasting damage, instead, some learned something of value about themselves. A study into personal space invasions in the lavatory by Middlemist, Matter and Knowles breached many ethical guidelines as their articipants were deceived without giving any consent or the right to withdraw. They suffered embarrassment and violation as their privacy had been invaded without them knowing. When considering ethics in psychology there are three things that committees will take into account; what rules have been broken, the benefits of the study and if there was another way to do it. For example, Zimbardo could’ve carried out his study in a ‘real life’ priso n. If the benefits of research are greater than the distress caused to an individual participant, e. g. the effects are minor then the research is more likely to be passed by an ethics committee. Whilst ethical guidelines exist and researchers are required to be aware of them, they are not legally binding and so this creates a loophole through which some less ethical studies can still fall through. How to cite Ethics with Humans in Psychology Wjec, Essay examples

Assess the Validity of Dworkin’s Criticisms Towards Positivism free essay sample

DworkinCritically assess the validity of Dworkin’s criticisms towards positivism and whether natural law theory may itself be disputed. â€Å"Positivism is a model of and for a system of rules, and its central notion of a single fundamental test for law forces us to miss the important standards that are rules. † explains Dworkin on his attack on positivism. It is argued, by Dworkin, that both legal positivism and natural law theories are in reality searching for an answer to the question ‘what is law? A  fundamental question and challenge towards the debate and critique of the natural lawyer and positivist. However Dworkin directs towards another issue, a more specific question of understanding law, gained by asking ‘how do judges find the law’2. This directs attention towards ‘hard cases’3, a theory provided by legal positivism. It is explained by Dworkin that judges make use of standards that do not function as a system of rules, as opposed to what Hart would argue, but operate differently as other sorts of standards4. Hart, a positivist theorist, would argue that in the majority of cases rules will be clear, however, at some point, they will become indeterminate and unclear5. This is because they have what Hart calls, an ‘open texture’, and a defect inherent in Dworkin, R. (1997) Taking Rights Seriously, London: Duckworth. At p22 Morrison, W. (1997) Jurisprudence: from the Greeks to Post-Modernism, London: Cavendish. At p422 3 A concept where the law seems to run out, they arise where it is not clear what the legal answer is, or where by the existing rules of law provide no answer. Riddall, J. He distinguishes between these two to explain that policies attempt to ‘secure the community goal’ where as principles ‘justify political decisions’ by showing that the decision respects or secures some individual or group right. 8 This goal is set out to generally improve the community. 9 In nature principles, unlike Harts rules, can be applied or not applied without affecting there existence, a court will draw on these standards in order to reach a decision on the ‘hard case’10. With this submission, it is in disrepute with Hart’s notion of the ‘Rule of Recognition’. For instance, officials in Nazi Germany obeyed Hitler’s commands as law, only out of fear. Dworkin compares both Harts and John Austin’s11 theory to say that there would be no difference between a group of people accepting a rule of recognition and simply falling into a self-conscious pattern of obedience out of fear12. Dworkin continues to explain that if acceptance requires more than obedience, then there was no law in Nazi Germany. He thus believes that it is inadequate, notably as Ibid Lectures in Jurisprudence (ed. Cambell), p. 219; post, 1421, quoted in Freeman, M. D. A. Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 7th ed. , London: Sweet Maxwell. At p1390 8 Supra, n , no1 at p82 9 Riddall, J. G. (1999) Jurisprudence, 2nd ed. , London: Butterworths. at p101 10 Wacks, R. (1999) Jurisprudence, 5th ed. , London: Blackstones Press. At p120 11 A theory that a proposition of law is true within a particular political society if it correctly reports the past command of the sovereign power. 12 Dworkin, R. (1986) Law’s Empire, Oxford: Hart Publishing. At p35 7 6 Page 2 of 13 20325011 there is no rule of recognition that distinguishes between legal and moral principles. Therefore Hart’s theory does not capture how lawyers find law and therefore lacks a justificatory force. 