While I am sympathetic to the woman in the article, consider this: I am bipolar type one (the wilder type), ultra rapid cyclicity with psychotic features. I have had countless manic episodes complete with week-long total sleeplessness, hallucinations (visual and auditory) and delusions ranging from believing I was a CIA agent to thinking the CIA is out to get me. And I've done some really crazy, stupid things of.. questionable judgment, including sending very crazy faxes to the White House. Been hospitalized against my will more than once.
But now I take several drugs and am very well-treated, extremely "high-functioning" in the clinical sense. I've been married happily and nicely employed for years. While being manic is a lot of fun, I have no inclination to fall off the treatment wagon. I'm a success story basically.
But suppose I wanted a government job requiring security clearance to privileged information, should I be trusted given that I've been mentally healthy for several years, without incident?
I think the answer is no. Obviously.
Manic depressives are, relative to everybody else, prone to poor judgment, psychosis, run-ins with the law, suicide, not taking their medicines, unemployment, broken relationships and vices in general. Call me a self-hating nut but if I had a daughter (and parenthetically I do intend to have a kid, even though the kid has a fifty fifty chance of having the disease), would I want a bipolar boy to date my daughter, however well-treated he might be? Absolutely not.
So regarding my people, those with mood disorders (not just bipolar), while I appreciate the anti-discriminatory progressive stuff to make things easier for my people, between you and me, do yourself a favor, whether you are an employer, a money lender, an army recruiter, an immigration policy maker or a dad - or even a bipolar person yourself who's on the dating market, keep your distance from us manic depressives as too often we are bad news.
I agree that some background checks need to be done for sensitive jobs, such as government jobs you describe. However the article is about a woman who was just crossing the border between Canada and US. This should have just been a formality, provided she wasn't carrying weapons or drugs, and the fact that the check was so thorough for this is what scares me the most in the article. Basically how long do we need to wait before the boarding agents scan our gmails and participation to any internet forum or social network to assert we are not gonna do crazy things once we have entered in the US?
I was writing more in response to whether or not "profiling the mentally ill" is a shameful thing or a good idea for society in general, not this woman trying to cross the border. Hers is a soft anecdote to use as context for an important question.
You don't become an 'officially mentally ill person' without serious profiling, anyway. The DSM-IV is nothing but a book of massive discrimination. One mans religion is another mans madness; and vice versa.
Make no mistake - we will never be rid of hatred and intolerance in the world for as long as we have industrialised mental health institutions producing their discriminating materials. Without discrimination, you can't "diagnose" someone as having a "mental disorder" that is "socially not accepted and therefore requires treatment".
Well, the answer to "is profiling the mentallly ill a bad thing to do?" would be: it depends of the circumstances. It can be legitimate for important things such as the ones you describe, and completely out of proportion for other things, such as crossing the Canada US border.
While I find your perspective to be insightful, I feel like you are doing a disservice to others with mental illness. I have Type II bipolar, and I am certainly prone to poor judgement and borderline delusional thought patterns in an untreated manic episode. However, I am on a medication regimen, that while not perfect, makes me effectively indistinguishable from a "normal" person in day-to-day interactions.
However, categorically suggesting that people should "keep [their] distance" from those with bipolar disorder seems like an extremely destructive message. As another commenter pointed out, there is a spectrum (as with any mental disorder), and I feel like sweeping generalizations of the societal risks of individuals with BP serve to exacerbate the issue of negative stigma surrounding the disease.
At what threshold of treatment efficacy should those with BP be allowed to participate equally and without stigma, in your opinion? Will it require some sort of brain stimulation to address the root cause? genetic engineering to attempt to prevent it? more advanced mood stablizers?
Treatment has progressed substantially from the heavily stigmatized 40s-80s already, and it's not unreasonable to assume that eventually it may become trivial to treat for the majority of cases. Were that to occur, should society still take your cautionary advice about these otherwise high-functioning individuals?
