BiPolar Discriminated when seeking LapBand

[seniorjudge]

We've been through this before: trying to reason with a person with bipolar disorder who cannot reason or cannot see another point of view.

We're not gonna win this one.

EC

You are oh so correct....

 

[tranquility]

I'm beginning to get a little confused. I don't think anyone actually believes depressed=crazy. I don't think anyone with any knowledge at all would consider bi-polar and depression (if they could be considered different in your case) *not* a disability. However, like all hurdles, how one deals with the disability begins to define the person.

People who treat other people poorly because of depression do so because of a choice. I can believe that a person in a depressive state can really not want to spare what little energy and paitence available to them on an incompetent or stupid person/employee to be polite. But, if that choice of respect is not made, it can hardly be claimed to be *because* of a disability. If the other person or persons react to that treatment in kind, that choice, while unprofessional, is no less a choice.

I end with a final consideration as we have strayed far from the law and I won't continue any farther past my competence. What your therapist says about you on a certain subject is not going to make a medical team's determination on that same subject moot. Following the medical team's instructions in a complex treatment plan which includes but does not consist of a single medical proceedure is the bare minimum for any chance of success. I mean, my goodness. If a person is not going to follow the advice of a professional, why should they be going to get such advice in the first place? In this type of multi-disciplinary approach to weight management, there must be many factors beyond being emotionally ready and being able and willing to follow advice which can predict the potential of success of the medical modality. With some research on the internet I bet I could find some studies which would point to those factors.

 

[pcgumshoe]

Of course it is.

It's not illegal, but it is discrimination.

This was the first response.

How can their be discrimination and it not be illegal?

I believe many of you have exhibited narrowmindedness. You ONLY see me as a "BIPOLAR" person... and because I have labeled myself bipolar, you have so eloquently proved my point:

We've been through this before: trying to reason with a person with bipolar disorder who cannot reason or cannot see another point of view.

You have provided this reasoning: it is discrimination
You have provided this reasoning: it is not illegal

You've provided me with nothing to change my point of view.

Link case-law and litmus tests on these issues... abandonment, discrimination (ADA and Disability), and accommodation. Are you afraid I might be able to do my own research and prove my own case?

So far, the only reasoning was to link to the ADA, I knew that.

 

[>Charlotte<]

How can their be discrimination and it not be illegal?
You have provided this reasoning: it is discrimination
You have provided this reasoning: it is not illegal
You've provided me with nothing to change my point of view.

Part of the problem appears to be that you think any discrimination is automatically an illegal act. It's simply not. Discrimination is only illegal if it meets certain specific criteria. It's like saying killing a human being is illegal. Generally speaking yes it is, but there are certain circumstances under which killing someone would be legally justifiable. The circumstances under which discrimination is considered illegal are actually quite narrow.

You may have been discriminated against, but the others are saying you're not being illegally discriminated against. And, frankly, they really have no reason to lie to you. They are, in fact, trying to help you by giving you the benefit of their knowledge and experience. Nobody here has anything to lose but you. If you have the time and money to spend, then go for it. Everyone here can see where that's going to lead you, but if you're determined to fight a losing battle, then fine. Go for it, and good luck.

 

[Curt581]

I believe many of you have exhibited narrowmindedness. You ONLY see me as a "BIPOLAR" person... and because I have labeled myself bipolar, you have so eloquently proved my point:

And you clearly believe that because you're bipolar, this grants you carte blanche to act like a jerk anytime you like. Apparently, you believe having an illness or disability absolves you of ANY responsibility for your behavior.

You've provided me with nothing to change my point of view.

Nothing says anyone here is required to. You asked questions, several people answered them. There is no requirement for you to like those answers

Are you afraid I might be able to do my own research and prove my own case?

Yes, that's it. We're all terrified that you'll do your own research. The cat's out of the bag now.

 

[garrula lingua]

Quote Curt:

Yes, that's it. We're all terrified that you'll do your own research. The cat's out of the bag now.

hahaha


OP: You have received excellent legal and practical advice.
You appear to want to stew in your own sour juices, rather than accept reality.

