to half hope bipolar goes the same way as homosexuality?

[Mitchy1nge]

when homosexuality came out of the DSM

what chemical imbalances are in place with bipolar?

Homosexuality is not a "condition". Please stop referring to it as such.

Society has moved on since homosexuality was included in the DSM. However so has medicine, those advances do not support that bipolar disorder or any other is a "natural state" for human beings.

I don't see homosexuality as a condition. That's the point. Did you read the article? The snippet from the position statement about its removal from the manual? 'While noting that homosexuality does not fulfill criteria for a psychiatric disorder, the same position statement goes on to note “no doubt, homosexual activists will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as “normal” as heterosexuality. They will be wrong.” '

I found it really shocking.

Being gay does not affect your behaviour in a way that could potentially have a catastrophically negative impact on your life.

Having an episode of pyschotic or catatonic depression really fucking obviously does.

People who SUFFER from bipolar disorder should have the option of getting treatment. If you want to reject your diagnosis, reject it, but I think it's incredibly arrogant to want to make that choice for all people with bipolar disorder. I know there's a stigma and I get around it by not disclosing.

Bipolar can manifest differently in sufferers. My DP has it and I have not had any abuse from him whatsoever. It unfortunately inflicts only himself (non medicated). So you can't put every sufferer of Bipolar into the same box as per pp.

But I stand by saying that the two are not comparable.

I don't know if everything else in there should be. I'd have to see the whole list. Homosexuality was on there because of a combination of ignorance and intolerance.

I know some things could be seen as 'different' as opposed to 'ill'. Many of the behavioural problems talked about now sound like marking a point along a curve and saying "this side of the line you are misbehaving and that side of the line you are sick".

But in a practical sense what else can you do? If it is just a point on a curve and not well/unwell then you should always keep that in mind, but you do have to treat people for whom it has become a problem so they have to be seen as unwell.

Being gay the same as having brown eyes/being tall/shoe size etc, it is part of who people are from the beginning of life.

Bipolar disorder, IMO and IME is an illness that has specific symptoms and presentation and is usually treated with medication, although I recognise that some people prefer not to receive medication. I don't see how you can equate one with the other.

I do however agree with what you say about reduction of stigma, although I would say that should apply to all aspects of mental illness, and I think the campaign that has been ongoing for a while is making great in roads into this.

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Bipolar-disorder/Pages/Causes.aspx

Chemical imbalances in the brain is widely reported as being the presuming main cause of Bipolar.

Homosexuality isn't an illness. A homosexual person just goes about their normal life and doesn't need 'treatment' at all. My lovely niece is bipolar however and has been very ill indeed with crippling depression, suicidal episodes and self-harm, 'hyper' phases, insomnia etc. She's had to spend time admitted to hospital for assessment and adjustment of her medication. She's had weeks at a time off work. So in her case, it's a serious mental illness. I should imagine that homosexuals would be rather surprised to be thought of as being in a similar category to this. But if you mean that people should be accepted whatever their differences from what's loosely termed as 'the norm' then I agree. But with sufferers of serious mental illness, one can't just ignore the problems and take no notice of their needs. They are 'different' meaning more vulnerable and fragile.

You are being ridiculous. Do you know how hard it is to get some people to accept psychiatric conditions already? And you want it to be seen as what... a personality trait?

I equate them because they have shared space in an important cultural document that defines for us what is 'normal' or 'natural' or 'healthy' in terms of human behaviour and what isn't, and because the social construction of mental illness is rarely discussed and I think it's important.

Surely, if bi-polar was decided to not be a mental illness, you would make it so much more difficult for people who are bi-polar to get help when they need it? Speaking as the daughter of a bi-polar mother who is currently an inpatient in a mental health hospital I dread to think what would happen if she couldn't access help when she was at her lowest. I know some people, DM included, can have long periods of stability, with or without medication, but without the safety net of the mental health team, what would happen when a crisis occurs?

I do think we should view people who suffer from mental health issues the same way we view people with other long term health problems, though, just think it is still a long way off

I'm really not in favour of dismantling the whole structure and never using categorical diagnoses again, but I agree with the blogger that it is convenient to locate illness ever more firmly within the individual rather than address the social and economic and other causes.

That's like saying don't call it a broken leg, don't treat it as an injury...deal with the slippery floor.

Hmm, interesting OP. Both homosexuality (as a personal description of overall sexual orientation as well as behaviour in the way it is used today) and bipolar are modern terms, and the stigma they carry or do not carry is also very specific to modern society. I don't personally think that our modern definitions are necessarily any more valid or accurate than the ways in which people talked about and understood what we would now call mental illness in the early modern or pre-modern world, or elsewhere in the world today. I also think that the medicalisation of mental illness is not always very helpful.

I think I understand the point you are making

Bring diagnosed with a condition often comes with complications. Many people struggle with their diagnosis having that label and what it means to them, some people totally identify with their diagnosis others if helps as they then get medication that helps

The latest DSM has come under huge amount of criticism questions are being asked about how we diagnose and treat people and it is something that needs to be questioned and challenged

What is it we could do differently?

I'm not sure I understand you OP. BiPolar disorder is a condition that requires recognition and medical intervention in order to keep the sufferer safe and improve their quality of life. Homosexuality does not.

YABU. There is a chemical imbalance in Bipolar or there wouldn't be medication to treat it - medication cant treat personality based "issues". But thats not to say its the only factor relevant. Whether you like it or not Bipolar is a mental illness and no amount of trying to view it as anything else is helpful.

YABU

Homosexuality is not an illness and needs no medication.

However you define bipolar, it does need medication. My Dad is bipolar and regularly convinces himself he is not ill and stops the meds - cue him nearly being sectioned twice. If bipolar was categorised as normal, then he would have done himself serious harm by now.

the comment "the medicalization of mental illness is not always very helpful" is frankly offensive.

The medicalisation of mental illness is not always helpful though many many people who work within mental health are concerned with this issues

It is helpful for many it's is damaging for some unless we want to put our faith totally in medicine

The understanding of mental heath issues is changing constantly. We have been sold hypothesis as truths, diagnoses are hugely increasing our understanding of mh issues changes all the time

And if has to be challenged at times we have so many people who are taking a cocktail of drugs because little other support is available

YABVU

Bi-polar disorder is an illness. It's actually awful. It's a hard slog to get yourself right, on the right meds, feeling normal.

Being gay isn't an illness. There is no treatment or a cure, and one isn't needed anyway.

Would you say the same about depression? Because bi-polar is just like depression but with the mania phase chucked in.

Any diagnosis, physical or mental illness, is difficult to deal with. Reducing stigma is the answer for all of it, denying the person has a problem isn't (unless you are in government and forcing people to work instead of get help that is ).

You are too invested in this as it is your diagnosis but try to think of other conditions: MS, infertility, going blind... for example. Can you see why any diagnosis is upsetting? Why would bipolar be more similar to a sexuality than a medical condition? How does it help?

But what are the social and economic and other causes at play in a bipolar high, Mitchy? I can't think of any.

This has hit a nerve at the moment as my brother is currently in a manic phase, if that's even the right term any more has stopped meds/thinks the paving stones are sending messages/is the reincarnation of the Romanovs/has no idea of the date or time it's like talking to someone who is delirious from a high fever, and I would certainly call them 'ill'.

they did have treatments and cures for homosexuality but that strains the comparison a bit too far

bipolar was a terrible example to use because of course it has been documented for many hundreds of years and we have amassed a bit of knowledge about what helps people who meet the diagnostic threshold - I could have picked something much newer, something that has crept in more recently but I don't feel qualified to form much of an opinion on something I've no direct lived experience of