You are exactly the kind of crazy person that confounds America. (I say in jest, not meaning any offense)
In the wake of Newtown, a lot of states wanted to enact gun control measures, in my state, and in this example specifically, we wanted to enact gun control measures against the mentally ill.
As an advocate of the second amendment, I was initially for the idea, though against the majority of the bill, until I heard testimony from mental health professionals in the area who found the measures appalling, which was especially confusing to me, since they generally supported the bill, and specifically the ban on some semi-automatic rifles (referred to erroneously as assault rifles).
Through their testimony, I learned then that even of those diagnosed with potentially 'dangerous' mental disorders (mania, schizophrenia, etc.) that many of them were perfectly non-violent. Ultimately, my opinion was formed on the same grounds as most of my other opinions, which is that disorder or no, rights should not be curtailed without due process.
So, conceding that you shouldn't be eligible for top secret level positions, how do you feel about your second amendment rights? What about the right to vote? (And yes, I acknowledge that comparison often comes off as inflammatory, though I don't intend it to, and have had little good luck in explaining why it shouldn't.) -- And, so it's qualified up front, there's no wrong answer here.
Allowed to own a gun? Absolutely, positively not. Even if I were to assume a staunchly right wing position for myself for the sake of answering your question, no way should I be allowed to possess firearms. I don't have to decide to go off my meds to go crazy, I could simply be suddenly subjected to "stressors" (having a child, wife dying, losing a job) that spark up my serotonin faster than I can nuke it down with an extra few hits of Zyprexa. Suddenly in my beautiful mind the CIA is out to get me again, and in spite of what the founding fathers wanted for me, no, I shouldn't have a gun, and aggressive measures ought to be taken by society to try to ensure that.
So, assuming that we agree that people should be allowed to own guns, how do we, the other members of society, know which mentally ill persons should be allowed to and which shouldn't? Should your rights be suspended on involuntary commitment? Were you ever involuntarily committed? Was there ever a life event of yours that you would mark as the 'moment' that should have triggered to society that you shouldn't own a firearm?
Apologies if these questions are invasive, or even if they're just taken as rude. They feel rude of me to ask, and for that I apologize, but I've never had the luxury of speaking to someone so seemingly objective about their own situation before.
Edit: I redact the question. I don't know why, but it makes me feel dirty asking it, and I'd rather I hadn't. Thanks anyway.
Yes, involuntary commitment, at least a post-72 hour commitment imposed by a judge, should be a dealbreaker. Having filled a Klonopin prescription no, but having filled a lithium prescription yes. Unipolar depression isn't quite the softball mood disorder people may realize (in comparison to bipolar), I wouldn't want citizens prone to major depressive episodes to have guns either, and it's also noteworthy that those diagnosed with depression often turn out to have something more colorful, such as bipolar.
edit: As for bipolar CIA agents on Homeland, they should be restricted to carrying pistol-shaped tasers.
Now I'm trying to remember if I can recall any scenes in which Claire Danes' character enters a scene intentionally armed. My memory is failing me though.
... Though we are more creative. This is an example of positive discrimination, but it is still discrimination.
I'm not bipolar, I have a history of depression and anxiety. I would often hear others (including my folks) mention this to me to give me hope. I found it incredibly patronising, especially when in practically every other area in life the same people would just repeatedly kick my confidence in the teeth.
It was brave of you to post this comment and I'm happy you're having success with treatment. I come from a family with a history of bipolar symptoms. The only thing that keeps me hopeful about a certain sibling is the possibility that the condition will become much less severe in time. I dislike the treatment of the woman in this article because it's presumably a flat out denial of entry with no insight into her particular circumstance and because it brings to mind my brother being stigmatized for the rest of his life
First of all, I grew up with someone who had exactly the same course of illness as you. So it isn't like I don't know. I lived with it for my whole childhood.
You also don't understand anything about getting a security clearance. Nothing.
Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information” states:
“No negative inference concerning the standards in this section may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling. . . . However, mental health counseling, where relevant to the adjudication of access to classified information, may justify further inquiry to determine whether the standards of subsection (b) of this section are satisfied, and mental health may be considered where it directly relates to those standards.”
