Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[Malerin]

Context is king. "Classification of Diseases", probably has a long prolouge and description of what the usage is.

And then there is the dual nature of the classification.

AA Alfie provided his reasons for calling it a disease rather than a mental disorder, which was the fallacy I was responding too.

So I again ask because it also depends upon how you define the term disease, in the DSM-V and in the ICD 9/10 (used by WHO) it is characterized by the behavioral components and I can demonstrate that, it is a behavioral disorder under both those systems and not generally considered a 'disease' in the common sense.

So now you sling out the AMA, so how and why do they classify it the way that they do?

Or are you just using argument from authority?

Of course I'm arguing from authority, as neither of us are doctors. It's not a fallacy if you use a reputable authority (e.g., NASA to support a global warming claim).

Anyway, here's what AMA says:

H-95.983 Drug Dependencies as Diseases
The AMA:

endorses the proposition that drug dependencies, including alcoholism, are diseases
and that their treatment is a legitimate part of medical practice, and
encourages physicians, other health professionals, medical and other health related
organizations, and government and other policymakers to become more well informed
about drug dependencies, and to base their policies and activities on the recognition
that drug dependencies are, in fact, diseases. (Res. 113, A-87)
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/388/statementuad.pdf

 

[Dancing David]

If you are so interested, and think it will help alcoholics overcome their personal problem, why not do the research and enlighten us?

Do you think your "skeptical" JAQing around is assisting someone with overcoming alcoholism?

Excuse me , it is not my role to support other people claims, maybe you should use the link arrows to read the origins of this sub-thread.

Addiction is not a disease per se, it is a behavioral disorder. It is much less of an illness than schizophrenia.

ETA: Thanks for just reading none of the thread and acting all huffy like!

 

[Dancing David]

Of course I'm arguing from authority, as neither of us are doctors. It's not a fallacy if you use a reputable authority (e.g., NASA to support a global warming claim).

Anyway, here's what AMA says:

H-95.983 Drug Dependencies as Diseases
The AMA:

endorses the proposition that drug dependencies, including alcoholism, are diseases
and that their treatment is a legitimate part of medical practice, and
encourages physicians, other health professionals, medical and other health related
organizations, and government and other policymakers to become more well informed
about drug dependencies, and to base their policies and activities on the recognition
that drug dependencies are, in fact, diseases. (Res. 113, A-87)
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/388/statementuad.pdf

Thanks you, so now, in response to what I stated they are still not diseases under the common usage of the term, which I know you didn't read, but that is my originals statement.

They are 'diseases' as something that is a focus of treatment, and something that medical personnel should be involved in, and that governments and social structures should address.

I can agree with that, they are a set of behavioral disorders, that in many cases have a serious physical consequence. However in terms of the common definition of disease as a infectious or biological system failure they are not. And in fact there are plenty of people who become alcoholics that are not Type II alcoholics , they have other co-morbid factors that drive their dependence. And there are alcoholics who do not have any withdrawal symptoms. Hence, I believe that alcoholism is a behavioral disorder.

So see it all has to do with definitions, I do not myself refer to schizophrenia, depression or anxiety as a disease either.

Now do I believe that the sanctioned use of alcohol, the lack of treatment and societal approval of addiction are serious problems, you bet I do!

Now do I refer to my morbid obesity (I am 30% over my ideal body weight) as a disease? No, I do not, so that is just my context.

Now we can get to the cool question, is compulsive gambling, that meets all the criteria of dependence, except it has no physical withdrawal a disease? If you would say yes under the above definition then I would say that is self consistent.

 

[Dancing David]

Now you will also note that the only instances of the use of the term (on-line) of H-95.983, refer to congressional testimony and not the AMA itself.

Now I did find this
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/475/finalhandbook.pdf
pg262

H-30.977 Alcoholism as a
Disease
The AMA urges change in federal laws and regulations to require that
the Veterans Administration determine benefits eligibility on the basis
that alcoholism is a disease (Res. 112, A-88, I-98)
Retain

You will also find that the AMA opposes the funding of the training of physician assistants.

 

[AlBell]

If you are so interested, and think it will help alcoholics overcome their personal problem, why not do the research and enlighten us?

Do you think your "skeptical" JAQing around is assisting someone with overcoming alcoholism?

Excuse me , it is not my role to support other people claims, maybe you should use the link arrows to read the origins of this sub-thread.

Yes, I know quite well the role you and most here choose to play is "Show me evidence." even though many have actual data they could easily provide concerning a question under discussion.

