Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

What definition of disease are we using?
From Wiki-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease
Terminology

In many cases, the terms disease, disorder, morbidity and illness are used interchangeably. In some situations, specific terms are considered preferable.
snip
A disease is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism. It is often construed to be a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1][2][3] It may be caused by external factors, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal disfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases. Ecologically, disease is defined as maladjustment of a body with environment.
Edit to add-
Wouldn't alcohol be the pathogen (self administered of course) and alcoholism the disease?
 
Last edited:
littleroundman said:
Fortunately, the ability of random posters on internet forums to Google up semantic arguments to prove or disprove their uninformed views has no bearing on the relity/ies faced by the increasing numbers of those afflicted with the condition so often referred to as "diabetes"...those charged with the diagnosis, care and treatment of those afflicted with either condition, such comparisons are both pointless and meaningless.
Click to expand...

Wow, how rude.

Since you painted "posters who mentioned diabetes" and "people who treat alcoholism" with such a broad brush....I will respond, since I belong to both groups. Diabetes is a chronic condition with biopsychosocial origins, I have and will continue to use it as an apt comparison when discussing chronic conditions with biopsychosocial origins.

I do not see any reason to specify what type of diabetes I'm talking about nor whether one had one's pancreas removed, when those facts are quite obvious from the context.:boggled: The fact that some types of diabetes do not have the characteristics mentioned does not make the statement incorrect, just imprecise, which doesn't matter for the purposes of the discussion at hand. [Imprecise, not untrue, like your statement that 'people charged with the care and treatment think it's meaningless'.]

Zelenius--Good point--I'm adjusting my view a bit, but....

If we are to accept the definition given in FattyCatty's post, we see the disorder is something awry and the disease is caused by the disorder. Hence the biopsychosocial state of alcoholism is a disease caused by an alcohol use disorder.

I am still, though, pretty confused about why the word "disease" bothers people so much. It just really seems like semantics to me, and this is coming from a person who typically is more attentive to wording than others are.

Like I said, I have a condition that's called a disease when it's technically a disorder....and I couldn't care less which it's called, and there is no debate or arguing about the term used...the only reason it's different for alcoholism is the social stigma, in my estimation.
 
Last edited:
zerospeaks said:
What FattyCatty and my wife (the expert on this subject) is TRYING to tell you is that there is NO argument on this subject.
Not in science.
Click to expand...

Your wife is an expert on alcoholism? :rolleyes: That's not what I gathered from your earlier posts. I'm starting to think your expert "wife" is a way for you to interject statements into this discussion that can't be argued with because, "oh, she's busy doing something now." If she is indeed real, have your wife sign up, read this entire thread (not just the one or two sentences out of every 15th post you feed her), and post some links or something.

Anyway, science is a constantly evolving entity that relies on arguments to better itself. I think calling alcoholism a disease is incorrect, as it belittles things like Lou Gherig's disease, and raises things like cocaine addiction to that level. I don't think a coke user and a person with ALS are the same. One suffers from a disease, one does not. Many people agree with me, which tells me there IS an argument to be had.
 
Are people with Celiac disease addicted to gluten ?
What are the identifiable pathological symptom of Alcoholism ( before the alcohol damages organs ) ?
Click to expand...

You wanted another disease, you didn't ask for another addiction.
Shift the goal posts I don't care.

and MikeSun5,

I now understand why my wife got mad at me when I attempted to bring her into this.
She said it was a waste of her time, and I must agree with her.

It's been nice gentlemen!

The scientific consensus is that Alcoholism IS a DISEASE.
The only "debate" over it professionally is whether or not it should be called addicitonism, because it is an inclination to be addicted, not just to alcohol specifically.
Thank god science doesn't change just because some people on a forum THINK something is classified wrong.
If you disagree with the data, go write a paper and get it published.
 
imagineaa said:
....
Like I said, I have a condition that's called a disease when it's technically a disorder....and I couldn't care less which it's called, and there is no debate or arguing about the term used...the only reason it's different for alcoholism is the social stigma, in my estimation.
Click to expand...
What actions, if any, do you take to exacerbate or trigger your disorder ?

