|
I'm sorry but this guy is all over the place, it's confusing and in places outright bizarre.
As far as the statistic you mention:
taking the most liberal definition of bipolarity (including pharmacologic-hypomania, cyclothymic temperament, and family history for bipolar disorder), 81% of borderline patients could be considered lying on the border of within the bipolar spectrum.
First of all, what on earth does lying on the border of within the bipolar spectrum mean??
This just isn't a scientific study and it's frankly really out there. 20 patients studied. He says 80% qualify for bipolar spectrum because they're basing the diagnosis on/including 1) if the elevated mood was exclusively a reaction to medication, 2) if the person has cyclothymic temperament (this just means someone's mood changes frequently, could not be more non-specific), and 3) family history --in other words, one or more of these 20 pts were diagnosed on the bipolar spectrum only because they had a relative who has bipolar. There's not one iota of science here.
His conclusion is this: The strongest argument for reclassifying BPD as an affective disorder is so that their pdocs/T's won't dislike them (countertransference). Seriously, that's what the last paragraph says. He goes on to say that since it will be considered a valid disorder/to be taken seriously, it will/should be treated with bipolar meds. But no mention on why the meds will help these people, only that it's good for them to take them b/c it legitimizes their suffering. And no mention of therapy.
But really, if this weren't enough, this is his last sentence (referring to people with BPD):
On the other hand, Kurt Schneider's[31] wise admonition should not be forgotten: "On their bad days, keep out of their way as far as possible."
He's a wacko.
There's some good information out there on the similarities of BPD and BP, the differences, co-morbidity, etc. I suggest you keep looking, you'll find some helpful (and legitimate) information.
|