Addiction is not a disease per se, it is a behavioral disorder. It is much less of an illness than schizophrenia.

This thread is about AA, not addiction nor schizophrenia.

ETA: Thanks for just reading none of the thread and acting all huffy like!

I've been here since the beginning. My interest is not making an atheist alcoholic who could be helped by AA decide not to at least see what an actual AA meeting might be about.

Your interest is much less clear.

On the topics of obesity & gambling addiction, I would not classify either as a disease, unless brain chemistry changes associated with those behaviors are identified. Schizophrenia I would classify as a disease.

As to alcoholism, http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/5/357 for example.

I'd say at least some alcoholics suffer from a disease.

 

[The Norseman]

Thanks you, so now, in response to what I stated they are still not diseases under the common usage of the term, which I know you didn't read, but that is my originals statement.

Disease

Definition

noun, plural: diseases

An abnormal condition of an organism which interrupts the normal bodily functions that often leads to feeling of pain and weakness, and usually associated with symptoms and signs.

A pathologic condition in which the normal functioning of an organism or body is impaired or disrupted resulting in extreme pain, dysfunction, distress, or death.


Supplement

It may include state of injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, or atypical variations of structure and function.

Synonymous with the words: affection, ailing, ailment, disorder, distemper, illness, malady, sickness. However, in strict sense, disease is usually protracted or prolonged, sometimes permanent. It differs from disorder that means a slight, partial or temporary irregularity in the system. Distemper is mostly associated with diseases of animals. Malady is more of a literary term than a medical or technical term. Affection refers to a part, organ, or function (as in: affection of the lung).


Word origin: oe. Disese, OF. Desaise; des- (L. Dis-) _ aise ease.

disease /dis·ease/ (dĭ-zēz´) any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown. See also entries under syndrome.

Main Entry: dis·ease
Pronunciation: \di-ˈzēz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English disese, from Anglo-French desease, desaise, from des- dis- + eise ease
Date: 14th century

1 obsolete : trouble
2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms : sickness, malady
3 : a harmful development (as in a social institution)

— dis·eased \-ˈzēzd\ adjective

So, looks like it can be reasonable to include addiction under the concept of disease.

And, I think that this is why the term "the disease concept of addiction" is often used -- to help make it distinct from the earlier ideas that addiction is a spiritual malady or a moral failing.

I'll post more on this topic a bit later.

 

[Dancing David]

So, looks like it can be reasonable to include addiction under the concept of disease.

And, I think that this is why the term "the disease concept of addiction" is often used -- to help make it distinct from the earlier ideas that addiction is a spiritual malady or a moral failing.

I'll post more on this topic a bit later.

I know the common definitions are not as inclusive as the medical ones, and I agree with that. I just happen to feel that it is a nomenclature that gets abused by the addicts quite frequently. So I tend to recategorize it to avoid that hook. Alcoholism is not like type I diabetes. A diabetic will have the homeostatic problem of being unable to regulate their blood sugars regardless of their behaviors.

Some behaviors will benefit the status of the diabetes, taking prescribed medication, avoiding carbohydrates, etc...

Now that I can agree with those definitions, I would just say that it is a behavioral disorder and that it has biological consequences. In addictions the key is that there is a behavior that is the sole trigger of the event, some people will have a biological predisposition, some will not, some will have physical withdrawal, some will not. All will have a change in body state as a consequence of either exposure to the substance or engaging in the mood altering behavior.

So I feel that it is not helpful to say "I have the disease of alcoholism" (for the addict), I feel it is more helpful for them to say "No matter what the best choice for me is to not use."
Now this is a huge grey area, as there are physical syndromes like type II diabetes that can be controlled by behaviors.

I agree the moral falsity is a real issue, people are not unable to cope with life, they are not weak.

They are unable to control their use of a substance or behavior once they begin that use.

So the solution is simple, the 'Big Choice' , you choose not to use. There is no moral failing, there is a choice.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, I know quite well the role you and most here choose to play is "Show me evidence." even though many have actual data they could easily provide concerning a question under discussion.

That just shows that you did not actually read my posts, if you had then you would know exactly what I have stated and why. And why I asked for the clarification that the AMA somewhere said that alcoholism is a disease.

This thread is about AA, not addiction nor schizophrenia.

Um, wow, that also shows a lack of reading the thread, there are usually sub threads and comments made to clarify positions.

AA is about addiction, isn't it?

I've been here since the beginning. My interest is not making an atheist alcoholic who could be helped by AA decide not to at least see what an actual AA meeting might be about.

You didn't really read my posts did you, or you have confused me with someone else.

