Reply to comment

         It is interesting that you bring this up, after reading a historical fiction novel on Queen Mary of Tudor (who was said to have pseudocyesis) I have been curious about “false pregnancies.”  I read the article that you read as well as other articles, The Journal of Family Practice listed three theories for this phenomena; Conflict Theory, Wish Fulfillment Theory and Depression Theory.  In Conflict and Depression theory it is suggested that an emotional upset (such as anxiety or depression) may cause changes in the endocrine system that causes the signs and symptoms of pregnancy.  Along the same lines as you suggested, I wonder exactly what type or how much “emotion up set” or input has to go into the system to get the out put of pseudocyesis.  We all seem to know or know of couples who want to get pregnant but just cannot seem to, these women and men (pseudocyesis can occur in men too!) all go through emotional upset, yet they do not have a false pregnancy.  So then what makes this phenomenon so rare?    

When thinking about the box model of the brain (boxes all the way down!) how can we try to understand pseudocyesis.  The individual obviously has some upset over the state of pregnancy.  We can say that this would be the input, what makes this input have the output of pseudocyesis?  Are there different boxes and different box connections in these specific individuals?  Perhaps some connections are stronger or go to different boxes.  Yet this seems like the behavior of “upset” is having an effect on the brain.  Can this actually cause the hormones produced by the brain to spike?  Is this a case where our behaviors can affect our brain?   

I am not quite sure where I am going with all this but (or if I am going anywhere but Stacy, I do agree with you that it is strange that the doctor in the article refers to the mind, after talking about the brain’s involvement.   In the article I also found that they referred to a “mind-body feed back loop.”  To me, it seems as though this article is endorsing the presence of a “mind” and that “just brain” simply does not equal behavior.  I think perhaps that they implied that there was a “mind-brain feedback loop.”  Can we suggest that this is evidence for a mind and its effects?  I am not sure.  The individual obviously has desire or fear of pregnant and them (according to the theories) something happens that causes a change in their hormones.  How come this change causes a false pregnancy?  Was it just change that this hormonal change happened to go along with the persons desires or fear to be pregnancy or was it just a random change that happened to cause pseudocyesis?    

Further I think perception does play a large role in this yet I am not sure what it is.  Obviously the woman perceives that she is pregnant, lots of women who get pseudocyesis have already been pregnant and they claim that it feels the same.  So for what ever reason the women perceives she is pregnant, I feel that others would perceive that she was pregnant too, just because no one is going to argue with a woman who looks pregnant that she is not.  But let’s say that they did.  I think that if others do not perceive the women as pregnant she may eventually stop perceiving herself as pregnant as well.  This may be what happened with Queen Mary, after her first “full term” false pregnancy no one believed her and her second false pregnancy only last a few months.  Yet, I think that your self perception is very strong, therefore if the woman vehemently perceives herself as pregnancy than the doubt of others may not cause the termination of the false pregnancy.