Stephen Fry - the secret life of the manic depressive, tonight

[gaijingirl]

I think, from seeing the trailer for the next episode, that it will balance out this episode on that respect.


I also felt that it is probably much easier to say that you wouldn't change things - when you're also an incredibly successful and rich artist - but the woman at the end, I fear, may be more representative of sufferers' feelings on BPD. (Although obviously I can't know that for sure).

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I also felt that it is probably much easier to say that you wouldn't change things - when you're also an incredibly successful and rich artist - but the woman at the end, I fear, may be more representative of sufferers' feelings on BPD. (Although obviously I can't know that for sure).

Yeah, I totally agree, not even if you're rich, but if you can continue functioning for the main part of your life on some level. Also of course for many people, pain becomes less severe in hindsight.

 

[Groucho]

Well...
b) whilst I'm not blaming Stephen for this (and generally the programme was purely about the experience rather than the possible causes), what I saw as the total focus on biological causes (or at least no focus on socio-psychological factors) was a little disapointing.

From what I saw I agree. Stephen Fry probably wouldn't want to examine possible socio-psychological factors though on such a TV prog.

 

[Biddlybee]

Bugger... I really would've liked to see this, anyone know if it'll be repeated? (I have no idea where/how to download programmes )

 

[tommers]

I think, from seeing the trailer for the next episode, that it will balance out this episode on that respect.


I also felt that it is probably much easier to say that you wouldn't change things - when you're also an incredibly successful and rich artist - but the woman at the end, I fear, may be more representative of sufferers' feelings on BPD. (Although obviously I can't know that for sure).

I think the difference was that her symptoms were much more severe than the others, even the guy who stepped out in front of a truck.

 

[tommers]

From what I saw I agree. Stephen Fry probably wouldn't want to examine possible socio-psychological factors though on such a TV prog.

why not?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

From what I saw I agree. Stephen Fry probably wouldn't want to examine possible socio-psychological factors though on such a TV prog.

Of course, but just mentioning that some people thought there were some might have been a start...

I guess they weren't explicit about the biological side of things either, but I did feel that was the implication throughout. Again, not blaming Stephen. That is the prevailing attitude, and he was just talking about his experiences and those of others. It seemed a bit like there wasn't so much a bias in what was said, more in what was not said.

tommers, I got the impression Stephen wanted to keep it more personal rather than a documentary on the causes and the debates surrounding the theories.

 

[gaijingirl]

I think the difference was that her symptoms were much more severe than the others, even the guy who stepped out in front of a truck.

I think you might be right.. but also I think it might be because she was living a particularly severe period of suffering whereas the others were looking back on such periods... iykwim..

 

[tommers]

tommers, I got the impression Stephen wanted to keep it more personal rather than a documentary on the causes and the debates surrounding the theories.

yeah it was a very personal programme, but he did also talk about the hereditary factors, the increased risks of pregnancy, the lack of any noticeable difference in brain structure, the project looking at DNA, the diagnosis of children etc etc

 

[tommers]

I think you might be right.. but also I think it might be because she was living a particularly severe period of suffering whereas the others were looking back on such periods... iykwim..

well, she didn't seem to have any "gaps" did she? whereas, you're right, the others could look back on it.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

yeah it was a very personal programme, but he did also talk about the hereditary factors, the increased risks of pregnancy, the lack of any noticeable difference in brain structure, the project looking at DNA, the diagnosis of children etc etc

Yeah, I agree with you, and Crispy pointed out they did mention the lack of noticeable difference in brain stucture when I angrily exclaimed at one point about the focus on biological factors.

As I said, not so much what was included (which were all valid points), more what was excluded.

 

[gaijingirl]

well, she didn't seem to have any "gaps" did she? whereas, you're right, the others could look back on it.

But they did say about how she had been incredibly successful, a black belt at karate etc etc and then it had all fallen apart. I wonder if she came out of it and went back to how she had been previously whether she would look back on this time now and think - yes, that's part of me. I'll keep it. I can't help thinking that if your illness contributes some way to your success - or at least you perceive it to, it might be easier to think that way - that you wouldn't change things. However, if, like with that woman, it robs you of living successfully, I feel you'd be less likely to not choose to push the button that takes it all away!

I really felt for her.

The pregnancy thing also scared me. I've always worried about that myself.

 

[Groucho]

Of course, but just mentioning that some people thought there were some might have been a start...

I guess they weren't explicit about the biological side of things either, but I did feel that was the implication throughout. Again, not blaming Stephen. That is the prevailing attitude, and he was just talking about his experiences and those of others. It seemed a bit like there wasn't so much a bias in what was said, more in what was not said.

