Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[Gandalfs Beard]

ie anyone who disagrees w/you on this is therefore unreasonable. Got it.

No, only those that unreasonably take a rigid stance that cannot be substantiated are unreasonable.

Those who argue that under no circumstances can Alcoholism possibly be a disease have no evidence to substantiate such a categorical claim.

Likewise, the commonly scientifically and medically accepted classification (largely in the US) of Alcoholism as a disease in all cases is largely based on a Puritan "addiction ideology" rather than scientific evidence is also a rigidly categorical.

I simply refuse to to take a rigid stance about the terminology "Disease." In some cases it is useful, in others it is not. In some cases a Behavioural Model can be very effective for those that actually have the ability to self-motivate. Those who have no ability to self-motivate, are better off being treated as if it were a disease.

Read through the entire thread. Some posters have posted accepted medical definitions of disease that quite aptly fit some forms of Alcoholism.

In the end, attempting to distinguish between the physiological components of addiction and the behavioural is fraught with complexities that defy easy answers such as: Yes it's a Disease, or No it's Not a Disease.

So you whether or not you disagree with me, has no bearing on whether or not you are being unreasonable.

Only the facts can determine that, and the facts in the case of Addiction and Addictive behaviours can support both physiological disorders and behavioural disorders. Therefore it is unreasonable to take a rigid stance one way or the other on terminology as flexible as "disease."

GB

 

[Soapy Sam]

I don't see alcohol misuse as an illness, but as a behaviour. It's arguably a symptom of various neural disorders sometimes,but it can also be just a habit among perfectly sane people, or a response to stress and other problems.

Language is a tool, not a straitjacket. If treating behaviour as a disease helps fix the problem, then treat it as such; if treating it as a Christmas Pudding helps, go for it. If God works for someone, why cavil?
Illness or not, being a drunk is generally a problem for the drinker and everyone associated. From what I've seen, persistent tough love from friends and family has the best results. Drink is like a gun- safe if treated properly, potentially destructive if discipline is absent. Let's not overcomplicate it.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree SS, I would say alocoholism is a behavioral disoder frequently accompanied by biological predisposition and self medication and with strong medical consequences.

However as is apparent in this thread I now have realized that because it is a focus of medica; treatment it is called a disease by some. Now cirrhosis of the liver is a disease caused by alcoholism at times.

 

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

I agree SS, I would say alocoholism is a behavioral disoder frequently accompanied by biological predisposition and self medication and with strong medical consequences.

However as is apparent in this thread I now have realized that because it is a focus of medica; treatment it is called a disease by some. Now cirrhosis of the liver is a disease caused by alcoholism at times.

If you're an alcoholic, withdrawal can kill you stone dead which makes it a bit more serious than a behavioural problem in (not only) my book.
And it's not called a disease by "some" but by the medical community.

 

[AlBell]

If you're an alcoholic, withdrawal can kill you stone dead which makes it a bit more serious than a behavioural problem in (not only) my book.
And it's not called a disease by "some" but by the medical community.

Sure, but "skeptics" here only believe the medical community when it suits their preconceived notions on an issue.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Sure, but "skeptics" here only believe the medical community when it suits their preconceived notions on an issue.

Let's not paint all "skeptics" with a broad brush now.

Some of us are willing to chart a middle path. Unlike the "choicers", I think it is quite clear that some people truly aren't able to make decisions, indeed, I would suggest that is one of the defining characteristics of SOME forms of "addiction".

GB

 

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Let's not paint all "skeptics" with a broad brush now.

Some of us are willing to chart a middle path. Unlike the "choicers", I think it is quite clear that some people truly aren't able to make decisions, indeed, I would suggest that is one of the defining characteristics of SOME forms of "addiction".

GB

While you're at it, why not redefine "depression" or "schizophrenia" until they suit your view of the world?
I bet some of you are willing to chart middle paths ..

