Abstract
One million cases of child maltreatment and twelve hundred child deaths due to abuse and neglect occur per year. But since many cases of abuse and neglect remain either unreported or unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence, the number of children who are abused, neglected, and killed at the hands of family caregivers is probably higher. One approach to combat child abuse in the U.K. has been the employment of hospital-based covert video surveillance (CVS) to monitor parents suspected of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP). The use of CVS, however, raises concerns about voluntary informed consent, research on human subjects, privacy, and the appropriateness of healthcare providers to conduct CVS. More broadly, the use of CVS raises concerns about the ethical life of healthcare institutions and their moral obligations to the families and communities they serve. The U.K. protocol for CVS is examined in light of these concerns. Three alternative CVS protocols and two procedures for selecting a protocol are then proposed for use in the U.S. The paper concludes that any CVS protocol selected for use by hospitals ought to be selected by means of open and democratic processes that permit community input and, subsequently, the possibility of a consensus on the moral status and scope of CVS.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. “Factitious Disorder by Proxy.” In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition. 781–783. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
Bennett, K. “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy Abuse.” Journal of Child Health Care 4, no. 4 (2002): 163–166.
Buchanan v. State, 437 So. 2d 147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. Appl. 1983).
Connelly, R. “Ethical Issues in the Use of Covert Video Surveillance in the Diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: The Atlanta Study – an Ethical Challenge for Medicine.” HEC Forum 15, no. 1 (2003): 21–41.
Driscoll, M. “The Child Abuse Myths Unravel.” London Times, 2002.
Epstein, M. et al. “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: Considerations in Diagnosis and Confirmation by Video Surveillance.” Pediatrics 80 (1987): 220–224.
Evans, D. “The Investigation of Life-Threatening Child Abuse and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.” Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (1995): 9–13.
Evans, D. “Covert Video Surveillance – A Response to Professor Southall and Dr. Samuels.” Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (1996): 29–31.
Fiatal, R. A. “Lights, Camera, Action: Video Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 58 (1989): 23–30.
Gillon, R. “Covert Surveillance by Doctors for Life-Threatening Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.” Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (1995): 131–132.
Hall, D. et al. “Evaluation of Covert Video Surveillance in the Diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: Lessons from 41 Cases.” Pediatrics 105, no. 6 (2000): 1305–1312.
Katz v. United States, 390 N. W. at 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).
Lawson, T. “Why an Expert Witness is in the Dock.” The Scotsman, 2004.
Lung, C.-T., and D. Daro. Current Trends in Child Abuse: The Results of the Annual 1995 Fifty-State Survey. Chicago: National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, 1996.
Morley, C. “Concerns about Using and Interpreting Covert Video Surveillance.” British Medical Journal 316 (1998): 1603–1605.
Mothers against Munchausen by Proxy Allegations. See http:/www. msbp. com.
Samuels, M. P. et al. “Fourteen Cases of Imposed Upper Airway Obstruction.” Archives of Disabled Children 67 (1992): 162–170.
Shabde, N., and A. W. Craft. “Covert Video Surveillance: An Important Investigative Tool or a Breach of Trust?” Archives of Disabled Children 81, no. 4 (1999): 291–294.
Shinebourne, E. A. “Covert Video Surveillance and the Principle of Double Effect: A Response to Criticism.” Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (1996): 26–28.
Southall, D. P., et al. “Covert Video Recordings of Life-Threatening Child Abuse: Lessons for Child Protection.” Pediatrics 100 (1997): 735–776.
Southall, D. P., and M. P. Samuels. “Ethical Use of Covert Videoing for Potentially Life Threatening Child Abuse: A Response to Drs Foreman and Farsides.” British Medical Journal 307 (1993): 613–614.
Southall, D. P., and M. P. Samuels. “Some Ethical Issues Surrounding Covert Video Surveillance – A Response.” Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (1995): 104–105, 115.
Southall, D. P., and M. P. Samuels. “Guidelines for the Multi-Agency Management of Patients Suspected or at Risk of Suffering from Life-Threatening Abuse Resulting in Cyanotic-Apnoeic Episodes.” Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (1996): 16–21.
Southall, D. P. et al. “Apnoeic Episodes Induced by Smothering: Two Cases Identified by Covert Video Surveillance.” British Medical Journal 294 (1987): 1637–1641.
State v. Abislaiman, 437 So. 2d 181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. Appl. 1983).
Tenney, G. “Covert Surveillance in Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy: An Infringement of Human Rights.” British Medical Journal 308 (1994): 1100–1102.
Thomas, T. “Covert Video Surveillance – An Assessment of the Staffordshire Protocol.” Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (1996): 22–25.
Vaught, W., and Fleetwood J. “Covert Video Surveillance in Pediatric Care.” Hastings Center Report 32, no. 6 (2002): 10–11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bauer, K. Covert Video Surveillance of Parents Suspected of Child Abuse: The British Experience and Alternative Approaches. Theor Med Bioeth 25, 311–327 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-004-3145-7
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-004-3145-7