The point with alcoholism is that the patient has a choice to drink alcohol. The ' disease ' tagging seem to be an effort to mitigate the abusers responsibility ..

" They have a disease. They can't help themselves. "

Of course, if it's a disease, the research types can get all kinds of grants to study it. There's no money in ' don't drink ' .
 
imaginea said:
I do not see any reason to specify what type of diabetes I'm talking about nor whether one had one's pancreas removed, when those facts are quite obvious from the context. The fact that some types of diabetes do not have the characteristics mentioned does not make the statement incorrect, just imprecise, which doesn't matter for the purposes of the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true.

Don't ya just hate it when doctors do that ???

"Yep, you have type 1 diabetes, you'll need to monitor your blood sugar levels by taking blood samples 4 times a day and having 5 insulin injections a day as well.

Oh, and if you don't do as I say, you WILL die within a very short period of time.

WHOOPS, SILLY ME, that was a bit imprecise of me, I meant you have type 2 diabetes and you really need to just change your lifestyle"



DOESN'T MATTER ??????

Gimme a break.
 
Last edited:
I am really having trouble figuring out why people are so resistant to the notion that LittleRoundMan and I have put forth; which is that "Addiction" is more like a "Syndrome", in that there are many different reasons for, and types of, "Addiction"--thus more than One Model is necessary to understand and treat the issues.

And yes, that includes a Physical Disease/Disorder Model for some forms of Addiction, and other Models (say Behaviourist/Psychological) for other forms of "addiction."

But maybe people are just so attached to their own Pet Theories and definitions of "Disease" that this approach might be just too reasonable for them.

Again, pop over to NIDA's website, though they dubiously classify all "addiction" under the Disease/Disorder definition, they certainly recognize that no single approach is effective for treating all "addictions."

Heck, I'm even willing to concede that Religious Group Therapy like AA can be helpful to some who are religiously inclined, though I certainly don't agree with their Sin Model of addiction.

GB
 
Last edited:
zerospeaks said:
It's been nice gentlemen!
Click to expand...

Cool. You weren't bringing much to the table anyway. "My wife the annoyed expert says..." is not evidence, nor did it help the discussion.

Skeptical Greg said:
The point with alcoholism is that the patient has a choice to drink alcohol. The ' disease ' tagging seem to be an effort to mitigate the abusers responsibility ..

" They have a disease. They can't help themselves. "
Click to expand...

Exactly. The alcoholic who goes to the store knowing he's a violent drunk and purchases booze anyway, goes home to get wasted and beat the tar out of his wife is merely suffering from a debilitating disease that he can't control. Poor fella. His wife should be more understanding. :boggled:

Of course, if it's a disease, the research types can get all kinds of grants to study it. There's no money in ' don't drink ' .
Click to expand...

Great point, Greg. Alas, prepare to be ignored and maybe even branded a CTer... :(
 
I'd like someone to classify me please. I was drinking excessive, damaging amounts of alcohol. I don't now, and feel great. Do I have a disease or not?
 
lionking said:
I'd like someone to classify me please. I was drinking excessive, damaging amounts of alcohol. I don't now, and feel great. Do I have a disease or not?
Click to expand...

According to FattyCatty, you do. You have a disease that you are successfully managing by not engaging in the behavior that created your disease in the first place. Remember, the disease known as alcoholism has no cure. So no matter how good you feel, no matter what you do, you are most definitely (and will forever remain) a diseased person. :rolleyes:
 
You people have gone to crazy town.

" Hey lets ignore the science and experts behind this and make up our own definitions!"

Whatever floats your boats.
 
zerospeaks said:
You people have gone to crazy town.

" Hey lets ignore the science and experts behind this and make up our own definitions!"

Whatever floats your boats.
Click to expand...

And this is a forum which prides itself on critical thinking and science based information.

Can you then imagine the real world experiences of those affected with the disease/s under discussion in dealing with and overcoming the stereotypes, prejudice, anecdotal evidence and "imprecise" language which have now filled the thread ???

