The many manifestations of health problems like neurotic, personality, psychotic and non-psychotic mental disorders  is now one of the leading causes of death globally.¹  Mental disorders also account for a significant percentage of the non-fatal burden of disease.

This is my personal story and experience of bipolar disorder(BPD).  It is my life-narrative, my personal story, my experience with a special focus on the idiosyncratic manifestations of BPD in my life.  For this reason, among others, I have posted part or all of what I call my 'chaos-narrative' at a number of internet sites.

Severe mental tests are everywhere apparent, not only in the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology whose role is to deal with these afflictions, but also across the wider culture in which we all live. These tests have been afflicting people across most cultures in the long history of humankind, but especially in the last century as the world’s population has gone from 1.5 billion in 1914 to 7.5 billion in 2014  and especially since the onset of the Great War: 1914-1918 and the tempests of our modern world.  These tests will continue to do so in the decades ahead as the tempest afflicting society continues seemingly unabated.

There are now available a burgeoning range of resources in today’s print and electronic media to help people understand the complex field of mental health.  My life-narrative, which I hope will be of help with respect to BPD, is but one small resource for readers and I have posted sections of this account at internet sites which contain a dialogue between people interested in particular mental health issues about which I have had some experience in my life.

There are many internet sites today, some organized for and by mental health experts and others for the general public and especially for sufferers of mental-illness to provide information as well as opportunities to discuss issues and obtain help for what has become a very large range of specific disorders.  If one googles the following words: mental health, depression, bipolar disorder, affective disorders, OCD, PTSD, anger management, indeed, any one of dozens of other disorders in this field, one discovers a host of sites of interest and of relevance to one’s special concerns.

 According to one source, one-third of all people in western cultures will suffer from a disorder or emotional problem during their lifetime and they would benefit from therapy.  In the last half century there has been a revolution in treatment programs and regimes which have found better and permanent cures for many, if not most, of the mentally afflicted, but there are millions more suffering from mental illness as well.  In this world mental illness is truly a heavy burden to bear. I leave it to readers to do more googling for there is much to read for those who are interested in this subject.

I have joined over 100 of these sites and participate, as circumstances permit, in the discussions on mental health, bipolar disorder, depression and personality disorders among other topics in the field of psychiatry.   What I have posted below is, as I say, also posted in whole or in part at many of these sites.   I have posted this account because this is part of my own effort to destigmatize the field of mental illness.[1]

My own somewhat lengthy account below will hopefully provide mental health sufferers, clients or consumers, as they are variously called these days, with: (i) a more adequate information base to make some comparisons and contrasts with their own situation, their own predicament, whatever it may be, (ii) some helpful general knowledge and understanding, (iii) some useful techniques in assisting them to cope with and sort out problems associated with their particular form of mental health problem or some other traumatized disorder that affects their body, their spirit, their soul and their everyday life and (iv) some detailed instructions on how to manage their lives more successfully despite the negative consequences of their BPD or whatever trauma or illness affects their lives.

For many readers the following post will be simply too long for their reading tastes and interests. In that case just file this document for future use, skim and scan it as suits your taste, go to the sections relevant to your interest or delete it now. Apologies, too, for the absence of an extensive body of footnotes which I have been unable to transfer to this document at BLO.²

¹  See a 17 page list of neurotic, personality and other nonpsychotic mental disorders on the internet; see also psychotic or affective mental health disorders. The internet has excellent overviews of all these mental health disabilities.

2 I have had difficulties placing footnotes into this document and so readers will not find the full list of annotations that I originally placed in this document.  I hope to remedy this problem in a future edition.

__________________

 BIPOLAR DISORDER:

 A Personal Analysis of My Chaos Narrative

 A Longitudinal Context: October 1943 To October 2010

10^th Edition, Draft #5

 By

Ron Price of George Town Tasmania Australia

(153 Pages: Font 14—62,000 words)

 1. Preamble and Introduction:

 1.1 This medium-sized book was once very small, indeed, not much more than a long essay. It started out as a very short essay ten years ago in 2000 as an appendix to my memoirs, a five volume 2600 page opus found in whole and in part at various places on the internet.  Both this book and my memoirs could benefit from the assistance of one, Rob Cowley, affectionately known in publishing circles back in the seventies and early eighties as “the Boston slasher.”  His editing was regarded by some as constructive and deeply sensitive.  If he could amputate several dozen pages, several thousand words, of this exploration of my life experience of bipolar disorder(BPD) with minimal agony to my emotional equipment I’m sure readers would be the beneficiaries.  But, alas, I think Bob is dead. 

