Perhaps you have heard of Munchausen by Proxy, a mental health condition which applies to humans. Here is a brief description of this sad and dangerous condition:
Definition: Munchausen by Proxy — now formally called Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another — is a rare but serious form of child abuse in which a caregiver fabricates, exaggerates, or induces medical symptoms in someone under their care, most often a young child. The caregiver seeks medical attention for the child, presenting themselves as devoted and attentive while manipulating clinicians with false histories, tampered tests, or even deliberate harm. The child may undergo unnecessary tests, treatments, or hospitalisations, and symptoms often improve when separated from the caregiver.
The underlying motives vary: a need for attention, emotional validation, or psychological distress in the caregiver. Because the behaviour is deceptive and the caregiver often appears caring, diagnosis is difficult. Protecting the child is the first priority, followed by long‑term psychological treatment for both victim and perpetrator. (source: Bing Co-pilot).
The news today (The Times April 9th 2026) is that people suffering from this illness can abuse/use companion animals rather than children for the same ends: to seek attention from veterinarians. And it might be far more prevalent than was once believed according to a study.
The driver for the sufferer is to assume the role of a burdened person to encourage sympathy and for others to care for them.
A study of around 90 vets in the Netherlands found that 83 per cent of veterinarians and technicians were familiar with the illness.
Typically sufferers make repeated small complaints and visits to the vets concerning their animal’s health.
Sometimes the vets concerned fear that the client is making things worse for their pets because healing, for instance, is abnormally slow. Or recovery worsens despite good treatments.
The researchers said that “little guidance exists for early recognition of these particular animal abuse cases.”
It seems that more often than not veterinarians who see possible signs do not report suspected animal abuse. Perhaps this is to be expected because they lack certainty. To report abuse you have to be completely certain otherwise you may be in trouble.
The RSPCA does come across it sometimes. Naomi Williams said: “The findings of this paper from the Netherlands are unsurprising due to the complex and challenging way these cases can present”.
She added “Sadly here in England and Wales, the RSPCA has seen reports of animal cruelty and neglect rise sharply with a 58 per cent increase in reported incidents over the past four years.”
She said that it is important that vets are trained to identify early warning signs and they encourage vets to report concerns of abuse.
Known or documented cases – as per AI – Bing Co-pilot.
- UK veterinary survey (Munro & Munro) In a study of 1,000 veterinarians, six cases were identified where vets believed the owner was deliberately inducing or fabricating illness in their pets. Behaviours included repeated vet‑hopping, excessive appointment requests, and symptoms that vanished when the animal was kept under clinic observation.
- Case involving multiple poisoned pets One man repeatedly brought dogs to different veterinarians claiming a neighbour had poisoned them. He was later convicted of attempting to poison his own child, and evidence showed he had also tried to poison at least two pets.
- Case series including a horse (Oxley & Feldman, 2016) A small set of published cases includes dogs, cats, and one horse presented with fabricated or induced symptoms by the owner. These cases highlight the same deception patterns seen in human MBP.
