Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[Gandalfs Beard]

I think it would be more effective if we started making a distinctions between physiological addiction, psychological addiction, inherently addictive substances, genetic predisposition to addictive tendencies, destructive behaviour patterns, personal and social excessive use, habitual use, and self-medication for any number of reasons; and studying the variety of relationships between any number of these issues.

already being done by scientists. FattyCatty and I have tried to explain this.

Yes, to some degree many scientists are working on those distinctions (especially in Europe which is less constrained by Addiction Ideology). But as long as all these distinct issues are conflated into one "disease" called "Addiction" they're not going to get very far.

And if you and FattyCatty have really "tried to explain this" (which would signify an agreement with me), then why on Earth are you disagreeing with my posts (and Littleroundman's)? In fact I can't think of any of your or FattyCatty's posts which have "tried to explain this" yet.

Since you anonymously asserted that your anonymous "Expert" wife "converted" you, your posts have in fact demonstrated quite the opposite, that you think "Disease" is the only valid descriptor of Addiction, and that all the issues I've raised above and in previous posts should all be called "Addiction."

(please disabuse me of this notion if you feel I've misinterpreted your posts)

My very first post on this particular thread went into a lot of detail regarding my views on the distinctions, and why using one catch-all term "disease" was problematic. And I certainly haven't denied that in some cases the term "disease" could indeed be appropriate.

This is why--with all due respect to Imagineaa--the semantic issues are as important as the scientific issues.

As to conflating Alcoholism and Drunkard, well, that was FattyCatty in post #177. But I don't think that's the problem at all.

Now, I must give kudo's to FattyCatty for demonstrating empirically that indeed the "Disease" descriptor is the one currently in vogue in the Scientific/Medical community. But then, I for one, have never argued that it wasn't.

I simply challenge the wisdom of assuming that all the myriad issues should be lumped into "Addiction" and should also be lumped into a "Disease" Model of "Addiction."

And I have yet to see you or anyone empirically demonstrate that all those distinct issues SHOULD actually be lumped together as "Addiction," and lumped into a Disease Model.

To sum up, my argument is not that the Disease Model is invalid in cases of Physiological Addiction, but that it is not appropriate to conflate all forms of alleged "addiction" into that model, and that it is THIS conflation that is "undermining the research on this subject."

And by the way FattyCatty, do you really think 12 Step programmes and the Disease Model are actually compatible?

AA, the originator of the 12 Steps posits a Sin Model of Addiction (poorly disguised as a Disease model) which is in fact closer to the Behavioural Model of Addiction. Both AA and Behavioural Models posit that Behaviour Modification is the most effective means of treating Addictions; either by subsuming one's will to a "Higher Power" or God (AA), or by changing one's "negative attitudes" and "thought patterns" through one's own act of Will (RR, and any of the other non-12 Step secular programmes that rely on CBT).

Neither one of those is particularly compatible with the Disease Model. Though ironically AA at least posits that Addicts are unable to effect change on their own (which is true in SOME, but not all cases). Yet in any of these Behaviour Modification Programmes, they still maintain the notion that "character flaws" or "mental weakness" or some such variation is the problem, which to me seems like a Blame the Victim approach, and assumes that the Physiologically Addicted actually has it within his/her power (or God's power) to make the necessary behavioural changes.

At least, for all it's faults, the Disease Model does not Blame the Victim.

Where all the current Models converge (no matter their apparent disparity), seems to be the Addiction Ideology, which lumps all forms of drug use and habitual behaviour patterns into One Thing called Addiction, and assuming that all habitual drug use is "Bad." This is the failing of all the current "Addiction" Models (at least in the US).

There is no One Size Fit's All Model of Addiction. Conversely, each model can be of some benefit to some people, depending on the actual circumstances of the individual user. Of all the agencies conducting research in the US into "Addiction", NIDA seems to acknowledge this.

GB

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Care to speculate how humans ( and rats too ) evolved to be born with sickle-cell?

Again, you present an example that is clearly pathological .. ( ask your wife what that word means.. )

I'm waiting for the studies that show how toddlers and pre-teens born with the disease of Alcoholism, can't get their hands on enough alcohol to satisfy their craving.

 

[AlBell]

a PREdisposition, does not mean you will GET it "100% sure" , it only means you have a higher than the normal population average probability to get it.

You cannot be an alcoholic if you never drank a bit of alcohol.

You'll be a person with a predisposition to be an alcoholic, you just won't know it. You may, but only may, be an alcoholic, and drinking will answer the question.

If a person with a predispositon towards diabetes II followed good dietary and exercise practices, they'll still have the predisposition.

In some sense it may be worthwhile to consider alcoholics as being allergic to alcohol; liver function (erroneously) provides alcohol breakdown products that effect neurotransmitters in ways that don't happen in people who aren't alcoholics. Some of us are 'hooked' after the first drink, or the process may be more gradual and the problem unmasks as we age. As yet medical science has not found a way to 'cure' the problem in those that have it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think you guys are using the terms "alcoholic" and "drunkard" interchangeably which is undermining the research on this subject and causing an IMPASSE.

Interesting.

You have said that at least twice in this thread, an no one who is arguing that the disease model doesn't accurately describe alcoholism, has used the word ' drunkard '..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

As yet medical science has not found a way to 'cure' the problem in those that have it.

Actually, they have .

 

[23_Tauri]

No-one can be born with a disease that requires them to go out and find the disease-causing agent outside of themselves and then ingest it. It is a nonsense to conclude that one can be born with alcoholism, just as much as one cannot be born with the disease of Poisonous Snake Bites. Even suggesting a genetic predisposition doesn't answer the question of how much a tendency to alcoholism in later life is due in part to learnt behaviour as a child growing up with alcoholics. Taking the analogy further, this just means that some people are more sensitive to animal venom that others. Look how some people react to bee stings. Does that mean that they have the disease of Bee Stingitis?