Ever wondered why it is that so many purveyors of "woo" find it relatively easy to find new markets for their latest nonsense foodstuff or beverage or marveled at how it is that people continue to believe A.I.D.S is nothing but the result of deviant behaviour and homosexuality is a reversible lifestyle choice ????
 
MikeSun5 said:
<snip>
We established early in the thread that it was beneficial to the anti-alcoholism cause to have the medical profession portray it as a disease. FattyCatty can post all the medical journal exerpts in the world (as if that wins the argument), but the simple fact that there IS an argument suggests that the medical field may have jumped the gun on this one. I mean, they've been wrong before. ;) Also, there are plenty of doctors who disagree. So FattyCatty, here is a link for you to read that isn't from a random internet poster.
<snip>
Click to expand...
Did you know that Page 1 of the article ends in the middle of a sentence, with no way to get to Page 2? Only one of the problems I had with the article. It was unconvincing, composed almost entirely of unsupported statements. There were only a couple actual cites, no links.

One claim that actually had a cite was that:
Prior to this time, the term alcoholic did not exist. Alcohol was freely consumed but, drunkenness was not tolerated.

Many sociologists contribute its non-existence to the very stigma the disease concept removes. In fact, "Despite an ardent search, however, temperance adherents never identified an account of a drunkard before the 1800's who reported that he has lost control of his drinking." (Stanton Peele "Diseasing of America" pg 37)
Click to expand...
Huh? Drunkeness was not tolerated? There has been drunkeness since alcohol was invented/discovered. Cited or not, it's a pretty "extraordinary claim." Do they think there were no drinking problems before 1800? Whether you call it alcoholism or something else, the problem exists. What do they think a drunkard is?:rolleyes:

While the NCADD (National Counsel on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence), formally the NCA, claims to "fight the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions," its happy-go-lucky explanations of alcoholism and its nature are insultingly unsound.

The NIAAA and the NCADD are two adamant supporters of the disease concept and 12 step therapies.

But, as previously stated, they are not altruistic in their efforts. These two organizations fund most of the treatment research that goes on in the United States. And, like Marty Mann, pick and choose those studies that fit the organizations' agendas, or they manipulate and reinterpret the outcomes in their own favor. Thus, they receive funding to preserve themselves.

This fact is applicable across the board for all certifying governmental organizations and institutions. In truth, whether intentional or not, its is pure genius,. By filtering the facts, these organizations have "created" the necessity for themselves. They have created a public perception that they are needed by controlling and manipulating substance abuse information.
Click to expand...
Note the use of loaded words and slurs with no evidence presented.

Without any evidence, they label two people as "bogus if not outright fraudulent." Again without evidence or cites, they apply the words misinformation and fraud broadly.

Irrefutable empirical evidence has shown that organizations and institutions who promote, and adhere to, the disease concept, fail when trying to help people with substance abuse problems.
Click to expand...
They say "Irrefutable empiricle evidence" without providing either the evidence or cites or links.

I also have some doubts as to the objectivity of the article. The creator of the site, Dr. Marc Kern (Ph.D. and clinical psychologist) links (from the About tab) to four sites where he is selling his services and products (he wrote a book and has tapes), all touted as superior to the 12-step model. So it is certainly to his financial benefit to disparage the view of alcoholism as a disease and also to knock 12-step programs. Which makes the article suspect.

The first site, habitdoc.com, offers a 15-minute phone consult for $25 and a 20-minute follow-up call with e-book and audio plus a Core Assessment (75 minutes total) for $375.

The second site, AAalternative.com, offers a free 15-minute Q&A call or a "Bridging Session" for $375 (I couldn't find a time for the call). It also offers phone "Coaching;" I couldn't find a price given.

The third site, SelfHelpGroupLocator.com, offers links; I couldn't tell if they were free or not. It also says it's sponsored by Addiction Alternatives, a division of Life Management Skills; they both link back to habitdoc.com.

The fourth site, AddictionTreatmentAlternatives.com, is also selling Dr. Kern's services and products. Initial phone consultation - $49.95 for 15 minutes; the "Kick Start Recovery Session" is $375 for a 60-minute one-on-one call or face-to-face meeting, with products and follow-up (undefined).

