…………………………………………… (unholypursuit.wordpress.com)
Hear the song Dr. Gaslight or read the lyrics or both.
CONTENTS — FIND IN PAGE
MEDICAL GASLIGHTING SIMPLIFIED
SPURIOUS FACTITIOUS DISORDER OR MUNCHAUSEN
NURSING & MEDICAL SCHOOL PROBLEMS
MEDICAL GASLIGHTING SIMPLIFIED
Yes, scientific studies and reviews on medical gaslighting have emerged, though research remains limited and fragmented. Key findings from recent literature include:
Definitions and Scope
Medical gaslighting refers to healthcare providers dismissing or invalidating patients' symptoms, often leading to delayed diagnoses or mistrust3,5. Some researchers propose distinguishing between intentional gaslighting and unintentional medical invalidation, where systemic pressures or communication breakdowns cause similar harm without malice1,4.
Gender Disparities
Studies highlight that women are disproportionately affected, with symptoms frequently attributed to psychological factors rather than physical conditions2,5,7. For example, women with severe abdominal pain face longer ER wait times than men with identical symptoms2,8.
DR. MENDELSOHN
Relationship Between Dr. Robert Mendelsohn’s Male Practice and Medical Gaslighting
Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn (1926–1988) was an American pediatrician renowned for his outspoken criticism of medical paternalism. He earned his medical degree from the University of Chicago in 1951 and was certified by the American Board of Pediatrics. Mendelsohn maintained a private pediatric practice from 1956 to 1967 and continued consulting until his death1,4,7.
He held academic positions as an instructor at Northwestern University Medical College for 12 years and as an associate professor of pediatrics and community health at the University of Illinois College of Medicine for another 12 years1. Mendelsohn also served as Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of Illinois and was the first national director of medical consultation for the federal Head Start program1,4,7.
Dr. Mendelsohn was a vocal critic of unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions, especially those affecting women, and advocated for greater patient autonomy and skepticism toward medical authority1,7. His credentials and advocacy for patient rights earned him a significant public following1,4,7.
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn’s book Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women and the concept of medical gaslighting are closely linked through their focus on how the medical establishment can dismiss, manipulate, or harm patients—especially women—by undermining their experiences and autonomy.
Male Practice: Core Themes
Mendelsohn, a pediatrician and outspoken critic of medical paternalism, argued that modern medicine often institutionalizes condescending and manipulative attitudes toward women4,1.
In Male Practice, he detailed how doctors, motivated by profit and entrenched sexism, subjected women to unnecessary, degrading, and sometimes dangerous interventions—such as unwarranted surgeries and overprescription of medications1,4.
The book provides numerous examples of women’s symptoms and concerns being dismissed or overridden by medical professionals, leading to negative health outcomes and a loss of agency1.
Medical Gaslighting: Definition and Practice
Medical gaslighting occurs when healthcare providers dismiss or minimize a patient’s symptoms, concerns, or knowledge about their own bodies, often attributing them to psychological causes or “normal” experiences without proper investigation2,3.
This phenomenon is especially prevalent among women and people with chronic or poorly understood conditions, leading to delayed diagnoses, inadequate treatment, and preventable harm2,3.
How Male Practice Anticipates and Illustrates Medical Gaslighting
Mendelsohn’s descriptions of doctors disregarding women’s reports, pushing unnecessary treatments, or ignoring their input are classic examples of medical gaslighting as defined today1,4.
The book’s accounts of women being told their symptoms are “normal” or psychological, rather than investigated seriously, mirror the patterns of gaslighting that contemporary patients report1,2.
Mendelsohn’s critique that “the greatest danger to American women’s health was often their own doctors” underscores the power imbalance and lack of trust that medical gaslighting fosters4.
Impact and Legacy
Male Practice not only exposed specific practices but also encouraged women to advocate for themselves and question medical authority, anticipating today’s calls for patient empowerment in response to gaslighting1.
The book’s influence persists because, as reviewers note, many of the manipulative behaviors Mendelsohn described are still experienced by women in healthcare settings today1.
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn was a leading critic of medical paternalism—the practice of doctors making decisions for patients without fully informing or involving them, often assuming they know what is best1,2,3,5. He argued that this approach led to unnecessary, sometimes harmful treatments, especially for women, and encouraged patients to be skeptical and demand more transparency and autonomy in their healthcare1,2,5.
Would Mendelsohn equate medical paternalism with what is now called medical gaslighting?