14 It is explained, furthermore, that if two rules conflict, both cannot survive one must be incorrect. Principles are different; they do not apply to all or nothing but apply together as they have weight, thus balances for the person’s rights15. It is important to note that the word ‘principle’ is not used in the sense that it requires compliance with a standard regardless of the consequences16, Dworkin uses it to mean ‘propositions that describe rights’17. His challenge continues; the idea to separate law and morality is incorrect, not so far that law should be based purely on morality18. For instance, the infamous case of Donoghue v Stevenson19, the biblical ‘principle’ not to harm your neighbour effectively becomes a legal principle, therefore morality is inherent in law. Lord Atkin has constructively developed a principle, the neighbour principle, to be applied in future arising situations20. Furthermore, the case of Riggs v Palmer21 forms the basis of Dworkins illustration on how legal principles work where the judges ‘found’ and applied an equitable principle Dworkin argues that this decision demonstrates that in addition to rules, the law includes principles23. The answer was already inherent in society, a substantial belief by Dworkin, that there is a right answer to every legal question, thus not acting retrospectively opposed to what Hart believed that there is no law covering a particular gap or situation24. According to Dworkin, there in fact lie principles. Hart would state that judges must use there discretion in deciding whether a particular case comes within a rule or not, by way of statutory interpretation25. Hart continues to explain that there is no possibility of treating the question raised by the various cases as if there were only one right answer, a solid belief by Dworkin that there is a right answer26. However, Dworkin argues against this approach which allows for a judge to make a policy decision not based on law in ‘hard cases’. He argues that by Hart seeing law soles based on a system of rules; he fails to take account of general principles27. In contrast, Dworkin challenges that the judge does not revert to a policy and act as a law maker; instead the judge applies legal principles to bring about a correct right answer based on law. Dworkins’ article, Hard Cases, continues to say that judges must apply a principle of, what he calls ‘articulate consistency’ in determining the applicability of statutes and Doherty, M. (2005) Jurisprudence Textbook: the Philosophy of Law, 4th ed. , London: Old Bailey Press. At p228 23 Wacks, R. (1999) Jurisprudence, 5th ed. , London: Blackstones Press. At p123 24 Supra, n , no 10 at p228 25 Supra, n , no5 . At p158 26 The concept of Law, at p132 quoted in Freeman, M. D. A. (2001) Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 7th ed. , London: Sweet Maxwell. He uses the word ‘consistency’ to refer to the application of the principle relied upon, not the application of the rule. There was no rule in Riggs v Palmer30, only a principle that a person should not benefit from their crime31. Besides Dworkin sees the law as a seamless web in which there is always a uniquely right answer and strongly rejects Hart’s view that there are ‘penumbral areas of doubt’ within which a judge can exercise free discretion32. This is opposed to Dworkins’ strong belief that judges do not have a wide discretion when the rules seem to run out33. This directs attention towards the fictional judge developed by Dworkin, Hercules J. He is a judge with superhuman skill, learning, patience and acumen34 used to illustrate an idealistic process, fundamentally essential to his construction35. This judge is expected to construct a scheme of abstract and concrete principles that provides a coherent justification for all common law precedents and is intended to point the way to the correct legal answer36. He will decide on a theory of law which best coheres with his community. Arguably, for that reason, Hercules is deciding cases in the light of what already exists. Dworkin says that we can assume that Hercules accepts most of the settled rules of his jurisdiction, laying down the characteristics of law. 37 Supra, n , no 2 at p426 (1889) 22 NE 188 31 Supra, n , no 1 at p88 32 Supra, n , no 10 at p225 33 Waldron, J. (2009) ‘Refining the question about judges’ moral capacity’. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 69-82 34 Supra, n , no 1 at p105 and Freeman, M. D. A. (2001) Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 7th ed. However, Hercules is criticised on the grounds that he is a mythical being, no judge can behave in this Utopian style40, thus perhaps lacking ecological validity41. Some have gone so far as to label him a fraud, an assumption that he has discovered the right answer to a hard case, arrogantly assuming his conception of the law is correct. 42 However in Laws Empire, based on theoretical disagreements in law, Dworkin responds explaining that Hercules does not pretend that he has found the ‘right’ answer but he has only discovered what it should be, a significant difference to his terminology43. This then brings light to Dworkins’ ‘one right answer’ theory, which must not be assumed by this rather assumptive statement. As already briefly explored, it is the proposition that there is only one single uniquely ‘right’ answer to all legal questions44. He agrees that through judicial precedent, judges agree that earlier decisions have a particular gravitational force45. A judge will rarely have the independence to be inconsistent with this notion by the fact that they acknowledge that they are bound by a hierarchy of previous judicial decisions46. When a judge Supra, n , no 9 At p94 Ibid at p94 40 Supra, n , no17 . At p131. The term Utopian is a name for an ideal community or society. 41 A psychological term relating to the applicability of a matter to ‘real’ life. 42 Ibid commenting on that the theory travels badly. 43 Dworkin, R. (1986) Law’s Empire, Oxford: Hart Publishing. At p261 44 Sadurski, W. (2009) ‘Rights and moral reasoning: an unstated assumption a comment on Jeremy Waldrons Judges as moral reasoners’. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 25-42 45 Supra, n , no5 . At p167 46 Ibid at p168 39 38 Page 6 of 13 20325011 defines this precedent, only the arguments of principle are taken  into account to justify that principle47. Furthermore, in the light of this point, Dworkin continues his argument with the analogy of a chess game; perhaps not the most enthused of illustrations. In the course of the game one player is significantly distracted by the other player (named Tal) persistently smiling. Though this act may not be in breach of the ‘chess rule book’, Dworkin would argue that on an analysis of what the game of chess essentially entails, similar to how a judge should decide a hard case; psychological intimidation would have been deemed against the nature of the game48. The referee ought to find the one answer that best fits with the general practice of chess. Additionally, leading to another of Dworkins’ challenges, the rule already existing prior to the game, it does not act retrospectively. This term retrospection relates to that in hard cases judges have discretion to decide the outcome, making new law, consequently it acts retrospectively, and a defect in Dworkins’ conventionalist view of law49. However in the light of Dworkins’ view, a party claiming injustice through retrospection is in fact bound by a law that was already available to anyone, if sought in the proper way. The decision merely gave effect to this existential law. 50 It must now be considered where Dworkin himself fits in with either positivism or natural law. Officially, he is contemporary legal positivism’s harshest critic. It is verified from the above analysis and chapter one in Laws Empire that he is not a 47 48 Supra, n , no13 . At p28 Supra, n , no 17 at p125 49 Supra, n , no 19 at p99 50 Supra, n , no 9 at p107 Page 7 of 13 20325011 positivist in the sense that where the law seems to run out, the judge creates a new fitting law, termed as conventionalism, a strong rejection by Dworkin51. His connection with the ‘right answer theory’ may be said to tie with morality, if the right answer is the best fit, it is the best morally fit answer, it would not be the best fit answer, if it was immoral thus coinciding with natural law52. Like Fuller, Dworkin accepts that moral reasoning in an integral part of legal reasoning therefore morality is part of the law, though in Dworkins’ view it is not necessarily connected. Both theories argue that lawyers follow criteria that are not entirely factual but to some extent moral for deciding what propositions of law are true53. Continuing this exploration, Dworkin believes that the law and adjudication ought to comply with certain standards, notably those embodied in the phrase ‘Law as Integrity’, one of the three rival theories of law which Dworkin constructs and challenges54, again he seems to lean more towards natural law. However, Dworkin makes his position clear that he does not believe in higher principles above and outside the law, as an everlasting sovereign power. Instead he believes that justice has a merit in its own right. 55 On this basis Dworkin believes that adjudication ought to operate in compliance with the standards, and in his view not to the principles of God but to what is right. He does not link morality with the validity of law, this does not concern him. Thus he may rather be placed as a jurist who explores the nature of both illustrating an ideal Supra, n , no6 at p109 Simmonds, N. (2008) ‘Law as a Moral Idea’. Edinburgh Law Review. 