HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Correspondence: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Correspondence are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Goetz, C. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Goetz, C. G. Related Collections Diagnostic test assessment History of Neurology Malingering

J.-M. Charcot and simulated neurologic disease

Attitudes and diagnostic strategies

From the Departments of Neurological Sciences and Pharmacology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Goetz, Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612 cgoetz{at}rush.edu

Background: Neurologists have long wrestled with the diagnosis of elaborated or feigned disease. Studies have not focused on early techniques utilized to diagnose malingering.

Objective: To analyze cases of purposeful neurologic malingering among patients treated by the 19th century neurologist J.-M. Charcot, describe his attitudes, and study his methods to separate malingering from primary neurologic diseases.

Methods: A study was conducted of Charcot’s printed and original documents from the Bibliothèque Charcot, Paris, and added documents on American neurology.

Results: Charcot recognized that purposeful simulation occurred in isolation as well as in established neurologic disorders. Charcot was strict with subjects motivated by greed or spite, but showed forbearance and wonder in those who created illness as "art for art’s sake." Charcot developed diagnostic equipment that measured inspiratory depth and muscle activity as a strategy to identify malingerers. His approach strikingly contrasted with contemporary military medical treatises on malingering and S.W. Mitchell’s civilian neurologic approaches that unmasked patients through more aggressive strategies.

Conclusion: Charcot provided an academically professional approach to the assessment of neurologic malingering, with a stern, often patronizing attitude, but without categorical condemnation. His diagnostic techniques are echoed by contemporary approaches and emphasized an attention to enhanced and inconsistent patterns of behaviors by malingerers.

Disclosure: The author reports no conflicts of interest.

Received November 7, 2006. Accepted in final form February 4, 2007.