When you apply for a clearance, I think they are redoing the forms, but the old ones there was a question:
Mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a clearance. In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition? Answer “No” if the counseling was for any of the following reason and was not court-ordered:
1) strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or
2) strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.
If you answer yes you have to fill out "Authorization for the Release of Medical Information” with authorizes the following information from the mental health practitioner(s):
Does the person under investigation have a condition that could impair his or her judgement, reliability or ability to properly safeguard classified national security information?
If so, describe the nature of the condition and the extent and duration of the impairment or treatment.
What is the prognosis?
If the answer is yes, more paperwork is filled out, investigation, blah blah blah.
By the way:
Of the 150,000 security clearance applications processed each year by the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) only 5 applicants were denied clearances in 2009 by Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judges because of Psychological Conditions. A July 2009 article at www.Army.mil reported that the US Army Central Clearance Facility’s “adjudicative history indicates that 99.98 percent of cases with psychological concerns obtained/retained their security clearance eligibility.”
Your children don't have a "50%" chance of being bipolar. Nobody knows the odds. There is a genetic component but usually there is an environmental component as well.
And stigmatizing the mentally ill for life? That's just wonderful. Stigmatizing them doesn't allow them to get better and reintegrate into society and live and happy and fulfilling life.
It isn't like everyone is at the same level of "functioning" either. I hate that word, but there isn't any better I can think of.
You have some very hateful views.
I'm bipolar type II, I've spent years suicidal. I've spent years working (yes, it is HARD work) to improve my life and get better. Now you are saying I don't deserve my job and my spouse and all the work I did was useless because all people will see me for is "mood disorder" rather than the person I am?
I've known a lot of people with mental illness. People with bipolar run the gamut. For some, mania involves a psychotic break. Others just stay up till 5:00 am writing poetry and hurt no one. I know a few who can't hold a job, and many who are indistinguishable from "normal" people.
These people (like you) have biological issues that aren't their fault. Should they be given guns or be working for the CIA? In general, probably not. But they shouldn't be stigmatized and shut out of normal employment, either. These diseases are (for most people) quite treatable.
Also, "sane" people do dangerous, stupid, and unethical shit all the time. I know someone who just lost his license for drag racing, drunk, at 110 miles per hour. Although somewhat of a psychopath, I don't think he has a diagnosed mental illness. He is more of a danger to society than the average bipolar person.
On dating and mating, I think two mentally ill people being together is bad news. If one is grounded and they have a healthy relationship, and the person with the illness is principled and mature in managing the condition, then it's not so bad.
I appreciate that you've said this, thank you. But your advice cannot be helpful... I just cannot imagine that it is helpful.
We're talking about spectrum conditions here. You could run that same line of reasoning on autistics... when the environment (which includes people) is exactly the thing necessary to ensure productive and positive development.
But now I take several drugs and am very well-treated, extremely "high-functioning" in the clinical sense. I've been married happily and nicely employed for years. While being manic is a lot of fun, I have no inclination to fall off the treatment wagon. I'm a success story basically.
But suppose I wanted a government job requiring security clearance to privileged information, should I be trusted given that I've been mentally healthy for several years, without incident?
I think the answer is no. Obviously.
Manic depressives are, relative to everybody else, prone to poor judgment, psychosis, run-ins with the law, suicide, not taking their medicines, unemployment, broken relationships and vices in general. Call me a self-hating nut but if I had a daughter (and parenthetically I do intend to have a kid, even though the kid has a fifty fifty chance of having the disease), would I want a bipolar boy to date my daughter, however well-treated he might be? Absolutely not.
So regarding my people, those with mood disorders (not just bipolar), while I appreciate the anti-discriminatory progressive stuff to make things easier for my people, between you and me, do yourself a favor, whether you are an employer, a money lender, an army recruiter, an immigration policy maker or a dad - or even a bipolar person yourself who's on the dating market, keep your distance from us manic depressives as too often we are bad news.
... Though we are more creative.