When Delusion Becomes Reality: A Six-Year Diagnostic Odyssey and Ethical Crisis in a Case of Veridical Spousal Infidelity Belief.

Q4 Medicine
Case Reports in Psychiatry Pub Date : 2026-04-27 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1155/crps/3752206
Alireza Parsapoor, Mehdi Sayyah
{"title":"When Delusion Becomes Reality: A Six-Year Diagnostic Odyssey and Ethical Crisis in a Case of Veridical Spousal Infidelity Belief.","authors":"Alireza Parsapoor, Mehdi Sayyah","doi":"10.1155/crps/3752206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The diagnosis of delusional disorder, jealousy type, traditionally relies on the criterion of a \"false\" belief. This report describes a complex case in which a belief long considered delusional was ultimately verified, revealing limitations of rigid diagnostic frameworks and raising a profound ethical dilemma.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>Ms. A, a 42-year-old woman, presented with a fixed, 4-year belief in her husband's infidelity, accompanied by mild depressive symptoms but preserved global functioning. Over a 6-year period, she received treatment from multiple psychiatrists, including sequential trials of antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole) without benefit. Documented treatment resistance led to a trial of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Following the first ECT session, her husband confessed to long-term infidelity and a secret remarriage, while demanding that the clinician withhold this information from the patient.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This case challenges the diagnostic emphasis on belief falsity and illustrates how prolonged familial deception can sustain misdiagnosis. The protracted, multiprovider treatment history likely contributed to diagnostic entrenchment and therapeutic escalation. Ethically, maintaining secrecy after the confession constituted institutional gaslighting and epistemic injustice, violating core principles of nonmaleficence and autonomy. The clinician's primary duty to the patient must supersede spousal demands for confidentiality in cases of harmful deception.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Veridical \"delusions\" require a paradigm shift toward dynamic diagnosis and patient-centered ethics. Clinicians must critically evaluate collateral information, remain alert to epistemic injustice, and prioritize patient welfare and truth disclosure over preservation of harmful familial secrets.</p>","PeriodicalId":9631,"journal":{"name":"Case Reports in Psychiatry","volume":"2026 ","pages":"3752206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13121555/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Case Reports in Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/crps/3752206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of delusional disorder, jealousy type, traditionally relies on the criterion of a "false" belief. This report describes a complex case in which a belief long considered delusional was ultimately verified, revealing limitations of rigid diagnostic frameworks and raising a profound ethical dilemma.

Case presentation: Ms. A, a 42-year-old woman, presented with a fixed, 4-year belief in her husband's infidelity, accompanied by mild depressive symptoms but preserved global functioning. Over a 6-year period, she received treatment from multiple psychiatrists, including sequential trials of antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole) without benefit. Documented treatment resistance led to a trial of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Following the first ECT session, her husband confessed to long-term infidelity and a secret remarriage, while demanding that the clinician withhold this information from the patient.

Discussion: This case challenges the diagnostic emphasis on belief falsity and illustrates how prolonged familial deception can sustain misdiagnosis. The protracted, multiprovider treatment history likely contributed to diagnostic entrenchment and therapeutic escalation. Ethically, maintaining secrecy after the confession constituted institutional gaslighting and epistemic injustice, violating core principles of nonmaleficence and autonomy. The clinician's primary duty to the patient must supersede spousal demands for confidentiality in cases of harmful deception.

Conclusion: Veridical "delusions" require a paradigm shift toward dynamic diagnosis and patient-centered ethics. Clinicians must critically evaluate collateral information, remain alert to epistemic injustice, and prioritize patient welfare and truth disclosure over preservation of harmful familial secrets.

当妄想成为现实:六年的诊断奥德赛和道德危机在一个真实的配偶不忠信念的情况下。
背景:嫉妒型妄想障碍的诊断传统上依赖于“错误”信念的标准。这份报告描述了一个复杂的案例,在这个案例中,一个长期被认为是妄想的信念最终得到了证实,揭示了严格诊断框架的局限性,并引发了一个深刻的伦理困境。病例介绍:A女士,42岁,4年来一直坚信丈夫不忠,并伴有轻度抑郁症状,但整体功能完好。在6年的时间里,她接受了多位精神科医生的治疗,包括抗精神病药物(利培酮、奥氮平和阿立哌唑)的连续试验,但没有效果。记录的治疗抵抗导致了电休克治疗(ECT)的试验。在第一次ECT治疗后,她的丈夫承认长期不忠并秘密再婚,同时要求临床医生对病人隐瞒这些信息。讨论:这个案例挑战了诊断对信念错误的强调,并说明了长期的家庭欺骗如何维持误诊。长期的、多提供者的治疗史可能有助于诊断巩固和治疗升级。在伦理上,在认罪后继续保密构成了制度上的燃气灯和认识上的不公正,违反了无罪和自主的核心原则。在有害欺骗的情况下,临床医生对病人的主要责任必须取代配偶对保密的要求。结论:真实的“妄想”需要向动态诊断和以患者为中心的伦理学范式转变。临床医生必须批判性地评估附带信息,对认知上的不公正保持警惕,并优先考虑患者福利和真相披露,而不是保留有害的家庭秘密。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Case Reports in Psychiatry
Case Reports in Psychiatry Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书