Was Madeleine Autistic?

[brit1981]

Well the GP states there was no cause for concern in the children including Madeleine. I will go by that other than random people on the internet who have never had anything to do with madeleine. There is not one first hand source claiming madeleine had medical problems so there is no reason to think she had. Its just making things up for the sake of it to claim she did have medical problems.

 

[Donjeta]

A coloboma is a cause for concern because it can so frequently be associated with other problems. The nurses and the other doctor should have brought the coloboma to the GP's attention because these children should be referred to regular vision tests and possibly other tests to rule some of these things out.

Treatment There is no treatment for coloboma at present. A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.

If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.

Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.

Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.

Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/eyehealth/eyeconditions/conditionsac/Pages/coloboma.aspx

Now, the way I see it, it's possible that Madeleine had none of these things done in which case she may not have gotten very good treatment or she had all the appropriate tests done but the doctor is either unaware that there was anything to worry about or just chose to omit that from his statement. Either way, it doesn't inspire much confidence in the assessment.

An eye defect that may be associated with a bunch of other more serious stuff should have been noted as a cause for concern even if nothing serious was ever found. IMO.

 

[Donjeta]

Well the GP states there was no cause for concern in the children including Madeleine. I will go by that other than random people on the internet who have never had anything to do with madeleine. There is not one first hand source claiming madeleine had medical problems so there is no reason to think she had. Its just making things up for the sake of it to claim she did have medical problems.

I thought it was the parents who informed us that she had the coloboma, not random people on the internet.

It's a medical problem.

 

[brit1981]

But if the tests showed there was nothing to worry about, why would the GP be wrong to say there was no cause for concern (and the GP would have all the notes from the hospital too).
The RNIB also say that it may not be much of an issue at all depending on the location and severity. So if there the coloboma was not causing vision problems her doctor would be correct to say there was no cause for concern. Why if madeleine had no problems because of it woudl he launch into an essay on what other people with this may experience. If there were no concerns about madeleine, then he is correct to state this.

 

[brit1981]

Her parents have informed us of the defect, people on the internet are claiming it meant she had other problems such as vision problems, autism etc. Neither her parents, doctors, or anyone else who knew her have said she had vision problems or any other health issues. It is people on the internet who have read about CHARGE syndrome, or have read that coloboma can cause vision problems who have decided that madeleine must therefore have had these problems and those like her parents and GP who claim otherwise are wrong. What is worse is that some of these are then claiming that because they believe madeleine had a disability then it indicates her parents had a motive and that therefore it is wrong to carry on searching for a disabled child. Even if madeleine was disabled or had health problems she has as much right to have the police look for her as an able bodied child and it is wrong to say that because she may have been disabled her parents are involved because she was not perfect. Just because a child is disabled does not mean they are not perfect or unloved. I am shocked to hear these attitudes in this day and age.

 

[Donjeta]

But if the tests showed there was nothing to worry about, why would the GP be wrong to say there was no cause for concern (and the GP would have all the notes from the hospital too).
The RNIB also say that it may not be much of an issue at all depending on the location and severity. So if there the coloboma was not causing vision problems her doctor would be correct to say there was no cause for concern. Why if madeleine had no problems because of it woudl he launch into an essay on what other people with this may experience. If there were no concerns about madeleine, then he is correct to state this.

I think it would have been more correct and more helpful to state that there was an issue with the coloboma and it was monitored with no serious findings as of yet but that she would need further observation because of it since not all the problems associated with a coloboma are observed in the first three years of life. If she was abducted and is being held somewhere she could have developed other problems associated with the eye defect and might need treatment by now.

 

[Donjeta]

Her parents have informed us of the defect, people on the internet are claiming it meant she had other problems such as vision problems, autism etc. Neither her parents, doctors, or anyone else who knew her have said she had vision problems or any other health issues. It is people on the internet who have read about CHARGE syndrome, or have read that coloboma can cause vision problems who have decided that madeleine must therefore have had these problems and those like her parents and GP who claim otherwise are wrong. What is worse is that some of these are then claiming that because they believe madeleine had a disability then it indicates her parents had a motive and that therefore it is wrong to carry on searching for a disabled child. Even if madeleine was disabled or had health problems she has as much right to have the police look for her as an able bodied child and it is wrong to say that because she may have been disabled her parents are involved because she was not perfect. Just because a child is disabled does not mean they are not perfect or unloved. I am shocked to hear these attitudes in this day and age.

Where are you seeing these attitudes?
Not in this thread for sure. I haven't seen anybody here state that Madeleine was disabled for sure or that her parents did her in because of that or that the police shouldn't be looking for her because she was disabled or that no disabled children are loved.

