Is alcoholism a "disease"?

[ravdin]

I came across this article today about a man who got 8 years in prison after 19 DUIs:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS01/802200357/-1/CINCI

The sentence is well deserved. Here's what the prosecutor had to say:

Piper said he understands alcoholism is a disease. But, he said: "No disease makes you get in a car and drive. If you want to get plastered, stay home and get plastered on the front porch instead of climbing into a car and risking the lives of innocent people. Stay at home with your 12-pack."

(Emphasis mine). So what are the thoughts of the forum on "alcoholism is a disease"? Is it a valid premise, or 21st century woo?

My personal opinion tends toward the latter. While I wouldn't belittle anyone's problems with addiction, it seems to me that alcoholism is in a different category than, say, brain cancer. Victims of brain cancer don't participate in 12 step programs, get a sponsor, take control of their lives, and decide to kick their habit of developing more cancer cells.

 

[~enigma~]

I came across this article today about a man who got 8 years in prison after 19 DUIs:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS01/802200357/-1/CINCI

The sentence is well deserved. Here's what the prosecutor had to say:




(Emphasis mine). So what are the thoughts of the forum on "alcoholism is a disease"? Is it a valid premise, or 21st century woo?

My personal opinion tends toward the latter. While I wouldn't belittle anyone's problems with addiction, it seems to me that alcoholism is in a different category than, say, brain cancer. Victims of brain cancer don't participate in 12 step programs, get a sponsor, take control of their lives, and decide to kick their habit of developing more cancer cells.

 

[Ziggurat]

(Emphasis mine). So what are the thoughts of the forum on "alcoholism is a disease"? Is it a valid premise, or 21st century woo?

It really depends on how you want to define the term. I don't consider definitions completely arbitrary things, but they aren't set in stone either. It's certainly possible to come up with a definition of "disease" for which alcoholism qualifies, and it's also possible to come up with one for which it doesn't. So your question is really equivalent to which sort of definition should we use. I tend towards prefering a definition which excludes alcoholism, but that doesn't mean adopting one which does include it is actually inconsistent or wrong, per se. And I can't force other people to adopt the definitions I prefer, so as long as they use a definition which includes alcoholism as a disease, there's not really a lot of traction to keep them from saying it's a disease. And semantic debates tend to get dull pretty quickly.

 

[Dymanic]

I think it's like asking: "Is Pluto a planet?"

In some contexts, it may be useful to consider that it is; in others, perhaps less so.

It may also be interesting, as an intellectual exercise, to try to examine in detail the criteria used in establishing the definitional boundaries of the concept, and the potential returns might include deeper insight into the way we humans establish categorical boundries in general. Whether the value of those potential returns justifies the investment in time is completely subjective. I must report having been generally dissatisfied with the amount and value of the insights gained by the time I've invested in such discussions, and after offering the brief thoughts contained in this post, will bow out of further discussion, wishing you the best of luck, and will continue to refer to alcoholism as a "disease" in the same crude and somewhat metaphorical sense I started out with.

Ah I see Ziggurat has basically just said the same thing. Great minds and all that.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If it helps to treat it as a disease, then it's a disease.
If it helps to treat it as a habit, then...

Words are labels, not straitjackets. We use them, not the other way round.

My own opinion is that labelling something a syndrome or illness, or ascribing it to "genes" is sometimes a way of avoiding attaching blame or social stigma to the "sufferer". But sometimes, blaming or stigmatising is constructive in that it may help someone get off his backside and fix his problem.
The trick is to know which cases are which.

As far as driving while over the limit is concerned, my opinion is clearer.
At least a month in jail for a first offence and confiscation for sale by auction of any vehicle, with the owner left to sort out any finance deals. Second offence? Something deeply unpleasant.

 

[tsg]

My personal opinion tends toward the latter. While I wouldn't belittle anyone's problems with addiction, it seems to me that alcoholism is in a different category than, say, brain cancer.

There may be very valid reasons why alcoholism isn't a disease. That it isn't as bad as brain cancer isn't one of them. There are a great many diseases that aren't in the same class as brain cancer, either.

Victims of brain cancer don't participate in 12 step programs, get a sponsor, take control of their lives, and decide to kick their habit of developing more cancer cells.

There are several diseases that can be treated by a change in lifestyle.

Again, I am not arguing alcoholism (or addiction in general) is a disease, just that this isn't a good reason for saying it isn't.

Other than that, I think you are going to have to define "disease" before I can comment further.

 

[Dancing David]

I came across this article today about a man who got 8 years in prison after 19 DUIs:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS01/802200357/-1/CINCI

The sentence is well deserved. Here's what the prosecutor had to say:




(Emphasis mine). So what are the thoughts of the forum on "alcoholism is a disease"? Is it a valid premise, or 21st century woo?

My personal opinion tends toward the latter. While I wouldn't belittle anyone's problems with addiction, it seems to me that alcoholism is in a different category than, say, brain cancer. Victims of brain cancer don't participate in 12 step programs, get a sponsor, take control of their lives, and decide to kick their habit of developing more cancer cells.

Hiya and welcome!

there was a great South Park about this.

the deal is this:
-addictions have a biological basis.
-somepeople seem to have a predisposition to various addictions
-all addictions are behavioral disorders and can only be defined as such

So
No: if one only wants to categorise infections as disease.
Yes: if one wants to categorise biologicaly based disorders as a disease.
Maybe: if you want to categorise a biological predisposition as disease.

 

[Dancing David]

If it helps to treat it as a disease, then it's a disease.
If it helps to treat it as a habit, then...

Words are labels, not straitjackets. We use them, not the other way round.

My own opinion is that labelling something a syndrome or illness, or ascribing it to "genes" is sometimes a way of avoiding attaching blame or social stigma to the "sufferer". But sometimes, blaming or stigmatising is constructive in that it may help someone get off his backside and fix his problem.
The trick is to know which cases are which.

As far as driving while over the limit is concerned, my opinion is clearer.
At least a month in jail for a first offence and confiscation for sale by auction of any vehicle, with the owner left to sort out any finance deals. Second offence? Something deeply unpleasant.

On the biology thing, it helps in understanding but is not an excuse.
As a very wise crisis counselor was fond of saying
"So did thousands of other people and they didn't do what you did."