Another problem with your link is that the site sells ads.
Advertising and CPP
Addictioninfo.org offers targeted sponsorships placed on highly visible locations for each web category. We offer pricing at competitive rates that meet your budgetary needs.

For advertising and Content Partnership Program information, please contact Ajay Jain.
Click to expand...


zerospeaks said:
You wanted another disease, you didn't ask for another addiction.
Shift the goal posts I don't care.

and MikeSun5,

I now understand why my wife got mad at me when I attempted to bring her into this.
She said it was a waste of her time, and I must agree with her.

It's been nice gentlemen!

The scientific consensus is that Alcoholism IS a DISEASE.
The only "debate" over it professionally is whether or not it should be called addicitonism, because it is an inclination to be addicted, not just to alcohol specifically.
Thank god science doesn't change just because some people on a forum THINK something is classified wrong.
If you disagree with the data, go write a paper and get it published.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Especially about the waste of time. Also, whether you like it or not disease is the definition in use by most involved medical groups in the United States and also by the World Health Organization. So write to them with your objections.
 
zerospeaks said:
You people have gone to crazy town.

" Hey lets ignore the science and experts behind this and make up our own definitions!"

Whatever floats your boats.
Click to expand...

You know appeals to authority on their own are not going to get you anywhere.

Let's see:

1. You become an alcoholic by drinking alcohol. This is the one and only cause
2. If you stop the behavior which causes alcoholism, you are still an alcoholic, according to the "experts". Further if you stop the behavior through pure will power, you weren't really an alcoholic to begin with, also according to "experts".
3. Alcoholism is a disease, but if an alcoholic gives up alcohol he or she still has the disease, or never had it in the first place (as it is somehow incurable).
4. Experiments with animals have some bearing on the matter.

It doesn't matter how many experts define alcoholism as a disease, this doesn't make sense. All I get in return is "bad luck, it's a disease, deal with it".

I do not accept the "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" and "alcoholism is a lifetime disease" mantras.
 
zerospeaks said:
You people have gone to crazy town.

" Hey lets ignore the science and experts behind this and make up our own definitions!"

Whatever floats your boats.
Click to expand...

Scientists are good at science, and "experts"...well...they're good at being "experts" I suppose. But none of them are immune from defining things based on cultural prejudice, and political/economic expediency.

Puritan Addiction Ideology frames the whole debate in the US, and Big Pharma's money has a lot of influence too. And lest people think I'm whistling Dixie, it wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a "disease", or Mental Disorder, and even more recently whole segments of the youth population were being dubiously labelled as ADD with intent of selling as much Ritalin and Adderall as possible before a legion of skeptics in the Medical Community began to challenge the assumptions that ADD was on the rise and medication always the best response.

So no-one should ignore what scientists and "experts" have to say, but neither should their "definitions" of addiction be accepted at face value.

Again, I am certain that the "Disease/Disorder" model has some validity for some people. But I see no reason not to question the Blanket assertions that "addiction" is ALWAYS a Disease/Disorder for all people. And I also question the notion from the "other side" that "Addiction" is ALWAYS a "character flaw" or psychological dysfunction.

I think it is very misguided to be attached to any one particular model or definition of "addiction." They all have some merit in some cases.

GB

EDIT:
lionking said:
You know appeals to authority on their own are not going to get you anywhere.

<snip>

I do not accept the "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" and "alcoholism is a lifetime disease" mantras.
Click to expand...

Both valid points. Though for some (but by no means all) people, the "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" mantra may indeed be the case
 
Last edited:
littleroundman said:
And this is a forum which prides itself on critical thinking and science based information.

Can you then imagine the real world experiences of those affected with the disease/s under discussion in dealing with and overcoming the stereotypes, prejudice, anecdotal evidence and "imprecise" language which have now filled the thread ???

Ever wondered why it is that so many purveyors of "woo" find it relatively easy to find new markets for their latest nonsense foodstuff or beverage or marveled at how it is that people continue to believe A.I.D.S is nothing but the result of deviant behaviour and homosexuality is a reversible lifestyle choice ????
Click to expand...

If people have an emotional investment in a belief, all the expert testimony in the world might not change their mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom