ABSTRACT
As the title implies, the focus of this chapter is on what to call either phenomena, since both have grappled with ongoing challenges with naming conventions. The most problematic of the two different phenomena is Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP), which has been described across the past twenty years under no less than eight different titles: Factitious Disorder by Proxy (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), Abnormal Illness Behavior by Proxy (Adshead & Bluglass, 2005), Child Abuse in Medical Settings (Stirling, 2018), Fabricated and/or Induced Illness in Children (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2006), Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), Medical Child Abuse (Roesler & Jenny, 2008), or Pediatric Condition Falsification (Ayoub et al., 2002), among other names. As the brief history of these names for the phenomenon are discussed, it is also argued that this proliferation of names has come to the point that the healthcare and legal communities scarcely know what to call it. Ultimately, this naming quandary endangers children. Naming conventions from biology are, therefore, supplied to clarify how such conventions are supposed to work scientifically, and the Platypus Paradox is proposed as an exemplar that explains how to resolve these problems. Further, it is suggested that MSBP be used as the common name for the phenomenon, and that FDBP has been endorsed by the widest scientific community given lack of clarity surrounding introducing FDIA and the myriad of troubles the >DSM-5 has suffered. It is explained that a fundamental scientific construct is one in which the description is modified as understanding improves, but not the “name” of the phenomenon itself altered. Moreover, that with greater clarity and unification under an established naming convention, it is suggested that each phenomenon will likely progress and be refined. In turn, a comparable history of naming conventions is discussed for PA, although most in the field have rallied around the term PA in the past decade. It is underscored that while there has been greater unity within the community, that from a systems perspective it is inappropriate to diagnose the child with Parental Alienation. Instead, as is argued throughout, it is a pathological systems’ dynamic, and that as an IMD, it is the larger system dynamic that is diagnosed.
