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.
Sure I did, I just didn't name him as a specific person. My uncle died of complications from Alcoholism. My dad and his sisters did everything they could to help him get better. They put him in AA, rehab, they held interventions, they babysat him . . . in the end he couldn't control his behavior. He lost job after job. He became a drifter. He was involved in numerous DUIs and spent time in jail. Eventually, he alienated every person in his family and died penniless and alone on the streets. So yeah, for my uncle,
it was impossible.
Ah, you're back to the credentials thing again. How surprising!
It's perfectly appropriate to compare your unprofessional and uneducated opinions to the opinions of actual professionals in the field. Your next statement perfectly illustrates why such a comparison is appropriate:
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).
See what I mean? This is getting very amusing! So
Unca Yimmy says NIH is wrong and we are just supposed to believe him. He says there is no evidence and that they are using hyperbole, yet they are the ones with the training and education and access to all the studies pertaining to alcoholism. Sorry, you have no credibility on this subject compared to the experts that make up the NIH. And the NIH is just one body of experts that have this opinion. The
AMA is another.
Here's what the WHO has to say:
WHO said:
The other side of the neuroscience research. . .focuses on the differences in action of the substances between one human and another which are attributable to different genetic inheritances. The findings from this literature suggest that genetics modulates many aspects of the actions of psychoactive substances in humans. Thus genetic differences can make the use of the substance more or less pleasurable or aversive to a particular individual and can affect the toxicity of the substance, both in terms of overdose and of chronic health effects. Genetics can also affect the intensity of psychoactive effects of a given formulation and dose of a substance, as well as the likelihood of the occurrence of different aspects of dependence, i.e. tolerance and withdrawal, and those aspects which are not directly biologically measurable.
So the WHO, AMA and NIH (among others) are all wrong and Unca Yimmy is right!
As others have pointed out, this "definition" seems to be an American thing. Over in the
UK they phrase it differently. They write, "Dependent means that a person
feels that they are unable to function without alcohol and the consumption of alcohol becomes an important – or sometimes the most important – factor in their life." (emphasis added) They go further and divide it into three categories: hazardous drinking, harmful drinking, and dependent drinking.
You can dismiss my opinions as some random person on the Internet if you want. You, of course, would be ignoring the experts I have quoted. It's much easier for you that way.
"Feels they are unable," is all you've got to go on? That's pretty weak. As for your experts, let's review:
You quoted a paper that MikeSun5 posted. The paper was one expert's opinion that we should move to a social learning perspective and away from the disease model because it is "ineffective in engendering sympathetic attitudes towards problem drinkers among the general public." Not very persuasive in light of all the neurological underpinnings to alcohol addictions that recent research has revealed and I've shared in this tread.
You quoted another paper which turned out to be another editorial, this time written by a guy named Michael J Formica, M.S., M.A., Ed.M.. Mr. Formica feels it necessary to include that "He is an Initiate in the Shankya Yoga lineage of H.H. Sri Swami Rama and the Himalayan Masters."
You requoted the MikeSun5 paper.
You quoted a study regarding how two different cities in Europe view alcoholism and how it affects doctors' treatment. Largely irrelevant to the point that most medical organizations view alcoholism as a disease regardless of how any one particular community (or person) views it.
That was the extent of the experts you have quoted. I am underwhelmed by your trickle of expert opinion. I've presented a great deal of studies and the opinions of panels of experts that all point to a biopsychosocial disease model of alcoholism. Your response: "They're wrong." It's laughable, really.
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.
OK, so in your mind choosing to play football or climb rocks is morally equivalent to being an alcoholic? Really?!?
You should conclude that behavior does not "cure" malaria
Yes it does. Taking medicine is a behavior.
I kid.
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.
So alcoholism is the only disease defined by behavior? What about Major Depressive Disorder? What about Autism? And please don't start the ridiculous semantic argument that disorders are somehow different from diseases.
Along those lines, I'd like to know your source for the "traditional definition of disease" that you outlined. It sounds to me like you just made it up. Here's the most comprehensive definition of disease I could find:
Merriam-Webster via Medline Plus
an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors
So by that definition, Alcoholism is most certainly a disease.
How do you figure that a person who does not consume alcohol can be an alcoholic? Is it your opinion then, that if an alcoholic quits drinking by themselves, they are still diseased?