-------------------------

Google the words "RonPrice BPD" if you want more of my story or write to me at: ronprice9@gmail.com if you would like a more personal correspondence.-Ron Price, Tasmania

If I gave you a general view, Karma_yeshe_d, my post would be too long even if I kept the post in a conversational tone, as you have encouraged me to do. If you really want to know some of the local reactions the following three sites provide an excellent overview. The 500,000 Tasmanians minus the children and adolescents have too many views to try to summarize, although I suspect at least half could not care less and would not even vote if they did not have to.  The first internet site gives an historical perspective:

Andrew Darby, Michelle Grattan and Tim Colebatch – The Age

Julia Gillard has failed in an initial bid to win the  backing of key Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie, as negotiations  intensify over who will form the next Australian government.  Hours  after Ms Gillard yesterday pitched a parliamentary reform agenda aimed  at securing the support of non-aligned MPs, Mr Wilkie said Labor’s  written response to a list of issues he had raised was unacceptable.    Rural independents’ decision is likely by Friday.  ”I’ve now received a  formal proposal from the ALP for my support,” Mr Wilkie told The Age in  Hobart last night. ”It’s confidential, and unacceptable to me,” he said.  ”I’m now waiting for one from the Coalition.”

----------------------------------

The third is an extension of the interview tonight of Kerry O'Brien with Bob Brown and it looks like the Greens and the ALP will be joining hands. That will please both Greens and the ALP but not the Liberals. As things look at the moment it will be an ALP government, if the three independents join in with the ALP. If policy is the deciding factor, the independent parliamentarians support Labor, argues Ben Eltham. The following were some comments from Eltham at the ABC site: The Drum(1/9/'10)

So, now we know who the Greens are supporting. I  don't think too many of us were surprised by Adam Bandt and Bob Brown's  decision to support Julia Gillard and Labor, although there will  certainly be some Labor hardliners who must shudder at the very thought  of negotiating with the party.

The Labor-Greens deal formalises  what many had expected. In return for lending Julia Gillard a crucial  lower house vote, The Greens gain a seat at the table, considerable  extra resources to formulate and cost their policies, some concessions  on things like high-speed rail and a debate on Afghanistan, and real  leverage on the eventual shape of any Labor climate change legislation.

But  then again, the Senate numbers dictated they would get most of this  anyway, so the real importance of the deal is that it clears the way for  Labor to continue negotiations with the independents in earnest.  And which way will the independents jump?  Numerous  attempts to try to guess the answer to this question have dominated  media coverage post-election, along with some fascinating but irrelevant  details like who won the 2 party preferred national vote.

Australians  are likewise getting to know the Tasmanian Andrew Wilkie better. The former Office of  National Assessments analyst who has become the independent member for  Denison has outlined his wish list to whomever forms government. Some of  the priorities are classic local member issues: a huge redevelopment for  Royal Hobart Hospital, light rail for Hobart's northern suburbs, and an  advanced broadband rollout in his home seat. Others are more typically  the stuff of national policy debates: he wants to limit ruinous gambling  on poker machines, include dental care in Medicare, set a price on  carbon, enact federal whistleblower legislation, give more money to  universities and reinstate a 2012 review of the Federal Government's  schools funding system. On Wednesday morning, Wilkie announced that his  discussions with Julia Gillard had been unsatisfactory and that he was now waiting to hear from Tony Abbott. "I've now received a formal proposal from the ALP for my support," he told Fairfax today.  "It's confidential - and unacceptable to me. I'm now waiting for one from the Coalition."

