Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[Uncayimmy]

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.

You haven't proven that by any stretch of the imagination.

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:

Actually, it's not really appropriate at all. Either my arguments stand on their own or they do not. I have not asked anyone to take my word for anything, so going after my credentials is nothing more than a personal attack. Please cease and desist.

See what I mean? This is getting very amusing! So Unca Yimmy says NIH is wrong and we are just supposed to believe him.

No. You're supposed to prove me wrong. Show me the evidence indicating that a desire for alcohol is as strong as that for food and water. I'll accept that. As for the second sentence I said was, that's self evident: People do stop drinking.

"Feels they are unable," is all you've got to go on? That's pretty weak. As for your experts, let's review:

Tell that to the equivalent of NIH in the UK.

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.

Respond to the post in question based on its merits.

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."

Respond to the post in question based on its merits.

You requoted the MikeSun5 paper.

Respond to the post in question based on its merits.

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.

Respond to the post in question based on its merits.

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.

Your arguments are following a familiar pattern. You are unable to refute or even address my arguments on their merits, so you respond with an argument from authority. I respond by showing you that there is not a consensus. You then either impeach the authority or dismiss their arguments with a hand wave while claiming that I am now somehow arguing from an authority (and point out gleefully that I do not have any authority).

OK, so in your mind choosing to play football or climb rocks is morally equivalent to being an alcoholic? Really?!?

Be boggled all you want. I don't consider either a moral issue. You do, which is why you keep projecting your issues with morality on me. I really don't care if somebody wants to abuse alcohol. As I said, call me a strict moralist if you want - just address my arguments on their merits rather than getting into my personal motivations.

Yes it does. Taking medicine is a behavior. I kid. 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.

Disorders are not diseases? But NIH says they are different. Are you saying NIH is wrong now? Very convenient. FYI, MPD is not diagnosed by behavior. Autism, a disorder, is diagnoses mostly by lack of certain characteristics. Since neither is a disease...

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:

The American Society of Addiction Medicine according to this article.

Merriam-Webster via Medline Plus So by that definition, Alcoholism is most certainly a disease.

So is playing rugby then.

 

[MikeSun5]

I'm going to assume this was tongue-in-cheek.

The last sentence, sure...

If not, your post was nothing but a conspiracy theory/paranoid rant. No need to respond more than that.

If you think calling me a paranoid CTer wins the argument for you, then congratulations, winner! Excellent retort!

If you were to go look at the links provided earlier in the thread, there is proof for my theory and a basis for my logic. Organizations dealing with addiction get less funding than those dealing with "alcoholism the disease." You could do research, but of course it's way easier to just call someone a .

 

[Uncayimmy]

Slam-Dunk!!!

GB

Impulse: the influence of a particular feeling, mental state, etc

Impulses are not actions.

 

[bookitty]

Ummm.

No. You're supposed to prove me wrong. Show me the evidence indicating that a desire for alcohol is as strong as that for food and water. I'll accept that. As for the second sentence I said was, that's self evident: People do stop drinking.

...


The American Society of Addiction Medicine according to this article.

According to that link:

Alcohol and other drug dependency often has a genetic basis. Research with both animals and humans has shown inheritable differences in preference for a drug over water,

The evidence for addicts preferring drugs to water is included in the link you provided.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Impulse: the influence of a particular feeling, mental state, etc

Impulses are not actions.

If you'd stop using definitions that undermine your own arguments, you wouldn't have LOST that round.

Maybe I just re-quote you again.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

PS: Clearly your arguments DON'T stand on their own merits.

GB

 

[Uncayimmy]

Ummm.



According to that link:


The evidence for addicts preferring drugs to water is included in the link you provided.

Ummm. Saying "research shows" is not evidence. Show me the studies. Please don't waste my time with unsupported claims by other people. Thank you.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you'd stop using definitions that undermine your own arguments, you wouldn't have LOST that round.

Maybe I just re-quote you again.

GB

Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I've tried, but I'm at a loss.

 

[littleroundman]

Maybe it's just my warped sense of humour, but, IM(very)HO this has now turned into the funniest thread on the forum.

Some posters are either hell bent on destroying their own argument, displaying the very behaviours of which they're accusing others, exposing their personal conspiracy theories and/or acting out what appears to be an undiagnosed narcissistic condition.

From what I can understand, rugby not being defined as a disease somehow proves alcoholism is not a disease either.
Maybe that is an American thing, but, where I come from that would fit perfectly into the definition of a "strawman" argument.

Apparently the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the US National Institutes of Health are all "wrong" and the definition supplied by an anonymous poster is "right" and, what's more, every single person involved in the "alcohol" related research field is only in it for the money. Not "a few" or "the majority" or "a small amount of" but the whole group.

I would use the word "some" then bold it to ensure clarity, but, apparently when I use the word "some" it means I am referring to a particular poster and he/she will reply as if "some" means him/her.

On the other hand "it seems like" and "it appears" are to be considered as having defined a posters' position.

As I read the thread a statement beginning with "It happened to my (insert personal experience here)" is no longer defined as being anecdotal, instead provides proof positive that "some" can, in fact, mean "all" in some circumstances.