IMHO, your disabilities are self-absorbant; get off your butt and do something before your short life is over.
Stop trying to force others to live your life and handle your problems.

It's your life, man - live it.
Stop whining.
Create your own gusto for life.

 

[cbg]

For the record:

1.) I had a 50/50 chance with your gender. I was wrong. So sue me. P.S. I am female.

2.) One of my closest friends is bi-polar. She has absolutely no trouble treating people pleasantly. So if you're having trouble getting along with people, I'm not blaming the fact that you're bi-polar; I'm blaming YOU and the fact that you'd evidently rather blame your "disabilty" than to take responsibility for your own actions.

3.) A 126 IQ and you haven't figured out yet that we all discriminate every day? That we discriminate when we pick the blue shirt over the green one or order steak instead of chicken? Boy, if all discrimination were illegal the courthouse would sure be crowded, wouldn't it?

 

[pcgumshoe]

2.) One of my closest friends is bi-polar. She has absolutely no trouble treating people pleasantly. So if you're having trouble getting along with people, I'm not blaming the fact that you're bi-polar; I'm blaming YOU and the fact that you'd evidently rather blame your "disabilty" than to take responsibility for your own actions.

Your friend may have better luck with medication than I did, good for them! My psychological make-up is per a psychological evaluation. I've quoted the important part here: "At times, may appear be friendly and cooperative, but anger and dissatisfaction soon color most of their relationships." Gee, if a psychologist said that, it must have something to do with my disability, but I'm not a psychologist!

Thank EVERYONE for your discouragment, you forced my hand to do my own research and I found a wonderful case to spring-board off of: Lesley vs Chie

Some important excerpts:

"Congress made clear in the legislative history of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the disability laws are not intended to prevent a physician from referring a disabled patient "if the disability itself creates specialized complications for the patient's health which the [referring] physician lacks the experience or knowledge to address."

Since my "specialists" all agreed that my mental health condition would not be a complication to this treatment, in fact, it was seen as a possible treatment.

"On the one hand, courts cannot simply defer unquestioningly to a physician's subjective judgment as to whether his referral was proper. Physicians, of course, are just as capable as any other recipient of federal funds of discriminating against the disabled, and courts may not turn a blind eye to the possibility that a supposed exercise of medical judgment may mask discriminatory motives or stereotypes."

In a telephone conversation (that I recorded) I was told that the reason why I was reconsidered was because of my attitude with a specific NON-Medical staff member who either lied, omitted facts, or lost documents and to cover up her mistake, it was easier to say I was abusive, but I have the telephone records, email records, and the ADA on my side.

"Under the Rehabilitation Act, a patient may challenge her doctor's decision to refer her elsewhere by showing the decision to be devoid of any reasonable medical support. This is not to say, however, that the Rehabilitation Act prohibits unreasonable medical decisions as such. Rather, the point of considering a medical decision's reasonableness in this context is to determine whether the decision was unreasonable in a way that reveals it to be discriminatory. In other words, a plaintiff's showing of medical unreasonableness must be framed within some larger theory of disability discrimination. For example, a plaintiff may argue that her physician's decision was so unreasonable -- in the sense of being arbitrary and capricious -- as to imply that it was pretext for some discriminatory motive, such as animus, fear, or "apathetic attitudes.” … Or, instead of arguing pretext, a plaintiff may argue that her physician's decision was discriminatory on its face, because it rested on stereotypes of the disabled rather than an individualized inquiry into the patient's condition -- and hence was "unreasonable" in that sense."

I believe that I can prove that the doctor took a "stereotype" view of my situation. Additionally, the doctor knew of my disability and approved me to move forward with the operation until he (and his staff) "feared" my emotional outbursts, which really were minimal in comparison to how I think 80% of you would have reacted. I think I responded calmly by comparison.

From this document, I learned a lot. The case was based on a person with HIV being referred... I wasn't referred, but the overall legal arguments, as explained in examples in the document itself, provide the road-map for why I'm right.