And  then of course there is Bob Katter, who is continuing to provide the  sort of material for satire that political humorists dream about. Over  the weekend he was boasting about his fist-fighting process while this week he was holding forth on the "lightweight" climate change credentials of Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern.  Katter's big hat and equally outsized personal style make it hard for  many to take him seriously - which is something of a shame, because if  you do take his various policy positions seriously, they turn out to be  surprisingly consistent and electorally appealing. For instance, Katter  wants to raise agricultural tariff barriers, a position Julia Gillard has ruled out,  but one which many rural voters might agree with. One might expect his rural  north Queensland electorate would also support his demand for a $1  billion fund from mining royalties to be directed to north Queensland infrastructure,  although it seems ironic that a strident critic of the Resource Super  Profits Tax should now be an advocate for extra public spending from the  proceeds of mining royalties.

The continuing back-and-forth  between a string of independent members and minor parties clearly has  many in the media uncomfortable. Laurie Oakes, who has had a vintage  election so far, held fire for a week before launching a stinging attack on the independents,  who he claims "have looked about as serious as kids in a toy shop" and  have turned "the whole hung Parliament thing" into a "circus". Dennis  Shanahan has lost patience too, declaring that "the nation would actually be better off if we just went back to the polls."  So perhaps it's time to ask the all-important question: just who should the independents support?

I  think the independents should support Labor - because the policy issues  they themselves have advanced align better with Julia Gillard's  incumbent government than with Tony Abbott's alternative.  I'm not  arguing here that Labor will make a better government, or Julia Gillard  a better prime minister. I'm simply pointing out that, if you look at  the policy issues advanced by the independents, they line up better with  Labor's stated positions than they do with the Coalition's.

Four  salient issues stand out: the economy, regional investment, health and  broadband. I've chosen these issues because they are the ones that all  four of the independents have mentioned in their various list of  demands.

The economic data and the proper costing of the major party's policies comes top of the list. As I've argued previously,  the Coalition has been all over the shop on economic management this  election. The centre-piece of the Coalition's economic policy platform  is a non-issue: government debt. There's no doubt that too much  government debt is a big problem. It's just that Australia has very  little of it. Nor have the Coalition's attacks on Labor's wasteful  spending convinced. We can all agree that some of Labor's spending  programs have been poorly managed. But that's a sideline compared to the  success of the current government's stimulus package, which avoided a  devastating recession and now sees the Australian economy powering ahead.  In contrast, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have looked decidedly ill at  ease when forced to discuss economic matters in any depth, repeatedly  deferring to Andrew Robb's policy expertise. The low farce that ensued  after Tony Abbott refused to release his own independent costings - only  to cave in under pressure days later - underlined the Coalition's discomfort when it comes to budgets and the economy.

Quite  apart from the rubbery figures the Coalition has put forward in the  election campaign, there is a further economic issue for the  independents to consider: public investment in the regions. All the  independents, including Andrew Wilkie, are calling for substantial new  federal investment in infrastructure and public services in their  electorates. This is to be expected. But it flies in the face of what  appears to be a dominant economic ideology in the Liberal Party, which  broadly opposes public investment and government spending. You can see  this attitude reflected in Liberal opposition to a swathe of this Labor  Government's policies: the NBN, the schools stimulus, spending on  e-health, even public investment in business coaching and advice for  small businesses. The independents would be well advised to weigh this  up when they consider which alternative government would actually  deliver the spending they seek in their home seats.

On health, I  think the independents will conclude that the incumbent Labor government  offers a more comprehensive and better-funded suite of policies.  Labor's health and hospitals reform package has a number of flaws,  particularly in mental health, but it delivers key reforms in areas such  as electronic health records, public finance reform for hospitals  funding, more hospital beds in public hospitals, more training places  for GPs, specialists and nurses - not to mention an agreement with every  state and territory except Western Australia. The Coalition's health  policies are more modest, except for their better-funded mental health  policy, and they require savings to be found by axing important measures  like the e-health reforms. Weighing up the competing health policies of  the major parties, I would expect the independents to favour Labor's.

--------------

This is probably too long a post, Karma_yeshe_d, but it will have to do. I have a feeling I have chatted to you before some months ago.  I wish you well in your interneting and life-experiences outside of cyberspace.-Ron Price, George Town Tasmania