Is Alcoholism a disease?

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

But alcohol is the voluntarily introduced pathogen which leads to the 'disease' 'alcoholism' whereas insulin is the treatment of the condition diabetes.

No?

Now you're discussing the cause of the disease.

Taking insulin when you're not diabetic can result in developing diabetes (or a coma or death), doesn't make diabetes any less of a disease.

My point was you can't dismiss alcoholism as a disease because they drink alcohol any more than you can dismiss diabetes as a disease because they inject insulin.

The injecting of insulin does not define diabetes like the drinking of alcohol does not define alcoholism. It is the reason behind the need for insulin, or alcohol, that defines it.

Essentially if someone does present a source showing a malfunctioning organ causes the craving for alcohol (and hence is a disease) your point wouldn't contradict it anymore than the current unsourced claim that it is a disease.

In fairness 'alcoholic' is a meaningless word bandied about by charlatans.

Just because it's not a disease doesn't mean it's not a condition of some sort. Alcoholism isn't a choice, it's a compulsion. Some people wash their hands dozens of times, that's not a choice for them. It's a compulsion.

jackie1974

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So would you conceed that having feelings is not a disease?

Ok think about it like this, imagine the strongest feelings you have, for me it's my love for my children. I would move heaven and earth for them, i'd go up against anybody for them, go to jail for them, rob a bank if they were hungry, go to any lenghts for them, imagine if you felt like that about a drug.

It doesn't matter if it's wrong or right, you have these strong feelings and you will do anything to fulfill those feelings no matter what the consequences and then you have to sober up to the fallout, shame and the same **** over again. Who in their right mind would choose that lifestyle.

fonecrusher1

nacho libre wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe this, or is it that you bored of a Sunday morning and looking for a reaction?

No i genuinely think the the term alcoholism is a load of bollox. Its total & utter excuse for someones gluttony. If you drink too much you need to cop the fcuk on or you'll end up on the street, its not an illness, your just being greedy.

And to even suggest its a disease is insulting to someone who may have possibly had an illness like cancer or something. (not that i have!). Try telling someone who's beaten cancer that your food/drink/gambling problem is a 'disease'....yeah right, they'll laugh at you.

Chuck Stone

jackie1974 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's wrong or right, you have these strong feelings and you will do anything to fulfill those feelings no matter what the consequences and then you have to sober up to the fallout, shame and the same **** over again. Who in their right mind would choose that lifestyle.

I understand that you feel strongly about this but I will not accept that there is absolutely no choice involved when it comes to substance abuse.

I used to smoke and by fuck was it ever hard to kick that addiction but I craked it in the end.

I was so addicted to cigs that I would often end up in hospital on a nebuliser and what was the first thing I did when I got out? Yeah smoke a cig :rolleyes: - disgusting and stupid.

At no point was I blaming my addiction on anyone but myself though.

Calling alcoholism a disease can free the addict of responsibility and I think that is not helpful because ultimately it is a choice to take substnaces and it is a choice to quit.

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

Now you're discussing the cause of the disease

I'll come back to this when I'm not impaired because it's getting too techincL for me in my current condition.

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I understand that you feel strongly about this but I will not accept that there is absolutely no choice involved when it comes to substance abuse.

I used to smoke and by fuck was it ever hard to kick that addiction but I craked it in the end.

Tobacco smoking isn't really comparable to alcoholism. Often the most addictive characteristic of a drug is intoxication and the user's inability to operate without being intoxicated. Because cigarettes have no real intoxication effects they're often an easier addiction to break (in terms of psychological addiction anyway).

Obviously choice is involved but as stated before it's a compulsion and a dependence. Neither of which are trivial matters and from a psychological perspective can be just as difficult to break as a physical addiction.

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

Just because it's not a disease doesn't mean it's not a condition of some sort. Alcoholism isn't a choice, it's a compulsion. Some people wash their hands dozens of times, that's not a choice for them. It's a compulsion.