Oh, BTW, I did want to be a lawyer and studied law, but didn't get as far as you great people... But then again, I'm a bit less narrowminded!

 

[cbg]

My final post here, since I agree with ellencee;

Nothing in the ADA says that anyone has to accept behavior in a disabled person that they would not accept in a non-disabled person.

I'm done. Since your great intellect has given you all the answers, and everyone but you is wrong, there's no point spending any more time trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[PamiToni]

Why don't you see if you can get into Brookhaven Clinic for the Morbidly Obese? There with counseling, proper diet, and exercise you may then be allowed to get the operation you think you need.

 

[seniorjudge]

Your friend may have better luck with medication than I did, good for them! My psychological make-up is per a psychological evaluation. I've quoted the important part here: "At times, may appear be friendly and cooperative, but anger and dissatisfaction soon color most of their relationships." Gee, if a psychologist said that, it must have something to do with my disability, but I'm not a psychologist!

Thank EVERYONE for your discouragment, you forced my hand to do my own research and I found a wonderful case to spring-board off of: Lesley vs Chie

Some important excerpts:



Since my "specialists" all agreed that my mental health condition would not be a complication to this treatment, in fact, it was seen as a possible treatment.



In a telephone conversation (that I recorded) I was told that the reason why I was reconsidered was because of my attitude with a specific NON-Medical staff member who either lied, omitted facts, or lost documents and to cover up her mistake, it was easier to say I was abusive, but I have the telephone records, email records, and the ADA on my side.



I believe that I can prove that the doctor took a "stereotype" view of my situation. Additionally, the doctor knew of my disability and approved me to move forward with the operation until he (and his staff) "feared" my emotional outbursts, which really were minimal in comparison to how I think 80% of you would have reacted. I think I responded calmly by comparison.

From this document, I learned a lot. The case was based on a person with HIV being referred... I wasn't referred, but the overall legal arguments, as explained in examples in the document itself, provide the road-map for why I'm right.

Oh, BTW, I did want to be a lawyer and studied law, but didn't get as far as you great people... But then again, I'm a bit less narrowminded!

That case has nothing to do with your situation.

 

[MyHouse]

All I am going to suggest is that you use your intellect to control your personality flaws. You can do it, but you have to believe you can, and you have to stop blaming being bipolar. My boyfriend is bipolar (type 1) and unmedicated, also with a high IQ. He is often unaware that certain behaviors are inappropriate, but he DOES learn (after repeated negative consequences). You can learn too, if you WANT to. In fact, he used to JOKE about what you are actually doing, and that is using your diagnosis as a license to treat people badly and behave inappropriately. People will never accept this, so get used to it. The sooner you do, the better for you, and the better for people that have to interact with you.

 

[pcgumshoe]

That case has nothing to do with your situation.

Really? Because I'm not HIV positive and it has nothing to do with mental illness? I disagree, but you make a great argument, "that case has nothing to do with your situation" great... you ever use that in real life?

My understanding of the law is that even if a case isn't specifically oriented towards a scenario, there are correlations that could be made, I see them, you don't. But I guess I'm being imaginative.

Oh, and on the boyfriend thing, great that he learned to control it. I applaud him. And, by that logic, you'd have Deaf People talking. I know there are deaf people that can talk, but that doesn't make it legible and in certain IMPORTANT situations, an interpreter is mandated, i.e. Court.

 

[MyHouse]

Your "personality flaw" is painfully apparent. You are the most argumentative know-it-all that I've ever seen post on this board. I do not know why you came looking for advice. You did not want any. You just wanted to be validated. Now that you haven't received what you wanted, you are being a pill. You don't control yourself because you don't want to. You enjoy being annoying.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Your "personality flaw" is painfully apparent. You are the most argumentative know-it-all that I've ever seen post on this board. I do not know why you came looking for advice. You did not want any. You just wanted to be validated. Now that you haven't received what you wanted, you are being a pill. You don't control yourself because you don't want to. You enjoy being annoying.

I couldn't have said it better. This man will continue all day untill he hears what he wants.

EC hit the nail on the head with the poster.