I'm still curious as to why alcoholism is called a disease almost only in North America. I tried looking up stats on addiction funding in other countries but wasn't really successful.
I was just addressing AlBell's comparison of diabetes to alcoholism that had been brought up earlier in the thread. Simplification was warranted in that context. Because he started it.
Also, I don't really see what's bad about wanting to reduce things to simple terms anyway...
The more I look at it, alcoholism is a mental disorder that can lead to sickness and diseases. IMO, it's only called a disease when it helps the organization maintain or get more funding. As said earlier, alcoholism orgs. get more funding than addiction orgs. The Mayo Clinic actually separates "alcoholism" and "alcohol abuse" to account for all the posters on this thread who say, "I was an alcoholic I never had a disease!"I used to work for an NPO. You'll say whatever you have to in order to keep those checks coming.
I'm still curious as to why alcoholism is called a disease almost only in North America. I tried looking up stats on addiction funding in other countries but wasn't really successful.
Who declared alcoholism "impossible" to control?
Please do me the courtesy of reading the post to which I was responding. Had you done so, you would have seen that I was replying to, "It's impossible for some people to control their behavior and it's easy for others."
As I have said several times, I have no moral issues with alcohol or alcoholics. Why you insist on dragging these moral judgments into it is beyond me.
Maybe there is a debate in academic circles, but not in clinical practice. The debate that does exist (as your paper shows) concerns the best way to treat Alcoholism and what the best frame of reference is for doing so. Doctors don't care about what you call it. Alcoholism is a useful tag (=patient has problem with alcohol), just as Diabetes is (=patient has insulin problems), just as is every other word they assign to describe any condition of the human body. It's not as if there are two camps in Medicine arguing over whether it's a disease or not.
Oh, I've read the thread. The question remains: why do you personally care if it is called a disease or not? How is it going to affect your life or the treatment of people with Alcoholism.
So calling something a disease = giving people an excuse? Nope, sorry. Calling it a disease is just a useful conceptual model for the medical community to understand it better and develop treatments. Call it a lifestyle choice if you want to but that conceptual model hasn't helped anyone get over Alcoholism.
Gandalfs Beard said:
Well, quite frankly, nobody does anything in this world without some help along the way. It's all a matter of degree. Still, explain to me how you test for impossible. I say if they have voluntary motor control and awareness, then there's choice involved.
Considering I never said any such thing, I don't see why you brought it up.
I never said that genetic predispositions don't exist or that they don't play a role. I don't see why you brought it up.
Only because you want to see me as making moral judgments. I've seen people time and again use the excuse of how it's a "disease" and that it's "impossible" to control for their continued avoidance of assistance. That is until they decide they don't want to be that person anymore. It is what it is. I really don't care about them personally. Really, I don't. To me it's no different than somebody incorrectly claiming that their car is out of gas, so they can't drive to the store. I happen to know the car has gas. I know they will never drive anywhere until they figure it out.
You're boring me. Again. You take this issue so emotionally that it colors your arguments and prevents you from interpreting ordinary statements in a dispassionate manner. I grow weary.
The real world is ample evidence for me. Some people cannot stop drinking and they die from the damage. For those people, it was impossible to stop. Pointing out that they have motor control and giving them awareness that their drinking is the cause of their problems has not been shown to be effective. Maybe you should explain how you test for choice?
This is very interesting . . . In what capacity have you "time and again" seen these people?
So if it has a support group it's not a disease?
Yimmy said:
I see. Because they don't, it was impossible. Can't argue with that logic.
I have, multiple times. You don't find it convincing because you believe that those who don't cannot. I can't help you in that regard.
Moral judgments deal with right and wrong. I don't consider alcoholics immoral. It's really that simple.
If that's what you got out of my statement, I can't help you.Here's the funniest thing I've read in this thread concerning how we define diseases:So if it has a support group it's not a disease?
For all practical purposes, yes it was impossible for that person.
You can skirt the core issue and wave your hand all you want to but it won't make you more right. Let's see, who has more credence on this matter, some random dude on the internet or the National Institutes of Health (you know, the federal agency that makes PubMed available and has access to all the studies and current thinking on all things Medicine?):
Good enough for me and just about every doctor in America.So, it's neither right nor wrong for a person to choose to hurt themselves and others by choosing to remain an alcoholic? Right.
You are arguing that Alcoholism is not a disease. You bring up the fact that people who get Malaria (a disease) don't have MA meetings and get pins for being 1 year Malaria free. So what was I supposed to conclude from your little example?
Putting "for all practical purposes" in front of it doesn't make it any better. And we weren't talking about a specific person. In fact, nobody here has even described a person for whom it is impossible.
Ah, you're back to the credentials thing again. How surprising!
NIH is wrong. There is no evidence showing that the craving is as strong as that for food and water. It's hyperbole at its best. They are wrong to say that people cannot stop drinking once they start because they do stop (and then start again later).Wow, so NIH recognizes that Alcoholism is a disease with specific diagnostic criteria/symptoms?!? And that it may not be possible for an Alcoholic to control their drinking?!? And that, for some, the craving to drink is as strong as the need for food and water?!?
It's not wrong to play football either, and that hurts the individual. Free climbing is extremely dangerous. Not wearing your CPAP every night is dangerous and harmful. People engage in all manner of activities that are harmful in the short and long term. Don't project your moral judgments on me.So, it's neither right nor wrong for a person to choose to hurt themselves and others by choosing to remain an alcoholic? Right.
You should conclude that behavior does not "cure" malaria because behavior is not part of the definition of traditional diseases. Even something like type 2 diabetes is not defined by behavior but by the underlying medical condition it causes. The behavior may or may not cause the condition. Ceasing the behavior may effect the condition, but we can determine the presence of the condition without knowing about behavior. Basically, there's no way for a doctor to know if you're an alcoholic without looking at your behavior, and a doctor can only influence you to change your behavior.
Right, because clinicians don't read the journals. Except, of course, when it supports their dogma.
Sure there is. A lot of it depends on where you live and how the government describes it.
Seems overly personal and vague to me. Try again.
The traditional definition of a disease says:
You keep saying that without presenting any evidence. It's just an assertion. In the UK they acknowledge that it seems impossible. There's a big difference. If it's impossible to control, then why are you treating them with anything other than a paralytic??
Except that the only way you know that someone is "cured" is if they stop drinking. If it was impossible for them to control it, then what magic did you work? Or maybe it only seemed impossible, and the person learned strategies to control their behavior. That's very practical.
Wow, so NIH recognizes that Alcoholism is a disease with specific diagnostic criteria/symptoms?!? And that it may not be possible for an Alcoholic to control their drinking?!? And that, for some, the craving to drink is as strong as the need for food and water?!?
This table shows the NIH received over $450 million in funding for alcoholism this year. That is a lot of money given to one specific addiction when other addictions (smoking, overeating) must be lumped in together with other categories. Some addictions (gambling, shopping, sex) aren't even listed, which means if they receive any funding at all, it's a small part under a broad category. The NIH was given over $2billion in funding for "Mental Health." If alcoholism was included under that enormous category, researchers would most likely NOT get 25% of that, and therefore would receive less than they do now. Of course if alcoholism stands alone as a disease, they can get their own funding.
So..... anyone want to say NIH isn't in it for the money now? 