to half hope bipolar goes the same way as homosexuality?

[Mitchy1nge]

when homosexuality came out of the DSM

YABU.

People with ASD aren't "unwell" just because they have ASD but that still has a place in the DSM.

twokitties I think mania is a form of mental distress and we know that many many many causal factors interplay or combine to generate mental distress, and that politics inform diagnostic patterns every bit as much as poverty, abuse, other forces at work in people's lives

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

Which was all down to religion saying homosexuality was a sin and something to be fixed. Not from the person suffering.

People with bi-polar suffer. We do. For one period of time you're high as a sodding kite and think you're invincible or that jacked up you can't stay still, the next you're in a pit of despair crying on the kitchen floor.

People treating me as though this was normal would not be beneficial. It's also difficult enough to get help, especially on crisis point - it'd be even worse if bi-polar was no longer classed as an illness.

The only "problem" with homosexuality is when societies or cultures stigmatise or even demonise it, instead of accepting it as part of the human spectrum.

If we were to say that people with bi-polar shouldn't be demonised or stigmatised, which of course they shouldn't be, that wouldn't solve the whole issue for them, as they can have negative feelings and display negative behaviour.

*or condition that should say

I did say 'half hope'

and by that all I mean is that some recognition is owed to all the other contributions - it is not helpful for people to be told they have a chemical imbalance when nobody can be bothered to even measure their chemical balance (not that anyone would say that) especially with the 'minor' psychiatric diagnoses

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.

Yeah, my husband has bipolar and never abused or hurt a soul. Just himself. His mania is also very different to what people think when they hear that word. He isn't out spending money, having sex or staying up all night painting. His is more racing thoughts, seeing visual images etc.

YABVU

Firstly the DSM isn't always used in the UK as a diagnostic tool.

Secondly my husband is both bipolar and a clinical psychologist. He manages without medication through using therapy and mindfulness, but accepts the need for medication when necessary eg when in a manic or mixed episode. You are incredibly short sighted to say that it shouldn't be a medical condition. Of course sufferers can't help having it, but they still need medical intervention whether that is therapy or medicine. Hopefully you are aware that most psychologists in the UK do not use diagnostic labels to treat people, instead they treat the symptoms. Perhaps some more reading on NHS/UK approaches might help you, it's very different to the US and how they treat mental illnesses.

And I neglected to mention, in my comparison with ASD, that there is no treatment for ASD. Yet it is in the DSM because it impacts on an individual's ability to lead a "normal" (I use that term loosely) life. It affects functioning.

Homosexuality doesn't affect functioning, but it offended the religious sensibilities and many would have considered that no sane person could surely choose to live like that. Many unmarried mothers were treated the same. Even being left handed was considered a "disorder" until relatively recently.

Fortunately, as a society, we tend to have abandoned most of those ideas and the things that are in the DSM, now, because for many, they make it impossible to live life without some degree of additional intervention.

I don't think the DSM 5 is used much as a diagnostic tool in the states either, it is its role as a cultural document that some (like the blogger) find most concerning

I dont agree (as someone with bipolar). Although I sort of see where you're coming from!

Perhaps the phrasing could be tweaked in DSM so that BP is seen more as a 'condition' and less as an 'illness' - as per, say, autism or ADHD? That may well happen going forward, as attitudes towards mental health develop over time.

I have seen it with autism (DS is Aspie). Even 6 or 7 years ago 'autistic spectrum disorder' was commonly used by HPs and all the language around autism seemed to be quite bleak and focussed on the limitations and impairments. Fast forward a few years and attitudes are massively changing as society comes to understand and accept the breadth of the autism spectrum (not all rosy, but far better than it was).

It would be interesting to see what a wide range of people with BP think, though, wouldnt it? For me, it has been a curse to be honest and feels very much like an illness. I cant see any positives to it. All the 'highly creative' stuff when manic means jack shit when you sabotage your life in depressingly repetitive cycles and undo any good you have done in your life .

This is quite different to autism, where I can see the amazing way that Ds's brain works because of his autism, despite the many frustrations and limitations it also brings.

Struggling to see the connection with homosexuality, though, other than societal attitudes towards it have changed, whereas we still live in the dark ages re:mental health...is that what youre getting at?

I think so holly, the idea that the boundaries between 'normal' and not normal, 'natural' and unnatural can continue to expand and shift in ways that overlook such important forces that undermine our well-being as social inequality. It's one thing to be born with a gun genetically pre-loaded with bipolar but it's another to exculpate environmental and social factors from their role in pulling the trigger.

I agree. I struggle hugely with my diagnosis as it is, to be honest, although I accept it.

My dad is bipolar type 1, so obviously genetics are in there somewhere. But I also had some trauma as a child and a chaotic teenage life. Lots of upheaval at a young age that contribute to my chaotic moods, basically, and then postnatal depression 10 yrs ago which properly triggered the bipolar mood states.

Nobody has ever been able to explain the chemical balance / proper medical side of bipolar to me, really, and after seeing four psychs in a three year period, I had my diagnosis question marked several times (PTSD, ADHD, personality disorder all thrown in at some point to confuse me, but then dismissed).

Its a struggle to understand this BP thing myself, let alone understand how I feel about it and how i want the world to view me and/or people to support me!

OP, I'm not sure about the experiences of others here, but when my ExH was given his Bipolar diagnosis, it followed a year of NHS therapy and took into account genetic, environmental factors and lifestyle. It was not done lightly at a GP appointment.

AFAIK, a Bipolar diagnosis is given by an NHS psychiatrist following lengthy engagement. Providing of course that one is able to get access to an NHS psychiatrist.

yeah for many reasons bipolar was a poor example and for that alone I admit the charges of unreasonablenosity that have been levelled against me

the wider point, of course, is the way in which we understand and interpret human behaviour - our range of what is normal and acceptable and all the stuff that is increasingly defined as not normal or healthy, and the wilful obfuscation of the role of so much that contributes to what has become 'mental illness'

maybe the argument is not so much for the demedicalisation of bipolar and other psychiatric illnesses as for a newer sociologisation of their origins

am glad sociologisation is not a word and I will never have to try to say it out loud

Agree, Mitchy. And without derailing your thread, I also think there is a HUGE argument for some new feminist perspectives on mental illness to be developed and taken seriously. A different conversation, perhaps.

The definition or 'normal' has always been debated and will continue to be debated until the end of time

I'm not sure what condition then you'd use as a good example?

gender dysphoria

that's a brilliant example

why didn't I think of it sooner

but the point about homosexuality was that it was a condition, the thoughts and feelings and impulses connected with an attraction to someone of the same sex were pathologised - then it was (bedgrudgingly) removed and the people affected were restored to full personhood

am sorry for feeling some affinity with that situation but it's how it is

it wouldn't be derailing holly

would be very interested to read about those

Huh? What a weird dangerous idea. Isnt the difference that homosexuality didn't actually harm anyone and that treating it like an illness was actually the greater cause of harm by making people depressed and suicidal etc.? Being bipolar is the exact opposite. Ignoring it and treating it like nothing makes it more dangerous. I had a friend in uni who jumped off a balcony because she was bipolar and in those days no one took it seriously. Thankfuly she only broke her leg but as bipolar threatens your health and even your life surely it is the exact definition of a disease??

I think it's disingenuous to compare conditions such as those to homosexuality.

The whole stigma associated with homosexuality was cultural and religious. Otherwise it would have just been the same as someone who was heterosexual. It was wrongly labeled as an illness or condition, but it doesn't mean that all others have the same issue.