150-153 53 Supra, n , no12 at p37 54 Freeman, M. D. A. (2001) Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 7th ed. He has merely shown that a sensible account of law would have a place for principles as well as rules57. This leads to further analysis, focussing now to the theory of ‘Law as Integrity’, a theory showing our legal practice at its best light58. Dworkin, though his term remains illusive, claims that it offers a plan for adjudication which points judges to use ‘integrity’ as a method for deciding cases. The theory explains that propositions of law are true if they follow the principles of justice, fairness and ‘procedural due process’ which provide the best constructive interpretation of the community’s legal practice59. As already seen Hercules acts with integrity and may be said to be a constructive interpreter of the laws written before him60. Integrity insists that legal claims are interpretive judgements and consequently rejects the question whether judges find or invent law61. This method essentially would instruct a judge to identify legal rights and duties, on an assumption that they are created by one author representing a community expressing a ‘coherent conception of justice and fairness’62. Dworkin argues that with this one author or separate entity, the judges can assume that the law is structured on coherent principles63. The judge, following integrity, would look for a principle that, according to Dworkin, ‘fits and justifies’64 a complex part of the legal practice. This, Supra, n , no 9 At p110 Supra, n , no 1 At p58 58 Supra, n , no 34 At p1396 59 Doherty, M. Therefore a society adopts integrity in order to justify its moral authority to assume and organise control of coercive force66. However positivism does not require judges to justify their decisions. In this way, positivism does not consider the law as being separate and independent. Instead the positivist would see the law as comprising a set of ‘discrete’ decisions, enabling a judge to exercise his discretion to amend it, contrary to what Dworkin argues67. Dworkin explains that the consistency that would be provided from integrity would entitle people to a coherent and ethical extension of past decisions. Positivism would deny this on the basis that it denies consistency in principle as a judicial virtue for ambiguous statutes and unclear precedents to try to achieve consistency68, a point which is emphasised by Hercules. Furthermore Dworkin believes that an adoption of an approach, whereby a judge ‘ought’ to operate in the society Dworkin thinks ‘ought’ to exist70, would protect against prejudice, dishonesty, and corruption whilst promoting participation in democracy71. However not all judges will come to the same conclusion. Even though they were seeking the correct answer, many may find a different route and therefore end in a different place. Concluding, Dworkin is the leading critic of positivism, and in particular, Harts own version of it. Dworkin believes that the law never runs out and that the answer is always there readily available if the matter is sought properly. He disagrees with Hart as he insists that at the point of where the law is incomplete, judges must use their discretion to reach a solution, a new law to fill in that gap75. His right answer theory attacks this largely on the basis that there are standards other than rules operative in our society. He challenges natural law as a particularly unpersuasive theory, an extreme theory that insists that law is dependant on morality and identical to justice76, as explored in this essay, Dworkin differs as he does not link morality with the validity of law. He is unconvinced with an everlasting sovereign and believes that justice has a merit in its own right. He is not a natural lawyer nor a positivist but rather a jurist, challenging and illustrating an ideal form for this process of adjudication77. â€Å"That is†¦what law is for us: for the people we want to be and the community we aim to have. Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 7th ed. , London: Sweet Maxwell. McCoubrey, H. White, N. D. (1999) Textbook on Jurisprudence, 3rd ed. , London Blackstone Press. Morrison, W. (1997) Jurisprudence: from the Greeks to Post-Modernism, London: Cavendish. Riddall, J. G. (1999) Jurisprudence, 2nd ed. , London: Butterworths. Wacks, R. (1999) Jurisprudence, 5th ed. , London: Blackstones Press. Journals Lester, A. (1993) ‘English Judges as Law Makers’ Public law 269-290 MacCormick, N (2008) ‘Our Knowledge of the Law: Objectivity and Practice in Legal Theory’ Edinburgh Law Review 150-153 Patterson, D. Dworkin on the semantics of legal and political concepts’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 545-557 Sadurski, W. (2009) ‘Rights and moral reasoning: an unstated assumption a comment on Jeremy Waldrons Judges as moral reasoners’. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 25-42 Seims, M, M. (2008) ‘Legal originality’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 147-164 Simmonds, N. (2008) ‘Law as a Moral Idea’.