Perhaps, but could I claim that I have a condition if I speed too much when I drive? Sorry judge I have this compulsion to drive fast and these medical people are telling me I have a disease/condition/compulsion so it's not really my fault.

Here's why I'm sceptical.

1. Attributing behaviour to a disease/condition/compulsion frees manipulaters of responsibility.

2. Making a disease out of rational choice behaviour creates faux-experts who can make money out of people who believe them.

3. I'm drunk ande cant think of the other ones I was going to say :pac:

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

Tobacco smoking isn't really comparable to alcoholism. Often the most addictive characteristic of a drug is intoxication and the user's inability to operate without being intoxicated. Because cigarettes have no real intoxication effects they're often an easier addiction to break (in terms of psychological addiction anyway).

You could also argue that because cigs have no real intoxication effect it is easier to remain addicted as you're not impaired in your ability to go to work and all that stuff.

I read somewhere that nicotine addiction is one of the hardest ones to break - up there with herion I believe.

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Perhaps, but could I claim that I have a condition if I speed too much when I drive? Sorry judge I have this compulsion to drive fast and these medical people are telling me I have a disease/condition/compulsion so it's not really my fault.

Here's why I'm sceptical.

1. Attributing behaviour to a disease/condition/compulsion frees manipulaters of responsibility.

2. Making a disease out of rational choice behaviour creates faux-experts who can make money out of people who believe them.

3. I'm drunk ande cant think of the other ones I was going to say :pac:

You wouldn't get away with that because it's not a recognised condition. You're trivializing the definitions used in the industry which, no offence, you're not qualified to do.

For example DSM-III recognises alcohol dependence as a valid psychological condition. It's not a cop-out or a choice, it's a proven condition to exist.

You could also argue that because cigs have no real intoxication effect it is easier to remain addicted as you're not impaired in your ability to go to work and all that stuff.

That's more of an argument as to why people wouldn't choose to give up smoking as oppose to it being easier to give up once the decision to give up as been made.

I read somewhere that nicotine addiction is one of the hardest ones to break - up there with herion I believe.

It's one of the more physically addictive drug but alcohol is, I believe, more psychological addictive than it is physically. And psychological addictiveness is nothing trivial (some people clearly believe it is but as stated much earlier those people are plain wrong).

yammycat

Dis - ease

not at ease

yea i reckon so

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

You wouldn't get away with that because it's not a recognised condition. You're trivializing the definitions used in the industry which, no offence, you're not qualified to do.

For example DSM-III recognises alcohol dependence as a valid psychological condition. It's not a cop-out or a choice, it's a proven condition to exist.

I had the feeling we were going to end up with the DSM.

I reject much of the pseudo science that the DSM has within it tbh.

Indeed I think the medicalisation of behaviour is a very circumspect endeavour.

I have two very simple little words for the highly flawed disease model of all sorts of shit:

'Prove it'

jackie1974

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I understand that you feel strongly about this but I will not accept that there is absolutely no choice involved when it comes to substance abuse.

I used to smoke and by fuck was it ever hard to kick that addiction but I craked it in the end.

I was so addicted to cigs that I would often end up in hospital on a nebuliser and what was the first thing I did when I got out? Yeah smoke a cig :rolleyes: - disgusting and stupid.

At no point was I blaming my addiction on anyone but myself though.

Calling alcoholism a disease can free the addict of responsibility and I think that is not helpful because ultimately it is a choice to take substnaces and it is a choice to quit.

I know what you're saying, I lived with an addict for 15 years, did the whole family rehab with him and often felt during sessions 'get a fkcing grip, stop giving him excuses, stop making him feel like a victim, he is making his own choices' but i'm away from the situation now and I can see how he has been consumed by an illness, I wouldn't compare it to cancer or any other disease but it is an illness that takes your life away if you don't have the skills to beat it.

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I had the feeling we were going to end up with the DSM.

I reject much of the pseudo science that the DSM has within it tbh.

