Accepting vs. denying your mental health disorders

[ceecee]

It's not.
when they say you have bipolar, they stick label on you, and give you meds and dont treat you for the rest of your life.
when someone says you've been hurt (=wounded), they can listen your life story and see where it went downhill, and all people are wounded to a degree...

If someone is bipolar, and you don't say you have bipolar, you identify person first, a person with bipolar disorder, they have an identified and treatable disease. If you say someone is wounded, that opens up all kinds of interpretations and definitions. I would prefer, and I think others feel the same, to not be labeled as broken and un-repaired.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Yes, and generally it's accepted that it's more helpful to state the condition as something someone HAS instead of something someone IS. Like, instead of "She's mentally ill" or "She's bipolar," it's better to say, "She has a mental health condition" or "She suffers from bipolar disorder." Something about not framing the mental health condition as a defining part of a person.

I was also happy to find out that I have a mental health condition, instead of just being weak and unable to deal with the realities of life. Also, once it was established that I have a certain disorder, my doctor was able to devise a treatment for it. Character weaknesses are not treatable - mental health conditions (mostly) are. And life without panic attacks is much better!

Problem is if you actually identify yourself with your so-called "disorder". In fact, everything that isn't normal can be defined as a "mental issue". I guess many people would call "being ENTP" a mental problem if asked. Also, some personality disorders are so intrusive that you can't really think of yourself in a different way than your usual unhealthy train of thought. F.e., I increasingly get sure that I have BPD, but although I'm aware that it's corrupting my thoughts, I don't want to get rid of it because I never thought in another way. I just don't know whether I would still be myself if I would take medicaments (ironically, this strong fear of losing oneself is in fact a part of BPD itself) or even if I would be able to "lose it" without medicine.

 

[garbage]

We don't see this 'direct assignment' phenomenon with other sorts of illnesses--we would say "she has cancer" rather than "She is cancerous," for example.

The mental realm is different because our very being is perceived to be affected by mental illnesses. So, rather than a mere trait or illness that one possesses, a mental illness becomes a personality trait in colloquial speech. "She is schizophrenic" is a pretty common phrasing to hear.

As a bipolar dude, I really don't care too much either way. I can imagine that it can feel pretty damning and helpless to some, though.

 

[Octarine]

"she has cancer"

Don't you know, they prescribe psychogenic interventions for cancer sufferers now. I've always suspected that sufferers aren't right in the head after getting cancer.

http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7016/1316.extract

And a meta-review:
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/7789344/reload=0;jsessionid=71F706B77DFE18DAB1D5F18B3D32B198.jvm1

 

[aeon]

A proper diagnosis that leads to being able to live a more fulfilling life is a great thing in my experience, regardless if it can be named per the DSM-IV TR.

That said, if that kind of classification helps to better understand one’s own neurology and psychology, it may be of some use, even knowing the differential criteria of a given disorder may not exactly fit one’s presentation.

The DSM-IV TR says I have a disorder. That’s one perspective. My sense is that I function in a different way that presents both challenges and gifts in my experience of being alive. It’s only a disorder to me to the degree it takes away from my ability to pursue a fulfilling life.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Octarine]

The DSM is pseudo-science. I mean what other supposed body of standards doesn't bother with citing the basis of its findings? Or explain that their selection of definitions seem to shift with the fashions of the time. Some are suggesting the changes in the new revsion of the DSM are a grab for cash: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/01/corrupting-psychiatry

The reason why they don't bother is because the science is highly questionable. If they had scientific models that were more substantial than a cute diagram, then they might be taken more seriously.

 

[rav3n]

My point was that "mentally ill" is a bad label, since it contains both "thinking that you're Jesus, terminator, or the Pope" and less severe stuff.

What's wrong with being the terminator? He had a job to do and the perserverance and dedication to continue.

 

[chachamaru]

There isn't enough mental illness to go around.

 

[Mephistopheles]

The DSM is pseudo-science. I mean what other supposed body of standards doesn't bother with citing the basis of its findings? Or explain that their selection of definitions seem to shift with the fashions of the time. Some are suggesting the changes in the new revsion of the DSM are a grab for cash: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/01/corrupting-psychiatry

The reason why they don't bother is because the science is highly questionable. If they had scientific models that were more substantial than a cute diagram, then they might be taken more seriously.

Aren't we here in the wrong forum to call something "pseudo-science"?

 

[rav3n]

DSM always brings to mind the two questions of what is considered emotionally healthy and who arbitrarily decides this. Many of the social disorders include "symptoms" that most of the population possess. Maybe it's by degrees. But then, who arbitrarily decides the tilt of the axle from healthy to unhealthy?

If you consider brain chemistry, there's no scientific manner to test it. So then, why are so many antipsychotic drugs being prescribed, many by GPs?