Of course, that again doesn't take responsibility away from the individual to deal with their problem. Otherwise, what will be hearing next, that alcoholism is contagious? "Jeez, I'm really glad I didn't catch alcoholism today when I went out to the bar for a drink with my friends". Or "Don't go near that tramp, you'll catch alcoholism".

 

[AlBell]

As yet medical science has not found a way to 'cure' the problem in those that have it.

Actually, they have .

I like others wish it were so. That is, an innoculation, or daily (or before taking a drink) drug therapy that would allow me and many others to become "social drinkers"; one glass of wine, one beer, one drink.

And as the alcoholic thinks about it, even better two, three, or a dozen.


ps. It's amusing to watch people who don't have the problem pontificate on it.

 

[23_Tauri]

I like others wish it were so. That is, an innoculation, or daily (or before taking a drink) drug therapy that would allow me and many others to become "social drinkers"; one glass of wine, one beer, one drink.

I agree there's no medical cure, but here is some interesting preliminary research into a drug that might help with cravings.

 

[AlBell]

Alcoholics address 'cravings' in many ways; therapy, self-reflection, support groups, meds, etc.

Alcoholics who are not drinking and have not found useful coping mechanisms that supercede those cravings are called "dry drunks" in the vernacular.

 

[godofpie]

I think it would be more effective if we started making a distinctions between physiological addiction, psychological addiction, inherently addictive substances, genetic predisposition to addictive tendencies, destructive behaviour patterns, personal and social excessive use, habitual use, and self-medication for any number of reasons; and studying the variety of relationships between any number of these issues.

GB

This would be a good place to finish. Can we agree on the definition of disease please? I learned in treatment (and in AA) that the reason that it is considered a "disease" and never cured is because the damage done to your body can't be reversed and if you begin drinking again your organs will continue to deteriorate as if you had never stopped drinking. And on a side note, zerospeaks started this thread on one side of the arguement and has ended up on the other because he has, in my opinion, used critical thinking. After reviewing evidence that contradicted his position he was persuaded to change his position. I thought that is what this place is all about?
And LK-I know you (electronically) and I know you are an honest an ethical debater so you must believe what you are saying is true. One of the conundrums of this "condition" is it depends so much on the individual's actions. I drank successfully for many years. Well, actually, I would drink to excess for a while, and then when things got bad I would cut back to about a sixer a day. At the end of my drinking I would throw up the first beer or two before they would start staying down. My body was literally rejecting the alcohol but I didn't stop drinking. Everyone doesn't respond the same to alcohol abuse. Like Gandolfs Beard pointed out there are many factors that can contribute/exacerbate alcohol abuse. Until we can agree on a definition other than the ones I have listed, alcoholism is a disease.

 

[Dancing David]

Okay, let's assume alcoholism is a disease. I have stopped drinking without any assistance at all. Is this not miraculous? How many other diseases are spontaneously cured in this way?

Colds, flu, most minor infections.

 

[Dancing David]

The point is, some animals choose to drink despite being punished for it and MOST DID NOT. If I understand the studies correctly.
My wife is the expert.

That does not mean that it was not a conditioned response, it means that the application of an aversive stimulus was not enough to modify the behavior.

 

[Dancing David]

My point was, you MAY not be an alcoholic. You could have been a social drinker with a very high tolerance. Who enjoyed drinking.. but could drop it when he wanted.
And alcoholic can not...

Oh nevermind.
I will just get my wife to give me 20 studies that prove you wrong after the football game.

Um, it is the behaviors that define addiction, and you are still arguing from authority.

A person who engages in the behaviors of dependance with alcohol is an alcoholic.

 

[Dancing David]

Im not the Neuroscientist my wife is, but I would assume they have protocols in place to test properly. It's not like we just started animal testing yesterday, we have been doing it for a long time and have gotten very good at it.
As my wife said once, "We've come a long way since skinner"

Yeah, so?
that does not mean the study say what you say it says, show us the data.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

I wonder, do you also think there is an argument over creationism? Flat-earthism?

And my father who is a PhD in anthropology does not have an opinion.

You are arguing from authority and rather poorly at that.

Under some defintions alcoholism is a disease, under others it is not.

You wife is not here, you are not presenting her arguments, so far epic fail.

 

[Dancing David]

The scientific consensus is that Alcoholism IS a DISEASE.

That is still ********, under the research of behaviors in psychology it is NOT a disease.

You cite one person and still epic fail.

It is a disease as a focus of treatment, yes.
Under otherd efintions, no.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Not under the terminology I would have used.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Well what FattyCatty and the AA mantra crowd are ignoring is that alcoholism is not a unified disorder. There are people who meet the criteria for alcohol dependence, and after an extended period of abstinence can drink alcohol without relapsing, and there are those who do relapse.

It is a behavioral disorder with a possible biological predispositions and physical consequences.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

When you present a coherent argument based upon any source of data other than "my wife says so" then you will be presenting something other than "I say so".

I used the DSM for 15 years and did hundreds of assesments, I disagree with you, there is NO concensus, until you give the context.

 

[Dancing David]

I think you guys are using the terms "alcoholic" and "drunkard" interchangeably which is undermining the research on this subject and causing an IMPASSE.

I think you should hold your breath and turn blue, otherwise you could try to present a coherent argument.

The DSM and the ICD both present alcohol depnedence as a behavioral disoder,