Your interest is much less clear.

It is rather transparent.

On the topics of obesity & gambling addiction, I would not classify either as a disease,

then that is inconsistent.

unless brain chemistry changes associated with those behaviors are identified.

Unless you believe in some duality where the mind does not reside in the brain and is a result of the brain, then of course mood altering behaviors have an impact on brain chemistry.

Schizophrenia I would classify as a disease.

As to alcoholism, http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/5/357 for example.

I'd say at least some alcoholics suffer from a disease.

Fair enough, many alcoholics suffer serious physical changes due to their use.

 

[Belz...]

This is partly why there is AA and other self-help groups. We could be talking about anything.

Personally, if I was a fat guy, I could just eat less....

Personally, if I was dyslexic, I could just focus better...

Personally, if I was a kleptomaniac, I could just steal less...

Anytime someone says, "well I'm not one, but if I was, I would just do this, it's easy..." I quit paying attention.

You misunderstand. I don't mean that people can't help you to reach your goals, but ultimately, YOU are the one making the steps towards recovery, not some imaginary higher power.

 

[Belz...]

Hilarious. The efforts some will go to.....

Indeed, since you seem to be denying that religious organisations have mandatory requirements for participation.

 

[Belz...]

This thread is about AA, not addiction nor schizophrenia.

So we are not allowed to make analogies or comparisons for the sake of argument, ever ?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Indeed, since you seem to be denying that religious organisations have mandatory requirements for participation.

I wouldn't know, not being part of any religious organisation.

But what I do know is that AA has only one requirement for membership and that is a desire to stop drinking.
That's right, nothing else! Just a desire to stop drinking.

Have you yet understood?

Just in case you didn't hear me:

A desire to stop drinking, that is the only requirement.

 

[Belz...]

I wouldn't know, not being part of any religious organisation.

You've never even heard of one ?

But what I do know is that AA has only one requirement for membership and that is a desire to stop drinking.

Your claim.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You've never even heard of one ?

Oh, I've heard of them. I've just never been in them. And as such I feel unqualified in any way shape or form to comment

Your claim.

No, it is tradition three's claim: Here it is, linky, explanation and all

http://www.io.com/aamen/trad.html

Why did A.A. finally drop all its membership regulations? Why did we leave it to each newcomer to decide himself whether he was an alcoholic and whether he should join us? Why did we dare say, contrary to the experience of society and government everywhere, that we would neither punish nor deprive any A.A. of membership, believe anything, or conform to anything? The answer, now seen in Tradition Three, was simplicity itself. At last experience taught us that to take away any alcoholic's full chance was sometimes to pronounce his death sentence, and often to condemn him to endless misery. Who dared to be judge, jury, and executioner of his own sick brother? As group after group saw these possibilities, they finally abandoned all membership regulations.

WOW!
See that?

Neither deprive any AA (alcoholic) of membership, make them believe anything nor conform to anything. And "abandoned all membership regulations"

Clear now?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Why do you never quote Tradition 2 AAAlfie?

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but
trusted servants; they do not govern

Maybe because it belies your denials that you are participating in a Religious organization.

GB

 

[R.A.F.]

,,,what I do know is that AA has only one requirement for membership and that is a desire to stop drinking.
That's right, nothing else! Just a desire to stop drinking.

Have you yet understood?

Just in case you didn't hear me:

A desire to stop drinking, that is the only requirement.

So someone who desires to stop drinking may join AA...can completely ignore the 12 steps, and expect to successfully stop drinking??

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

So someone who desires to stop drinking may join AA...can completely ignore the 12 steps, and expect to successfully stop drinking??

According to AAAlfie, yes. But not according to more honest members of AA.

GB

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So someone who desires to stop drinking may join AA...can completely ignore the 12 steps, and expect to successfully stop drinking??

Yep. I know plenty.
One former sponsor of mine is now some 30 years sober - an atheist to boot.
Another man, 40 plus years - the is a theist.

The steps are suggested, not compulsory as can be clearly seen by tradition three.

 

[Malerin]

Why do you never quote Tradition 2 AAAlfie?



Maybe because it belies your denials that you are participating in a Religious organization.

GB

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

If only 1 Step or Tradition is needed, why all the other 11?

This is just more sophistry. Sure, the 12 Steps are just "suggestions", except that if you're not doing them, you're not doing AA.

In which case, why waste your time (assuming you have a choice)? Again, Non-theists with alcohol problems, check out Rational Recovery or some other non-theistic recovery organization with no basis in the 12 (religious) Steps.

GB