It's a complete strawman as far as this thread is concerned imo, and anything that I've seen on this board.

Discussion would be more fruitful if it stayed on topic and if other participants' opinions weren't thrashed by referring to the opinions and attitudes that are possibly held by a group of completely different people who post somewhere else altogether.

The point, as far as I'm concerned is that the doc stated there were no causes for concern while his statement ignored a cause of concern that we know existed. What it means to me is that there's no saying what else he left out because he didn't know or didn't think it should be included.

 

[brit1981]

he only gave a very brief statement (I would assume it would be illegal for the PJ to have released detailed medical details about madeleine), and he can only go on what was known at the time. Coloboma can cause vision problems, but not if it is not fully developed as it were. For all we know it was incredibly minor and had no influence on her vision, and that there was no cause for concern. The GP was giving a statement to the police not to people on the internet. If there was no cause for concern then there was no cause for concern. No-one who spent time with madeleine has ever said she has vision problems either.
But this thread is about whether madeleine had autism, and there is no record of her having autism.
And it is relevant what people on other forums are saying (although a poster here refers to madeleine as not being perfect), when people are getting their information from these forums. There is nothing in the PJ files, or any primary sources that state madeleine had any health issues, it is all coming from internet forums.

 

[Donjeta]

No, I have not seen anything reliable about Madeleine having autism either.

Autism is rarely diagnosed before a child is 3 years old.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20060602/autism-spotted-at-age-14-months

Certainly never by doctors who don't attend to the child.

 

[brit1981]

I do not know why people started the autism myth when there are no primary sources about it.
But for the record in the UK the GP has all of someone's medical information even if another doctor or HCP made the diagnosis or raised it as a concern. All information is forwarded to them, so if autism had been raised as a concern he would have been made aware of it. Also baby clinics are generally held at the GPs practice too, and all information from these are also put into the GPs records 9even if the clinic is held elsewhere).

 

[Donjeta]

The patients in the UK have no right to privacy when it comes to their GP? I didn't know that.

I do hope that she wasn't autistic because leaving an autistic three year old alone with her younger siblings would be unforgivable and because an abductor who might otherwise be inclined to keep the child alive for undisclosed purposes might decide not to if the child has a condition that makes her hard to deal with.

 

[brit1981]

If an adult uses private care, or makes a visit to an emergency department they can decline the info is passed to their GP, but this cannot happen in the case of children - their GP must be informed. If someone is using the NHS hospital for regular treatment this is passed on to their GP as matter of course, as they have to be referred to the hospital by their GP in the first place (in fact even some private places need a GPs referral). So if a child had been seen by a healthcare professional and the information not passed on to their GP the rules would have been seriously broken, but as the GP is the one to make a referral then they would know about it anyway (one cannot get hospital visits without a referral unless you visit the A and E). The practice nurses also use the same records as the GP and are obviously based in the practice.
But again the autism thing is just another myth someone made up and put all over the internet for goodness knows what reason, there are no primary sourcs stating she had any medical condition or behavioural issues.

 

[fabgod]

Donjeta
My Youngest child has Phenylketonuria PKU for short, he was diagnosed in the UK from the heel prick test that is routinely done to children here in the first few days of life.

We were contacted directly by the Genetics Department of the Childrens hospital within days in order to minimise any potential damage to his development. Ths contact put us into the system and meant we would deal directly with the specialists for his condition and not the GP.
With PKU as an example, there are tenuous links to Autism and other developmental problems, these are not always evident in children with PKU but as with many rare conditions, there are grey areas in knowledge of the condition and associated conditions.

We were referred directly by our Consultants to other specialists such as eye specialists and neurologists without the involvement of the General practicioner.

Thats not to say that the GP doesnt have records of these appointments and issues, just that he (in our case) is not directly involved in anything other than sore throats, measles etc.
A GP cannot be expected, rightly, to have an all encompassing knowledge of every condition, he/she usually is the first point of contact with an illness or condition, but can often be bypassed dependent on the condition and circumstances.

Incidentally, whenever we visit our GP with our Son, the GP will greet us with something like "Hello, I understand ***** has PKU, how can I help" but he never says a list of his conditions, (which includes an eye problem)

 

[Donjeta]

Donjeta
thanks for taking the time to find the report.
I would love to have known what questions the PJ wanted to ask the Doctor, from reading the report by the GP, it seems that the questions were fairly general and it almost seems like a character witness in the fact he is stating how well he knows KM, rather than give details about the Parents and Childrens medical records

That's the impression I got as well. IDK... But I feel some or most of the statement is irrelevant to what happened to Madeleine. How well people got on during a dinner they didn't talk about parenting has little to do with what may or may not have happened to the children of either conversant.