Oh, and apparently the word "alcoholism" has an singular identical meaning all over the planet and every one of the multiple millions of people to whom the term can be applied has exactly the same condition.

Funny as a bucket full of monkeys.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I've tried, but I'm at a loss.

Typo: It should have read: Maybe I should just re-quote you again.


Honestly, unless YOUR definition of "Disease" only refers narrowly to Pathogens then you'd have a point (but not a strong one as the Medical Community and the Dictionary Definition disagree with you).

But the definition of "Disease" you've been using seems to have something to do with "involuntary motor control."

As usual, whether you are talking about fat people or drunks, your argument boils down to:

1) It's ALWAYS a Choice (i.e. it's your own damn fault--with all the moral connotations such a statement has), therefore it's not a disease.

2) I'm smarter than all the scientists and medical professionals who disagree with me.

That's it in a nutshell. That's all you've really got.


It just so happens I agree with you insofar as those who DO have the ability to control their impulses can learn to modify their behaviour patterns.

I also happen to agree with you that applying the term "Disease" to those who have a Behavioural problem is a mis-application of the term.


But the fact is you AREN'T a Medical Professional, and you're NOT PSYCHIC, therefore you have no grounds on which to claim "It's ALWAYS a choice."

And given the Neuro-Biological Dysfunctions that can (and DO) limit, or inhibit IMPULSE CONTROL in some people, for all intents and purposes, the definition of "Disease" that includes Physiological Malfunctions IS applicable.

Your paraphrased Statement #1 is an EXTRAORDINARY claim (it's always a choice), therefore the burden is on YOU to provide extraordinary evidence.

So far I am neither impressed by your claimed medical expertise, nor your psychic abilities.

And before you falsely accuse me of "personalizing," you should remind yourself that YOU are the one who has made it all about YOU (your Statement #2 as I paraphrased above).


GB

 

[bookitty]

Ummm. Saying "research shows" is not evidence. Show me the studies. Please don't waste my time with unsupported claims by other people. Thank you.

So the page is adequate if you are using it as a traditional definition of disease, but any other information on that page is "unsupported"? Please explain how that can be.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Maybe it's just my warped sense of humour, but, IM(very)HO this has now turned into the funniest thread on the forum.

Thanks in no small part to your arguments.

From what I can understand, rugby not being defined as a disease somehow proves alcoholism is not a disease either.

As a programmer and analyst, let me explain something. I'll meet with someone and go over specs and requirements. They might say, "If something has X, Y and Z, it's a widget." Part of my job is to look for other things that have X, Y and Z that they do not consider widgets. Ultimately, the goal is to come up with a definition so that widgets, and only widgets, are detected in the program. The so-called definitions for disease are grossly inadequate because by following these definitions we would classify things as diseases that "intuitively" we would not. So, either rugby is a disease, addiction is not a disease, or the definition of disease is flawed.

Maybe that is an American thing, but, where I come from that would fit perfectly into the definition of a "strawman" argument.

Actually, it wouldn't be a straw man, and that has nothing to do with your continent.

Apparently the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the US National Institutes of Health are all "wrong" and the definition supplied by an anonymous poster is "right" and, what's more, every single person involved in the "alcohol" related research field is only in it for the money. Not "a few" or "the majority" or "a small amount of" but the whole group.

First off, I'm not anonymous. Second, there most certainly is dispute in the medical community as to whether alcoholism is a disease. There is dispute as to whether these people are truly unable or only feel unable to control their drinking, the latter being the verbiage used by the UK version of the American NIH.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So the page is adequate if you are using it as a traditional definition of disease, but any other information on that page is "unsupported"? Please explain how that can be.

I didn't offer it as evidence of the traditional definition of disease. There is no "traditional" definition. There is no official definition. The definition has morphed over the centuries. I cited it as one reasonable example of a definition for the purposes of showing how they contorted alcoholism to fit. The point is that with their own definition, they had to twist things around in such a way that virtually any behavior could be called a disease.

As for the evidence they claimed that research showed, that would entail, oh, I dunno, an actual link to the research itself. Do you not understand what it means to link to research? Do you have a link to the research? If not, then please stop wasting my time.

 

[bookitty]

I didn't offer it as evidence of the traditional definition of disease. There is no "traditional" definition. There is no official definition. The definition has morphed over the centuries. I cited it as one reasonable example of a definition for the purposes of showing how they contorted alcoholism to fit. The point is that with their own definition, they had to twist things around in such a way that virtually any behavior could be called a disease.

As for the evidence they claimed that research showed, that would entail, oh, I dunno, an actual link to the research itself. Do you not understand what it means to link to research? Do you have a link to the research? If not, then please stop wasting my time.

Since you won't recognize information from the AMA, NIH or WHO, can you please tell me where I might find research that you would find acceptable? Or even just the research you have found which supports your position.

 

[littleroundman]

Second, there most certainly is dispute in the medical community as to whether alcoholism is a disease. There is dispute as to whether these people are truly unable or only feel unable to control their drinking, the latter being the verbiage used by the UK version of the American NIH.