 

[Dancing David]

If you're an alcoholic, withdrawal can kill you stone dead which makes it a bit more serious than a behavioural problem in (not only) my book.
And it's not called a disease by "some" but by the medical community.

Funny about that, it was an MD who first introduced me to it as a behavioral disorder. Not all MDs agree with it as a disease.

BTW, if you are an acoholic you may not die from withdrawal. It depends on your level of use, many people who are alcoholics do not use it to that level, although many do.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let's not paint all "skeptics" with a broad brush now.

Some of us are willing to chart a middle path. Unlike the "choicers", I think it is quite clear that some people truly aren't able to make decisions, indeed, I would suggest that is one of the defining characteristics of SOME forms of "addiction".

GB

So, an addict can choose their addictive substance, but can't make choices about when and how to partake of it ?

 

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Funny about that, it was an MD who first introduced me to it as a behavioral disorder. Not all MDs agree with it as a disease.

BTW, if you are an acoholic you may not die from withdrawal. It depends on your level of use, many people who are alcoholics do not use it to that level, although many do.

I know lots of people don't die from alcohol withdrawal but you can rest assured it can be quite, say, impressive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens

I'm sure it is possible quite a few MDs don't consider it as a disease - heck, for all I know they might be right in a lot of cases - but currently it is classified as one and that probably won't be changed by J. Random D00d not agreeing on a discussion board but, if at all, by medical research

ETA:
I bet cemeteries are full of people who died from other causes while the symptoms of those were masked by the severity of their withdrawal symptoms - I've seen it happen a few times.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

The fact that alcoholics can give into their cravings even though they know in their minds the drink's harming them is really an indication of the fact that feelings tend to have a bigger influence on people than intellectual reasoning. Everyone probably lets their feelings govern them when they shouldn't a lot of the time; some people just do it in more dramatic ways than others. For instance, if I feel drowsy ten minutes before something good on television, I can know intellectually that if I give into the urge to doze off to sleep I'll miss it, and that going to the window and breathing in a few deep breaths of fresh air might wake me up a bit, but in the sleepy state, I can't be bothered, even though I'd benefit if I did. Primitive feelings take over and I give in to the craving for a nap, as if the reasoning part of my brain isn't working properly. In the same way, a craving for alcohol can hold more sway over someone when it comes on than what they know in their minds. Imagining how bad carrying on drinking could be and how good stopping could be can have more effect than just knowing about it intellectually, because it involves the feelings so it can counteract the feelings causing an urge to drink. But people have to practice before thoughts of how bad it could be and feelings of enjoyment at the thought of stopping drinking get as strong as the craving so they can counteract it.

It may be a lot harder for some than for others; it's possible some people's brain chemistry means their cravings are stronger. Perhaps something similar to this can go on:

New Study: Smokers Have Serotonin Deficiency Causing High Stress Levels

Scientists at Dundee University have discovered that smoking causes physical changes in the brain which stop it being flooded with the body's natural stress-busting hormone, serotonin.

That means smokers are deficient in serotonin and therefore less able to cope with the everyday pressures of life, suffering high levels of stress.

The team at the university's division of pathology and neurosciences say smokers enjoy short-term relief from their anxiety by lighting up because nicotine temporarily increases levels of dopamine, the 'happy hormone'.

The irony exposed by the Dundee research is that, far from inducing calm, smokers need nicotine to get temporary relief from the stress partly caused by smoking itself. ...

 

[Dancing David]

I know lots of people don't die from alcohol withdrawal but you can rest assured it can be quite, say, impressive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens

I'm sure it is possible quite a few MDs don't consider it as a disease - heck, for all I know they might be right in a lot of cases - but currently it is classified as one and that probably won't be changed by J. Random D00d not agreeing on a discussion board but, if at all, by medical research

ETA:
I bet cemeteries are full of people who died from other causes while the symptoms of those were masked by the severity of their withdrawal symptoms - I've seen it happen a few times.