Yes, but like you I thought the prevailing attitude was being challenged more and more. There is obviously an inter-relation between possible genetic susceptability and environmental factors. The dominant line of thought swung to genetics partly because there were more and more studies throwing 'light' onto genetic - and hereditary - aspects of mental illness and everything else.

Outside of mental health issues obsession with Genetic explanations took on absurd lengths. So there was a gay gene, and then a voting Tory gene, a reading the Daily Telegraph gene etc. I thought it was now appreciated that this all went a bit far.

I saw the musings over the hereditary aspect and the genetic bit (though I wasn't concentrating at that point, I was saying 'so what do they do with the faxes you send them? Wipe their arses on them? Play noughts and crosses on them? Or is the fax machine connected to the shredder? BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKIN READ THEM DO THEY?!' I think I went a bit ott. ) and the brain scan, but there was no acknowledgement of non-biological possibilities.

 

[free spirit]

I found it upsetting and quite hard to watch at times , recognised alot of the symptons although mine have never been as manic/serious.

Certainly makes you think.

me too...

have to say it's made me wonder about a few things... though I'd not put myself on the same level as the people in the programme theres definately some similarity in my life cycles / behaviour patterns.

 

[TeeJay]

Stephen Fry is wisely not trying to challenge the mainstream establishment psychiatrists head-on but succeeded very well in raising some good questions and then just letting things play out, for example:

1. Questioning the diagnosis criteria - in a way asking if Robby Williams was bipolar or simply depressive but with an extrovert personality.

2. Questioning how far 'abnormal' means 'bad behaviour' or 'deviancy', and asking who decides what is 'normal' - obviously pointed up by the example of the children.

3. Asking about brain structures... getting a negative reply and leaving it hanging there for everyone to think about.

4. Not banging on about over-medication but at least showing the phenomenal amount of drugs some people are given.

5. Not really setting out any theories about the role of recreational drugs or other stressor factors and about self-medication, but bringing them in subtley through the interviews.

I could go on, but my point is that he very subtley intrdouced quite a lot of subversive strands of thinking, but without ever setting out a stall and banging a drum in a confrontational way.

I noticed a lot of these things because they stood in direct contrqast to how a psychiatrist might go about decribing the wcinec and clinalc evidence and so forth - he was far more intelligent, questing and sceptical, but all the while being affable and warm.

Just to point out a few "omissions" that stand out in stark contrast to my opwn experience of my own condition and of other people in south London who I have known...

...He didn't cover the truely horrible, coercive and abusive experiences that many people go through in compulsory treatment and in life in general - the last woman was the case that is far more typical for most (poor - ie normal) people in the UK.

...He didn't go into the side effects of the handfuls of drugs that many people are pretty miuch forced to take under treat of being sectioned.

...He didn't go into the whole experience of what it is like for younger people who haven't even had a career, marriage, kids etc - who get diagnosed and whose only help from society is pills, occasional sectioning, unemployment, often violence and problems wioth the police (who won't say to a teen or twenty-something south londoner 'ooh he's that bloke off the telly - please stop doing that'). The typical person doesn't get admitted into a luxury room with ensuite and TV, then told to go and walk up and down a beach for 12 months to 'get away from it all'...

...and the biggest ommission of all, with the whole program (although as I said above Stephen Fry is wise not to take this route) is to challenge head on the diagnostic criteria for "bipolar" itself. The reality is that the psychiatrists use pseudoscience with a lack of rigour that would be unacceptable in many other branches of science (or even scoail science). The biggest obstacle facing any search for a 'gene' or a 'brain structure' (or even a good treatment) that they have a vague and sloppy definitiopn of what the "problem" or illness is in the first place.

In my own direct experience I have been told so much bullshit by psychiatrists, and seen first hand what utter crap their techniques are - let alone the many failings of their preferred treatments - that the real issue goes right to the heart of their 'science' and the techniques and 'logic' they use. They reduce people dowen to a subjective observational checklist, confalte all sorts of 'symptoms' and behaviours together, give little weight to life events and other causes for moods, thoughts and behaviour and simply work mechanically to churn out a diagnosis that matches a pill they can proscibe.

Whooo............

OK, that's enough for now. More later... there's just so much to say about this.

By the way, part two is the same time next week (and if we are lucky they will show it again on BBC Three and/or Four).

 

[Biddlybee]

(and if we are lucky they will show it again on BBC Three and/or Four).

I've emailed them to find out... a few people very close to me have bi-polar, so I'm gutted I missed tonight's episode

 

[floopadelic]

me too...

have to say it's made me wonder about a few things... though I'd not put myself on the same level as the people in the programme theres definately some similarity in my life cycles / behaviour patterns.