GOOD LORD !!!!!!

This whole thread and only NOW you're admitting there's a dispute in "the medical community" ????

What's the size of the "Medical community" Yimmy ???

Are there only TWO options about which "the medical community" is in "dispute" ????

Does your personal definition of what constitutes a "medical community" include any or all of support workers, clinics, rehabilitation facilities, counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, their relative associations, groups and membership thereof ???

Given the fact you've acknowledged the fact a "verbiage" dispute does, in fact, exist between the US and UK bodies, how does that differ from "there isn't one singular answer" or does the US definition trump the UK definition because of your location ????

Does either definition fit everyone, everywhere ???

Is it at all possible that a third or fourth or hundredth other "verbiage" dispute exists in , say an Eastern bloc nation ????

If a member of the Hottentot nations or an Indigenous Australian were in search of help, would the relevant medical association to whom they turned be using the same, similar or different definition, or is it not possible that a person from a nation other than the USA could accidentally find themselves reading the thread ??

Why does the OP question STILL remain without a definitive answer ???

 

[Uncayimmy]

Since you won't recognize information from the AMA, NIH or WHO, can you please tell me where I might find research that you would find acceptable? Or even just the research you have found which supports your position.

You don't seem to understand what research is. We are specifically talking about the NIH claiming that the craving for alcohol can be stronger than the need for water and food. In order for somebody to say that, there must be some research behind it. Point me to that research, meaning the studies that made this conclusion. Do not point me to somebody simply saying that such research exists. If you cannot see the difference, then please do not waste any more of my time.

ETA: The exact NIH statement is, "The craving that an alcoholic feels for alcohol can be as strong as the need for food or water." I want to see the evidence that supports that statement. That statement you referenced as "evidence" merely said that there's an inheritable preference in regards to alcohol. Just for the record, I have no doubt that such a genetic preference exists. I'm sure it exists for chocolate cake and cooked squash.

 

[littleroundman]

Actually, it wouldn't be a straw man, and that has nothing to do with your continent.

HMMNN,

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

So why wouldn't you introducing a comparison between rugby and the subject at hand be a "straw man argument" based on that definition of what constitutes a "straw man argument" and the one you're using ???

We humans have all sorts of impulses. We don't have to act on them.

Unless the mechanism/s which control them misfires, then we give it a new name.

We call it "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" so that posters on internet forums can scoff at the possibility of the condition being a "disease" or the result of chemical, structural or functional abnormalities in the brain.

Nope, OCD like "alcoholism" is exactly the same in all cases and is the result of an underdeveloped "choice" response.

Simply make the choice to not act on the impulse, and BINGO, no problem.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So why wouldn't you introducing a comparison between rugby and the subject at hand be a "straw man argument" based on that definition of what constitutes a "straw man argument" and the one you're using ???

It is not a straw man because I never claimed that it was a position that you or anyone else held nor did I attack said position. What I did was demonstrate that the criteria given for addiction could be used to call playing rugby an addiction.

We call it "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" so that posters on internet forums can scoff at the possibility of the condition being a "disease" or the result of chemical, structural or functional abnormalities in the brain.

I've been through this before. Go read up on Exposure and Response Prevention. Treatments are predicated on the notion that people can resist the impulses and that, get this, resisting the impulses instead of reinforcing them with the escape behavior reduces the frequency and intensity of the impulses.

Nope, OCD like "alcoholism" is exactly the same in all cases and is the result of an underdeveloped "choice" response.

Your words, not mine.

Simply make the choice to not act on the impulse, and BINGO, no problem.

Your words, not mine.

 

[littleroundman]

HeHeHe,

The corner into which forum bullies inevitably back themselves approacheth.

Instead of using the old "your words not mine" deflection technique, "Yimmy" how about informing a breathlessly waiting public how Obsessive Compulsive Disorder can have a number of POSSIBLE causes, including both disease AND behavioural yet, according to you, the actions of any person, anywhere on the planet with (whatever definition we're using today) "alcoholism" are choice ???

Why is it "we simply don't know enough yet to provide a singular cause/effect/definition" from any number of reputable organizations doesn't cut it with online bullies ???

Is being "right" more important than intellectual honesty ???

 

[Uncayimmy]

[Personalization Removed]

Instead of using the old "your words not mine" deflection technique, "Yimmy" how about informing a breathlessly waiting public how Obsessive Compulsive Disorder can have a number of POSSIBLE causes, including both disease AND behavioural yet, according to you, the actions of any person, anywhere on the planet with (whatever definition we're using today) "alcoholism" are choice ???

I really don't know what you're ranting about. OCD is not a disease - it's a disorder. To the best of my knowledge no disease causes OCD, though there is an unproven hypothesis about rapid onset of OCD in children as part of an immune response.

Why is it "we simply don't know enough yet to provide a singular cause/effect/definition" from any number of reputable organizations doesn't cut it with [Personalization Deleted] ???

You say it's a disease and many something elses. I say it's a behavioral disorder. Nobody in this thread has argued that there are not multiple factors affecting the disorder. You can continue to pretend as much. It's what we in America call a straw man.