I had a client who OD'ed on Librium and alcohol rather than face withdrawals, he has been detoxed and was supposedly going to stay clean. But the first thing he did was relapse and he chose to end his life rather than detox again. That and being sent back to the Big House if he dropped dirty.

And while an MH case manager I sure met a wide variety of drug addicts, even more as a crisis counselor, a few as a DV counselor. had a bunch for neighbors and friends.

And just because you put 'Dr.' in front of your 'J. Random D00d' , doesn't mean you aren't appealing to authority and popularism. If you read what I wrote and tried to understand maybe we could have a discussion.

I explained when I consider it to be a disease, you could try to explain yourself more than pretending some sort of consensus in the medical community you haven't even presented evidence for.

At least a sentence or two of why you would define it as a disease.

“Because some FAQ from the AMA calls it a disease and because some FAQ from the CDC calls it a disease’, were already presented.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Let's not paint all "skeptics" with a broad brush now.

Some of us are willing to chart a middle path. Unlike the "choicers", I think it is quite clear that some people truly aren't able to make decisions, indeed, I would suggest that is one of the defining characteristics of SOME forms of "addiction".

GB

So, given that you believe some can make choices, what research led you to conclude that that some people cannot? What type of experiments did they perform?

As a practical matter, how does treatment for those people different from those who can make choices but choose otherwise? How does a doctor in his practice distinguish one from the other?

 

[xjx388]

So, given that you believe some can make choices, what research led you to conclude that that some people cannot? What type of experiments did they perform?

As a practical matter, how does treatment for those people different from those who can make choices but choose otherwise? How does a doctor in his practice distinguish one from the other?

Perhaps a better question is, what research has ever concluded that human beings have a choice about anything they do, behavior-wise? In other words, how would a researcher define Choice in a way that it could be distinguished from some kind of biological drive?

And practically speaking, Doctors don't make such distinctions. They Just treat the patient.

 

[littleroundman]

Isn't it amazing ????

Estimates of between 10 and 17 MILLION people with "alcoholism" within the US alone, yet, according to some of the "critical thinkers" here, every damn one of them is the same.

17 MILLION people with a problem that even the defining of which health professionals, scientists, religions, politicians, media and the man in the street cannot agree.

17 MILLION people, no two of whom are anything more than similar, yet all with the same story, genes, metabolism, physiology and psychology.

17 MILLION, a number which a person couldn't count to in a lifetime, yet they are classified as all being the same based on "I knew a xxxxx" or "I have alcoholics in my family" or "I can Google better'n you and find a study which prove MY point better than YOU"

17 MILLION in the US alone ????

Even if, by some strange chance, 90% of the 17 MILLION people had EXACTLY the same condition/cause, that still leaves 1.7 MILLION people in the USA, which may be considered by random forum posters as proving their point, but P-U-H-L-E-A-S-E.

It would be nigh on impossible to find a THOUSAND people within the USA with the same physiology/genes/psychology/habits/tendencies

but 17 MILLION ????

Get outa here.

 

[Simmins]

I dont consider it a disease and i think it does make it easy on a person addicted to accept and i think that is wrong to do so. Certainly not like any real diseases that effect people through no actions they take like in most cases some form of heart disease.

The problem with any kind of substance is that you have absolutely no way of knowing what type of long term psychological effects they will have on you as far as simply really liking that substance to it not having the same psychological effect on another person. Actually in most cases much more than just liking it, most addicts probably consider it a love\hate relationship. I drink but dont really care for the feeling of being intoxicated otoh, i am a cigarette smoker and its very hard for me to stop.

Thats the problem with experimenting with any type of drug though and really has nothing to do with character and i cant say it is hereditary either which is another thing that i think is just people trying too hard to come up with an answer.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Perhaps a better question is, what research has ever concluded that human beings have a choice about anything they do, behavior-wise? In other words, how would a researcher define Choice in a way that it could be distinguished from some kind of biological drive?