That's what struck me too, especially during teenage years / early adulthood. Plenty of us have episodes of delusion and paranoia, and get ourselves into varying degrees of trouble because of them. Of course they don't feel at all delusional at the time, they feel reasonable - if not very easy to rationalise or explain afterwards.

Carrie Fisher looked to have it bad - not so much what she was saying but her whole body posture thing. It was uncomfotable to watch, she looked to be in considerable distress.

 

[BadlyDrawnGirl]

...He didn't cover the truely horrible, coercive and abusive experiences that many people go through in compulsory treatment and in life in general - the last woman was the case that is far more typical for most (poor - ie normal) people in the UK.

. . . . . .​

In my own direct experience I have been told so much bullshit by psychiatrists, and seen first hand what utter crap their techniques are - let alone the many failings of their preferred treatments - that the real issue goes right to the heart of their 'science' and the techniques and 'logic' they use. They reduce people dowen to a subjective observational checklist, confalte all sorts of 'symptoms' and behaviours together, give little weight to life events and other causes for moods, thoughts and behaviour and simply work mechanically to churn out a diagnosis that matches a pill they can proscibe.

Quite. And in the end, I think it comes down to professional (and probably no little personal) arrogance - and the tragic fact that most people just don't give a flying fuck.

 

[TeeJay]

The increasing recognition of drug-free treatments such as Cognative Behavioural Therapy and the strengthening of self-help user groups, the increased campaigning and lobbying for patients rights by the Mental Health Alliance, MIND and similar, the increasing interest in the importance of diet, exercise, sleep, stress and lifestyle factors, the recognition of cultural biases within psychiatry and not least the individual experiences of people (possible including Stephen Fry judging by some of his pointed remarks during the program) which have started to challenge some of the psychiatrists' holy cows - all of these gives me some hope that things are changing, however slowly.

On the other side however there is a large and well-funded medical industry including health workers, psychiatrists, medical scientists, pharmaceutical companies - and police, social services and a general public/politicians that demand a level of 'control and containment' - all of which tend to continue and reenforce the current model of diagnosis and treatment - which tends to be pills, or sectioning to enforce pills.

 

[free spirit]

Just to point out a few "omissions" that stand out in stark contrast to my opwn experience of my own condition and of other people in south London who I have known...

...He didn't cover the truely horrible, coercive and abusive experiences that many people go through in compulsory treatment and in life in general - the last woman was the case that is far more typical for most (poor - ie normal) people in the UK.

...He didn't go into the side effects of the handfuls of drugs that many people are pretty miuch forced to take under treat of being sectioned.

...He didn't go into the whole experience of what it is like for younger people who haven't even had a career, marriage, kids etc - who get diagnosed and whose only help from society is pills, occasional sectioning, unemployment, often violence and problems wioth the police (who won't say to a teen or twenty-something south londoner 'ooh he's that bloke off the telly - please stop doing that'). The typical person doesn't get admitted into a luxury room with ensuite and TV, then told to go and walk up and down a beach for 12 months to 'get away from it all'...

...and the biggest ommission of all, with the whole program (although as I said above Stephen Fry is wise not to take this route) is to challenge head on the diagnostic criteria for "bipolar" itself. The reality is that the psychiatrists use pseudoscience with a lack of rigour that would be unacceptable in many other branches of science (or even scoail science). The biggest obstacle facing any search for a 'gene' or a 'brain structure' (or even a good treatment) that they have a vague and sloppy definitiopn of what the "problem" or illness is in the first place.

In my own direct experience I have been told so much bullshit by psychiatrists, and seen first hand what utter crap their techniques are - let alone the many failings of their preferred treatments - that the real issue goes right to the heart of their 'science' and the techniques and 'logic' they use. They reduce people dowen to a subjective observational checklist, confalte all sorts of 'symptoms' and behaviours together, give little weight to life events and other causes for moods, thoughts and behaviour and simply work mechanically to churn out a diagnosis that matches a pill they can proscibe.

see that's why I'm fucked if I'd ever admit to a doctor what I said in my earlier post - essentially I'm staying well clear of anyone with the power to lock me up and / or forcibly medicate me even if I've done nothing wrong.

Like most of the people on the programme seemed to indicate I reckon I've pretty much got to grips with the ups and downs and learnt to temper them / adapt my life to accept them and even utilise the highs and lows as periods of creativity and introspection.

I don't really want to be forcefed shitloads of drugs to put me on some medium level that I'm fairly sure would limit my creative periods just so I can hold down a steady job for the rest of my life... fuck that.