While Mendelsohn did not use the modern term "medical gaslighting," his descriptions of medical paternalism share significant overlap with what is now recognized as medical gaslighting. Medical gaslighting is defined as behaviors by healthcare professionals that invalidate or dismiss a patient's concerns, causing the patient to doubt their own experiences and defer to the provider's authority6,8,9. Mendelsohn described doctors as powerful figures who often dismissed patients' perspectives, withheld information, and imposed their will—core elements of what is now called medical gaslighting1,5.
END MEDICAL GASLIGHTING
The Most Promising Ways to End Medical Gaslighting
1. Make Health Care About Patients, Not Profits
When health care is run to make money, there’s pressure to rush appointments, ignore patient concerns, or push unnecessary treatments6,12. Switching to a non-profit system means doctors and hospitals focus on what’s best for patients, not what’s most profitable6.
2. Train Doctors to Listen and Empathize
Doctors and nurses should get regular training on how to listen, show empathy, and respect every patient’s experience, especially for those who often feel dismissed5,10. This helps build trust and ensures patients feel heard.
3. Create Easy Ways for Patients to Give Feedback
Hospitals should have simple, safe ways for patients to report when they feel dismissed or not taken seriously5. This feedback should be used to spot patterns and fix problems, not just handle one complaint at a time.
4. Support Patients to Speak Up
Patients should know it’s okay to ask questions, bring a friend to appointments, and document their symptoms and what doctors say7,3. But the system shouldn’t put all the responsibility on patients—doctors and organizations must do their part, too10.
5. Make Systemic Changes, Not Just Individual Fixes
Ending medical gaslighting requires big changes, not just expecting patients to fight for themselves10. Hospitals and health systems need to look at their own rules, staffing, and culture to make sure everyone is treated fairly and respectfully5.
SPURIOUS FACTITIOUS DISORDER OR MUNCHAUSEN
Experts—including those with perspectives similar to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn’s skepticism toward mainstream medical practices—have warned extensively about the risk and consequences of misdiagnosing Munchausen syndrome (now called factitious disorder) and Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP).
Key points from expert literature:
Frequent Warnings About Misdiagnosis:
Multiple psychiatric and medical experts have highlighted that Munchausen and MSBP are complex diagnoses that can be—and have been—misapplied, sometimes with devastating consequences for patients and families. For example, a literature review in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry found several documented cases of misdiagnosis, leading to unnecessary legal action and family separation. The authors emphasized the importance of examining what went wrong in these cases to improve child protection and clinical practice2.Overuse and Diagnostic Uncertainty:
Dr. Roy Meadow, who first described MSBP, later acknowledged that the diagnosis had become overused and misunderstood, with some clinicians and social workers misapplying the label to a wide range of problematic parenting behaviors that did not fit the syndrome. Experts have repeatedly cautioned that the label can be misapplied, entangling well-meaning parents in destructive legal and social battles4.Calls for Multidisciplinary and Cautious Approach:
Experts stress the need for thorough, multidisciplinary evaluation and strong, indisputable evidence before making such a diagnosis, given the risk of false accusations and the severe legal, social, and psychological consequences for those wrongly accused3,4,7.Lack of Robust Epidemiological Data:
Reviews of the literature also note that most published work on Munchausen syndrome and MSBP consists of case reports and reviews, rather than large-scale studies, making it difficult to determine the true prevalence and further complicating the diagnostic process8.
Dr. Peter Breggin’s overall stance is highly critical of psychiatric diagnoses that lack clear scientific validity and that can be misused by professionals with authority. He has argued that psychiatric labels are often arbitrary, can be applied without sufficient evidence, and may lead to significant harm3. His work repeatedly warns about the dangers of psychiatrists and mental health professionals making judgments based on subjective or poorly substantiated criteria, which aligns with broader concerns about the potential for misdiagnosis—including, by implication, controversial diagnoses like Munchausen syndrome.
Breggin’s criticism of the psychiatric field includes:
The use of diagnoses that are not grounded in robust science3.
The potential for abuse of authority by psychiatrists and mental health professionals3.
The harm caused by stigmatizing or pathologizing patients and families based on questionable diagnostic practices3,4.
NURSING & MEDICAL SCHOOL PROBLEMS
Common Examples of Paternalism and Medical Gaslighting Unintentionally Taught in Medical & Nursing Education
Paternalism and medical gaslighting are often perpetuated in healthcare settings not solely through individual intent, but via systemic norms and educational practices that shape provider attitudes and behaviors. Below are key examples of how medical and nursing schools may unintentionally train care providers to engage in these behaviors:
1. Standardizing Care Over Individualized Decision-Making
Routine Actions as "Best Practice": Students are often taught to follow protocols and routines as the safest or most effective approach. This can lead to overlooking patient preferences or unique circumstances, as care becomes "programmed" rather than personalized. Patients may feel like their specific needs or questions are ignored in favor of standardized procedures7.
Obligatory Adherence to Physician Orders: Nursing curricula, in particular, may emphasize the importance of following doctors' orders without question, reinforcing a hierarchy where patient input is minimized or dismissed7.
2. Withholding or Vague Communication
Partial or Vague Information: Providers may be taught to "protect" patients from distress by withholding details about diagnoses, risks, or procedures, or by giving only routine, generic explanations. This can leave patients uninformed about their own care, fostering confusion and mistrust7.
Not Disclosing All Options: Training often focuses on teaching students to recommend a single "best" treatment, presenting it as the only viable option and asking for consent only to that plan, rather than engaging in shared decision-making1,2.
3. Discounting or Dismissing Patient Concerns
Minimizing Symptoms: Medical education may implicitly teach that providers' clinical judgment outweighs patient-reported symptoms, especially when those symptoms do not fit textbook presentations. This can lead to dismissive responses such as "it's all in your head" or "you're making a big deal out of nothing," which are classic forms of medical gaslighting9,10.
Bias Toward Marginalized Groups: Research shows that women, BIPOC, and LGBTQIA+ patients are more likely to have their symptoms dismissed or minimized, a pattern that can be reinforced by implicit biases unaddressed in training9,10,11.
4. Institutional Pressures and Time Constraints
Rushed Interactions: The pressure to see more patients in less time, a reality discussed in medical training, often leads to shortcuts in communication and a reliance on authority rather than dialogue. This environment fosters paternalistic habits and increases the risk of gaslighting, as providers may not take the time to fully listen to or address patient concerns11.
5. Hierarchical Training Environments
Top-Down Culture: Both medical and nursing education frequently reinforce strict hierarchies, where questioning authority (including that of instructors or attending physicians) is discouraged. This culture can normalize the minimization of dissenting voices—including those of patients—and perpetuate paternalistic attitudes8,12.
Bullying and Gaslighting Among Trainees: Gaslighting is also reported within academic settings, where students and junior staff may experience manipulation, blame, and dismissal by superiors, normalizing these behaviors as part of professional culture6,12.
IL DCFS CHILD ABUSE
DEATHS. Recent data shows that child deaths involving the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) have reached record highs in recent years. According to the DCFS Inspector General's Annual Report, 171 children with DCFS involvement died between July 2021 and June 2022—a 40% increase over the previous year4,8. Of these, 67 deaths were from natural causes, 38 were accidental, 36 were homicides, 6 were suicides, 19 were undetermined, and 5 were still pending investigation at the time of the report. Seven of the deaths involved confirmed child abuse4.
For fiscal year 2023, DCFS investigated over 160 child deaths, continuing the troubling trend7. These figures include children who died while in foster care, in child welfare facilities, or in homes previously flagged for violence or neglect4,7.
A review of public records from 2010 to 2024 indicates that 176 children under age 13 have been killed after coming under DCFS care, with another 272 deaths listed as undetermined causes5. Watchdog investigations and oversight reports consistently highlight failures to follow procedures and delays in responding to abuse allegations as contributing factors to these tragedies4,5.
In summary, the number of children dying each year while involved with Illinois DCFS has ranged from about 160 to 171 in recent years, with a significant portion of these deaths resulting from abuse, neglect, or preventable circumstances4,7,8.
ABUSES OR HARMS. In fiscal year 2024, there were 6,946 children identified as victims in facility reports (which include foster homes and child welfare institutions) with at least one substantiated allegation of abuse or neglect for each of those (nearly 7,000) children while in DCFS custody.
The trend is rising in recent years as follows: 2020: 5207 — 2021: 4244 (decline due to lockdowns?) — 2022: 5928 — 2023: 6381 — 2024 6946 — 2025: 3738+ (9000 projected)2. These figures represent children harmed or seriously injured while in out-of-home care settings overseen by DCFS.
DEPRESSION. Studies show that children in foster care have significantly higher rates of mental health problems, including depression, than the general population7. Homesickness and separation from family are well-documented contributors to depression and emotional distress for children in out-of-home placements5,7.
DR. GASLIGHT. A doctor causes his patient to question her own sanity. Listen to Turfseer’s hit song. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/dr-gaslight