First off, I didn't ask you. I asked someone who understands that choice exists, not you, who wishes it a way. Second, biological drives and choice are not mutually exclusive, so why would anyone pay to research distinctions between two things that are already distinct?

And practically speaking, Doctors don't make such distinctions. They Just treat the patient.

Doctors do not make distinctions between biological drives and choices? Interesting. How do you know this?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

So, given that you believe some can make choices, what research led you to conclude that that some people cannot? What type of experiments did they perform?

As a practical matter, how does treatment for those people different from those who can make choices but choose otherwise? How does a doctor in his practice distinguish one from the other?

What research led you to conclude that ALL people CAN make choices. The fact is, there is no research to suggest that ALL people CAN make choices. So now you don't have the other thread to play on you want to come and **** this one up too?

I've made my positions plain.

It's a reasoned approach that recognizes that not all people are equal in terms of the ability to choose to modify their behaviour patterns (as if people CHOSE to have Depression and OCD ). It's an approach that recognizes that the definition of terms "addiction" and "disease" are mutable.

And it's an approach that recognizes SOME people CAN modify their behaviour patterns. And its an approach that recognizes that the jury is still out in terms of making categorical statements that are applicable to all people across the board one way or the other.

But apparently very few on this thread are willing to admit that there might be some truth to "both" sides of this debate.

If the "Free Willies" and the "Powerless over Alcohol/addictioners" want to make unsupportable Categorical Statements on either side, FINE. Battle it out between yourselves.


GB

 

[Uncayimmy]

I've made my positions plain.

I guess I just need more help understanding.

It's a reasoned approach that recognizes that not all people are equal in terms of the ability to choose to modify their behaviour patterns (as if people CHOSE to have Depression and OCD ). It's an approach that recognizes that the definition of terms "addiction" and "disease" are mutable.

You wrote:
1) I think it is quite clear that some people truly aren't able to make decisions...

2) not all people are equal in terms of the ability to choose to modify their behaviour patterns...

So, there is some sort of scale by which you measure a person's ability to choose (#2), but in #1 you claim some people lack that ability entirely. That's what I'm asking you about. I don't really care about the scale. I'm just fascinated with the idea that it's possible to distinguish those who lack the ability to make a choice from those who have the ability but do not make the same choice.

And it's an approach that recognizes SOME people CAN modify their behaviour patterns. And its an approach that recognizes that the jury is still out in terms of making categorical statements that are applicable to all people across the board one way or the other.

You still haven't answered the questions. You simply proceeded to tell me that you "recognize" that the distinctions exist. I am unable to make the same recognition. Please tell me how so I, too, can do it.

What evidence by researchers did you see that distinguished between those who can and those who don't?

How does a doctor distinguish the two in his or her practice?

How are treatments different?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I guess I just need more help understanding.


You wrote:
1) I think it is quite clear that some people truly aren't able to make decisions...

2) not all people are equal in terms of the ability to choose to modify their behaviour patterns...

So, there is some sort of scale by which you measure a person's ability to choose (#2), but in #1 you claim some people lack that ability entirely. That's what I'm asking you about. I don't really care about the scale. I'm just fascinated with the idea that it's possible to distinguish those who lack the ability to make a choice from those who have the ability but do not make the same choice.


You still haven't answered the questions. You simply proceeded to tell me that you "recognize" that the distinctions exist. I am unable to make the same recognition. Please tell me how so I, too, can do it.

What evidence by researchers did you see that distinguished between those who can and those who don't?

How does a doctor distinguish the two in his or her practice?

How are treatments different?

What part of "fight it out between yourselves" did you not understand? I'm not about make an unsupportable Categorical Statement one way or the other . Pick a fight with someone that isn't willing to meet you halfway.

Meanwhile I'll just enjoy the Blood-Sport from the Balconies.



GB