It's my life and I'll deal with it my way.

....

as I say if I am bipolar it's probably a fairly mild version so my views relate to me not those with a more severe version as I can see how if it was much more severe it could be much more problematic, though the thought of the huge amount of medication some of the people in the programme are on still scares me

 

[free spirit]

also... did anyone else think it a bit odd that the young kid shown taking shitloads of pills was washing them down with a can of coke?

Now I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but surely the first step in treating someone suspected of being bipolar, particularly a young kid would be to make sure they had a healthy diet and cut out stuff like coke completely bearing in mind the impact that poor diet and sugar / cafeine rushes can have on mood swings, bad behaviour and depression.

 

[TeeJay]

People with biolar and schizophrenia also smoke far more than average...

...Fry said something about 'self medicating' with cocaine, something that is in his past, but he (and others) were certainly puffing away on another 'stimulant' which ironically has subjectively 'calming' effects (ie tobacco).

 

[fogbat]

I certainly found it interesting, informative and very watchable. It worked as a one-off programme, but I'll definitely be watching the rest of the series.

As a boring old depressive, not bipolar, is the manic phase really as fun as some of the contributors made out? I can understand that it's a lot easier to do self-indulgent stuff when you've enough cash to get yourself out of any holes you've dug.

 

[TeeJay]

As a boring old depressive, not bipolar, is the manic phase really as fun as some of the contributors made out?

It is maybe like being on large amounts of stimulants (or cocaine? dunno as I have never had any) with a hint of hallucinogens/slightly trippy feeling. Having said that it is probably different for everyone.

When I first got manic episodes I did "like" them in a strange way but didn't like the results/outcome of having them.

Now I have a different attitude to the whole thing - I am very much more comfortable being 'stable' and being more in control of my moods, thoughts, emotions and behaviour.

Maybe some of this is just me getting older and changing anyway - I used to smoke lots of cannabis and stay up and party more - now I like to chill out, feel centered and calm and be more comfortable rather than 'live at the edge' , although I do get kicks out of scuba diving which frequently scares the living shit out of me and pushes me to my limits in various different ways. Maybe before drugs were a way of making an ordinary situation exciting (which is also like mania) whereas scuba for me involves keeping calm (and conserving/extending air) even when the situation is scarey - ie I now value the ability to keep calm and control my adrenalin and train of thought, rather than want to it race away wildly.

 

[Moggy]

My recording chopped off the last few minutes, from just as the doctor at the university was explaining the different brackets on the bi-polar scale.

What happened after that? What was his score?

More importantly, when's the next episode on? Same time next week?

 

[samk]

also... did anyone else think it a bit odd that the young kid shown taking shitloads of pills was washing them down with a can of coke?

Now I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but surely the first step in treating someone suspected of being bipolar, particularly a young kid would be to make sure they had a healthy diet and cut out stuff like coke completely bearing in mind the impact that poor diet and sugar / cafeine rushes can have on mood swings, bad behaviour and depression.

God bless the american way;it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of kids are put on ritalin for adhd then when that causes side effects are put on more drugs for psychosis or mood disorders, tho what the story is with him i don't know, the programe didn't show.

 

[Teepee]

NO

missed it

 

[madamv]

Stephen Fry.com is a great website and has info about the next episode

 

[Crispy]

Stephen scored 80 in the test, then went on to say how he wouldn't like to get rid of his illness, although others would - like the poor woman who could barely function day to day (she had a tons of meds as well)

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I certainly found it interesting, informative and very watchable. It worked as a one-off programme, but I'll definitely be watching the rest of the series.

As a boring old depressive, not bipolar, is the manic phase really as fun as some of the contributors made out? I can understand that it's a lot easier to do self-indulgent stuff when you've enough cash to get yourself out of any holes you've dug.

The manic stage was horrible for my ex and those around her. She used to spend money like water on clothes, fancy diets, make-up etc and I've had to negotiate with banks and lenders to sort this out for her. I used to dread Wimbledon or the ballet coming on the TV as it would be the cue for hours of 'I could have been a tennis player / ballet dancer' etc etc. With crying and random blame for her not being so being handed out to her parents and family and exes. It would be a case of her being really 'up' and thinking that she could dance or play sport to a high level with any challenge to the delusion heavily slapped down. This would be followed by either a gradual lessening of the delusion (but things could trigger it back again) followed by a pit of depression a day or so later.

She self medicated with alcohol and the condition got worse when she gave up the booze. All the highs came out worse because there was nothing to mediate it and the lows were bad as well.