I'm diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Sometimes I feel axnious and euphoric, other times depressed and lethargic, both at extremes noticably deviant from the average person. This has caused all sorts of turbulence and distress in my personal and academic life. Being diagnosed allowed me access to therapy and prescriptions.
There exist plenty of people who oscillate between distinctively high and low moods, but have never found themselves in serious distress because of it. Thus, they have not been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Whether or not they "are bipolar" is a subjective question that mainstream psychiatry doesn't seem to have an opinion on.
But it's still a thing. Maybe you can't refer to it as a disorder, but you are hallucinating stuff. It's a set of material facts about your mental state.
Some of Donald Trump's various disorders have objectively rewarded him, generously. But he has those conditions. He doesn't not have narcissism just because his narcissism is good for his bottom line.
I think the issue is that medical criteria are functional- what should doctors do about this. If it's not even bad, they shouldn't do anything! And this gets translated as "nothing is there to treat" but shouldn't be translated as "nothing is there to notice"
Which makes the idea of "bipolar disorder" meaningless. That person demonstrates that your problems are not caused by bipolar disorder. But the disorder is defined by you having problems, even though the problems come from somewhere else.
Your argument seems to hinge on this idea that a good life => no distress, which, if you've interacted with anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder, is obviously not true.
My life is great. If I didn't take a mood stabilizer, it'd probably still be good, but not as good. Regardless, my mood swings can negatively affect me and those around me.
If one day I reach a point where I can live without meds or therapy and reap no negative consequences, then yes, it would be fair at that point to say that I no longer had bipolar disorder.
> That person demonstrates that your problems are not caused by bipolar disorder. But the disorder is defined by you having problems, even though the problems come from somewhere else.
Bingo. My symptoms (mood swings) + my problems ARE the cause my bipolar disorder diagnosis. Until I had problems, I had no disorder.
What causes the mood swings, then? Genetics, upbringing, life experiences, diet, idk. Nobody knows for sure. It's an active area of research, but there is no one known cause. For all we know, there may be five independent and unrelated risk factors that lead to someone developing bipolar disorder.
It's like you get it, but you're still dismissing it for some reason. I'm curious what ulterior point you're trying to make.
In discussing whether they'd need to try to correct this movement via surgery, the doctor very much said "it's a problem if it's a problem". When it fully healed the person had full use of their arm, so the doctor was satisfied with the outcome.
The doctor did also say that different countries had different philosophies on what they expected a healed bone to look like. In their experience Canadians were more likely to be OK with an imperfect solution, but Australians were more likely to want the break healed in a "like new" condition.
And circumstances make this different - a sports star is going to want to do everything to improve performance, whereas an office worker may just want functionality.