Plan B Forum

Moved from another topic...


At the risk of making myself very unpopular here, I believe that the 'alcoholism as a disease' theory is bullshit. At some point in an alcoholic's life a choice is made to have a first drink. Then a choice to have a second... and so on. That is not a disease. I have known some alcoholics who use the whole "I have an incurable disease" thing as an excuse for their behaviour.

This sums it up better than I could...

The disease concept stripped the substance user of personal responsibility. A disease cannot be cured by force of will; therefore, adding the medical label transfers the responsibility from the user to caregivers. Inevitably, the users become unwilling victims, and just as inevitably they take on that role. In retrospect then, the disease concept has effectively increased alcoholism and drug use.
Source

Thoughts?

In my family's case you are spot on, Sean.

When my Dad decided to believe that he had the 'disease' of alcoholism, he gave up on moderating his drinking as that was a symptom of the 'disease' and he was not responsible for it, neither did he have the will power to fight it. (But hey, will-power isn't required with a disease.)

My Dad went down hill after that at an astonishing rate.

He left too young, he was only 68. His body was wracked with emphysema, kidney failure, diabetes, gout, high blood pressure and heart disease. The positive was all his physical deterioration gave him a different focus from the drinking which then reduced to a manageable (for me) two tins a day. He may have chosen to have his first and second drink, but no-one was going to tell him when to have his last.

I concur, that and many other things...

I've had three uncles drink themselves to death, from kidney to liver failure; and an aunt in the process of doing so. (Her last child was born with Fetal alcohol syndrome)
This was my mother's atheistic/agnostic side of the family; thus this was how I learned to cope with stress, which in turn triggered my alcoholism.

We are taught to turn to alcohol, which fosters the disease.

In 1991, The AMA further endorsed the dual classification of alcoholism by the International Classification of Diseases under both psychiatric and medical sections. Source

I agree Sean.

It's a dependancy not a disease. It's no more a disease than smoking or mainlining heroin. You can't cure a disease by giving it up.

Good point Dais. You never hear of other addicts having a 'disease'. If I went to my doctor and told her that I had a disease and it was called 'nicotine addiction' she'd give me a slap... and rightly so!

Actually you do most others just don't use it as an excuse.

the disease concept comes from the fact that there are physical changes in the addict that make "an act of will power" generally insufficient for quitting.

What is really going on is a lack of/willful misunderstanding of what "disease" means. The equivalent of the "Just a theory" crowd.

the disease concept comes from the fact that there are physical changes in the addict that make "an act of will power" generally insufficient for quitting.

Will power is how I quit.

Don't exactly know how it relates to "just a theory"...

Sean wrote:"... I have known some alcoholics who use the whole "I have an incurable disease" thing as an excuse for their behaviour.... "

It is important not to confuse explanation with justification. They might say that alcoholism explains their behavior but not mean that it excuses [justifies] it.


If calling it a disease is the most effective way of reducing the level of the problem for either individuals or society then I see no problem with calling it a disease. "Disease" is a very broad term which refers to acute, chronic, progressive, infectious, genetic, neurological, dietary, environmental, iatrogenic, and psychological conditions. If it is a useful model here then we should use it.


yrs,
rubato

Medline Plus Dictionary:

Main Entry: dis·ease

Pronunciation: \diz-ˈēz\

Function: noun

: an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors

Addiction clearly meets all of these criteria.

If addicts want an excuse to keep using, they will find one. The response to an addict who says, "I can't stop using, I have a disease," is "then go and get treatment like you would for any other disease".

Daisy wrote:It's a dependancy not a disease. It's no more a disease than smoking or mainlining heroin. You can't cure a disease by giving it up.

For starters, addiction is never really "cured", so let's talk about "treating" or "managing" it.

There are diseases that are treated and/or managed primarily by avoiding the triggers that bring them on - allergies, for example.

I would think that, rather than absolving the addict of responsibility, considering addiction to be a disease would create the expectation that he/she should get it treated.

rubato wrote:

Sean wrote:"... I have known some alcoholics who use the whole "I have an incurable disease" thing as an excuse for their behaviour.... "

It is important not to confuse explanation with justification. They might say that alcoholism explains their behavior but not mean that it excuses [justifies] it.


If calling it a disease is the most effective way of reducing the level of the problem for either individuals or society then I see no problem with calling it a disease. "Disease" is a very broad term which refers to acute, chronic, progressive, infectious, genetic, neurological, dietary, environmental, iatrogenic, and psychological conditions. If it is a useful model here then we should use it.


yrs,
rubato

Spot on.

Having been involved with AA since 2008, whatever gets one to stop using intoxicants is a GOOD thing.

btw: My sponsor rocks!

rubato wrote:

Sean wrote:"... I have known some alcoholics who use the whole "I have an incurable disease" thing as an excuse for their behaviour.... "

It is important not to confuse explanation with justification. They might say that alcoholism explains their behavior but not mean that it excuses [justifies] it.

I'm talking about those who say, "It's not my fault I beat the shit out of my wife and kids when I was pissed, I've got a disease".

That to me is when the 'disease' thing becomes a problem...

I mustard mitt I have never heard of a heroin addict as suffering from a disease. It is always clearly (and correctly) referred to as an addition.

Stoners are never given "Sorry to hear of you disease" cards.

Why treat alcohol addicts differently? Is it because it is a legal substance?

The Hen wrote:I mustard mitt I have never heard of a heroin addict as suffering from a disease. It is always clearly (and correctly) referred to as an addition.

Stoners are never given "Sorry to hear of you disease" cards.

Why treat alcohol addicts differently? Is it because it is a legal substance?

at least he's not one of those poor bastards with a subtraction.

I don't quite get why it matters how anyone defines alcoholism.

It is what it is.

A person might be "sick" or might be "hooked" or "addicted."

There's no difference, whether it is heroin, alcohol or other drugs.

It is a health problem.

You have AA and NA in Oz.

I've been to both NA and AA, I preferred AA.

The AA meetings I go to have both people who use "illegal" drugs and drink.

The goal of both is to remain sober going to any length to acheive sobriety.

Taking one day at a time....

Sean wrote:I'm talking about those who say, "It's not my fault I beat the shit out of my wife and kids when I was pissed, I've got a disease".

That to me is when the 'disease' thing becomes a problem...

To which my response would be, if your disease causes you to be so incontrollably violent that you are a danger to yourself or others, then we'll have to lock you up in a pysch ward until we're satisfied that you no longer pose such a danger.

So Sean, what you have is not a problem with the defintion of alcoholism as a disease, which it undoubtably is, but with the use of the "disease model" to excuse behaviour?

Undoubtably? A lot of doctors would disagree there...

Doctors? I've shit'em.