Indeed I think the medicalisation of behaviour is a very circumspect endeavour.

I have two very simple little words for the highly flawed disease model of all sorts of shit:

'Prove it'

I think for the discussion it's more than enough. I'm not going to debate the validity of it, or the validity of clinical psychology in general. It's outside the scope of this debate and I don't think any of us would really be qualified.

If it's good enough for APA it's good enough for boards.ie imo, although I recognise the flaw in that.

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

You wouldn't get away with that because it's not a recognised condition. You're trivializing the definitions used in the industry which, no offence, you're not qualified to do.

No offence taken.

Also, being qualified to do something does not mean that the thing is a good thing to do.

Also being qualified does not mean being good at your job.

Chuck Stone

jackie1974 wrote: »

I know what you're saying, I lived with an addict for 15 years, did the whole family rehab with him and often felt during sessions 'get a fkcing grip, stop giving him excuses, stop making him feel like a victim, he is making his own choices' but i'm away from the situation now and I can see how he has been consumed by an illness, I wouldn't compare it to cancer or any other disease but it is an illness that takes your life away if you don't have the skills to beat it.

It's a sensitive topic and I have nothing but admiration for people who survive addiction - especially people who have to deal with the consequences of being around an addict.

More power to you.

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No offence taken.

Also, being qualified to do something does not mean that the thing is a good thing to do.

Also being qualified does not mean being good at your job.

I didn't necessarily mean having a degree, just have enough working knowledge about the field to argue the terms and definitions used in it.

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

I didn't necessarily mean you had to have a degree, just have enough working knowledge about the field to argue the terms and definitions used in it.

I'm a very private type of person but I'm not unfamiliar with the area is all I'll say.

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm a very private type of person but I'm not unfamiliar with the area is all I'll say.

I hope you'll understand my scepticism in that.

No offense intended or anything.

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

I hope you'll understand my scepticism in that.

No offense intended or anything.

Not at all.

Scepticism is a good thing imo.

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

.For example DSM-III recognises alcohol dependence as a valid psychological condition.

Btw this argument is an appeal to authority. This is an authority which I, among many, totally reject and is not proof of anything.

It's not a cop-out or a choice, it's a proven condition to exist.

Show me some proof of your claim of a 'proven condition' or stand down.

Sunnyisland

IMO and i am leaving it as this There's too much evidence that supports the fact that alcoholism and addiction are diseases.
Now I think this information is helpful to some when trying to combat the disease of alcoholism or addiction because it allows them to admit that they are powerless to control their addiction and so need to get professional help. But others use that as an excuse to justify their drinking or using - i.e. "it's a disease, I can't control it."
So I believe like with any illness or disease - people need to take responsibility for getting proper help and treatment so that they can recover successfully.:)

Seachmall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Btw this argument is an appeal to authority. This is an authority which I, among many, totally reject and is not proof of anything.

I appreciate that (hence "I recognise the flaw in that") but at same time the opinions of confirmed authorities on the subject (The American Psychiatric Association in this case) is naturally held to a higher esteem than the opinions of casual forum users.

There is an inherant flaw in that, but it's a reasonable assumption. Likewise, if someone was to tell me the twin towers must've had explosives, and I had no understanding of the subject, it would be reasonably incorrect for me to hold their opinion equal to that of demolition experts even if I had no interest in confirming/denying the claims myself.

Show me some proof of your claim of a 'proven condition' or stand down.

It is recognised by the APA, the IPA and the AAPDP (as per their associated diagnostic publications).

An argument from authority? Yes, but a reasonable one in this discussion.

As I've stated I've no interest in debating the credibility of respected authorities in the field, nor the credibility of the field itself. It's outside the scope of the discussion.

woodoo

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

your just being greedy.

You're embarrassing yourself with that level of ignorance. I thought you were joking/trolling earlier. How can anyone with more than 2 brain cells really think it can all be explained away by greed.

What age are you?