Knowing how much the couple wanted a family, I do not believe that they would have had any kind of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

It is no doubt what he believes but I don't think that it's supported by literature that wanting a family protects children from every kind of involvement that parents might possibly have. Having children by IVF is no guarantee that parenting goes smoothly and everything is fine forevermore. Sometimes there are more problems, not fewer (although I do think that the difficulties in the process of IVF fertilization might weed out the worst crazies out there.)

See, for instance:
http://www.jeanhailes.org.au/media-...e-likely-to-use-residential-early-parenting-s

ervices

Dr Karin Hammarberg, Research Fellow at the Jean Hailes Research Unit, says in late pregnancy women who used IVF appeared to have an idealised picture of motherhood. So they might have been less prepared for the social isolation and for the repetitive and potentially isolating work of looking after a baby.

They also were less likely to receive help and support from people around them.

"We think people around these women, such as partners, parents and female friends, might under-estimate their needs and not be as supportive as they might be after the birth of a naturally conceived baby," says Professor Fisher.

This has nothing to do with disappearing children, per se, it's just to illustrate why I don't believe that fertility problems protect the children from parenting problems.

It didn't stop these parents from leaving their toddlers alone in an unlocked apartment because wining and dining in adult company was more important.

 

[brit1981]

fab,
But if the condition was found via one of the tests done during the hospital stay a consultant would be able to refer a baby, but the GP should still have been informed. What I was meaning is that in the Uk it is different from the US in that one cannot go directly to the hospital or specialist, normally your GP refers you, or in some cases (like newborns) the hospital doctor can refer you. If a GP has not been informed of conditions a child suffers there has been a major screw up in the administration somewhere.
In this case Madeleine's GP would have been informed if she had any concerning medical problems, it would not matter if he had not treated her directly he would have been made aware of any problems she had. I really do not see any reason to discount what her GP says and make up stories that she had various medical conditions when we have zilch evidence of this.

 

[SapphireSteel]

All of this is moot really.

All we know is the following -

Madeleine had a coloboma
Colobomas MAY be indicative of other health problems, including mental and/or hearing impairment
Madeleine did not have a regular GP other than her own parents
Madeleine's medical records were never sent to Portugal despite repeated requests
Madeleine's medical records are therefore unknown, as is the status of her coloboma.
We can neither confirm nor exclude Madeleine having any other health issues.

 

[brit1981]

All of this is moot really.

All we know is the following -

Madeleine had a coloboma
Colobomas MAY be indicative of other health problems, including mental and/or hearing impairment
people with Charge syndrome may also have a coloboma is a more correct wya of saying it.
Madeleine did not have a regular GP other than her own parents
The GP her parents used was also her own GP. This is normal in the UK where the entire family will normally have the same GP. It would be very odd for children to be registered to a different GP. The fact that madeleine got her vaccinations at the practice means she had to be registered there in her own right.Madeleine's medical records were never sent to Portugal despite repeated requests
There is no record of repeated requests or a failure to send them.Madeleine's medical records are therefore unknown, as is the status of her coloboma.
Unknown to the general public who actually have no business knowing her private medical detailsWe can neither confirm nor exclude Madeleine having any other health issues.
Well her GP says there was no cause for concern, so unless he is lying or laws have been broken there is no reason to suspect there were any causes for concern for her health.

All in all there really is no need for people to go around making up things abotu madeleine beign autistic etc.

 

[Clutchbag]

So what if she was? How does that bear on whether she was abducted or not?

 

[Donjeta]

So what if she was? How does that bear on whether she was abducted or not?

I am not saying that she was or that it has any bearing on the case but theoretically children with developmental difficulties may be more at risk to be harmed by the people close to them or to wind up dead in accidents, possibly after neglect. They also might be more vulnerable to stranger danger in certain circumstances but it may not apply in this case since any toddlers sleeping in their beds are pretty much equally defenseless and unless it was someone who had watched the family for some time a stranger wouldn't be able to tell which sleeping children are autistic or not.

Autism might have a bearing on what happens to a child after the abduction, say, if the child is taken by a childless couple who find her too hard to handle and can't seek professional help for obvious reasons, or if the abductor finds the child's disability a bonus because there are difficulties in communicating her plight to others etc. .

But obviously if she wasn't autistic it's not relevant in any manner so the theoretical possibilities leave us at the starting point.

 

[Clutchbag]

OK thanks for that donjeta