AudreyHepburn

I see alcoholism as neither a disease nor a choice but as a symptom. A person doesn't start drinking to excess for no reason. There is always something going on under the surface; the death of a loved one, loss of job, falling out with a loved one, abuse etc.

You drink to mask the pain/emptiness/loss etc.

iguana

4leto wrote: »

But would it be fair to say addiction changes the structure of the brain. I was a nicotine addict, although I have stopped I still am.

The brain structure changes are only temporary. After a period of time which is case specific, the brain goes back to that of a normal person. Abuse causes the addiction, end the abuse and the brain will repair. Plenty of former alcoholics eventually learn to moderate the substance they used to be addicted to.

It's not something I think people should do if they are happy abstaining, or have psychological reasons to remain abstemious but there is no physiological reason to abstain forever.

fonecrusher1

woodoo wrote: »

You're embarrassing yourself with that level of ignorance. I thought you were joking/trolling earlier. How can anyone with more than 2 brain cells really think it can all be explained away by greed.

What age are you?

Again i have touched a nerve. Do you find my honesty upsetting? If so don't read my posts. Also i refuse to stoop to name calling & insults. Unfortunately you have already gone down that road.

Alcoholism a disease.... not a chance, that is an utter cop out. As ive said earlier try telling someone who has had cancer or someone who has lost someone to the illness that alcoholism is a disease. Get a grip. Is being overweight a disease? What about being overly talkative? Is that another 'disease'?:rolleyes:

The expression drinking problem is much more appropriate. I find that acceptable.

Jumpy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This analogy doesn't work.

A diabetic has an observable condition whether he takes insulin or not.

If abusing alcohol is a disease then why isn't abusing:

food
heroin
cocaine
weed
cigarettes
petrol sniffing
glue sniffin
self-cutting

a disease?

Alcoholism is a result of abusing alcohol.

Consuming alcohol is not as a result of having the 'disease' 'Alcoholism'.

They are.

Alcoholism is just addiction with a specific terminology.

Self cutting is the slightly different one, but depression is the cause there and is seen in ALL mammals, self mutilation is a side effect rather than the actual disease.

Jumpy

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Again i have touched a nerve. Do you find my honesty upsetting? If so don't read my posts. Also i refuse to stoop to name calling & insults. Unfortunately you have already gone down that road.

Alcoholism a disease.... not a chance, that is an utter cop out. As ive said earlier try telling someone who has had cancer or someone who has lost someone to the illness that alcoholism is a disease. Get a grip. Is being overweight a disease? What about being overly talkative? Is that another 'disease'?:rolleyes:

The expression drinking problem is much more appropriate. I find that acceptable.

You will probably find more people who have recovered from cancer than have recovered from addiction.

I wont call you stupid or belittle your way of thinking because I was like you until I saw it in someone close to me.

You may change your mind fairly sharpish if you saw true addiction in action.

herosa

You often read this disease or not a disease type article but there is one thing that people often fail to address. Many alcoholics have underlying personality disorders or perhaps a serious mental health problem such as bipolar which certainly is a disease. Personality disorders are incurable. Here is an article with some statistics http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/dual/a/bljama040405.htm and as you can see at a glance you are not dealing with small numbers here. So really I dont think you can decide on the disease/not a disease question without looking at the whole person.The drinking behaviour that you see might just be the outward manifestation of the underlying personality disorder/mental illness that you cant see. So I dont think that a typical "oh an alcoholic chooses to drink comment" is always helpful. If someone has an incurable personality disorder or a untreated mental illness running rampant in them is it really a choice? In America they are opening up a lot of dual diagnosis based rehabs because they are realising that unless you deal with the underlying problem rehab is probably useless. Some mental health problems can be treated very successfully but many cant. I often wonder if all the people who are very hard on alcoholics were sent to live with their mental health problems for a year what would they come back saying? A mile in someone elses shoes etc

Jumpy

Ah but then you would be a mile away. With their shoes.

How would that help?