![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by mama141 on November 4, 2005, at 7:44:11
In reply to Is it necessary to abstain completely?, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:29:39
> There is much discussion about whether addictions are a disease or a habit that needs to be broken and replaced with healthy habits. Whether it is a compulsive behaviour we have no power over, or a matter of choice - "just don't drink". Whether it is a genetic predisposition or falling in with the wrong crowd when we were kids.
>
> There's no doubt in my mind that it's a metabolic disorder; that a physical need is created by repeated exposure to a substance consumed in levels toxic to our bodies. When that comsumption is ceased, there is a great capacity for the body to repair the damage and insult caused to it.
>
> I wonder though, whether this really is a disease. My experience over the years has been that after a period of abstinence, if I start this bad habit again, my body responds as if I had never stopped. It picks up where I left off - stomach upset, days-long hangovers, blackouts - and not back at the beginning of the habit. When drinking gave me pleasure, some euphoria, an easing of anxiety. Why would my body have this response if it was not diseased and conditioned to react as if I had never stopped drinking? Is it analogous to learning to ride a bicycle? That once our bodies "learn" a response to the substance, that it remembers exactly where we left off and picks up right at that point?
>
> My personal Choice - and it's become a choice in the days after it was a compulsion that required outside help in the form of group therapy and medication - is to not consume alcohol at all. I don't want to go through more physical and mental misery than I have to. I want to be kind to my body and let it recover from the years of abuse I hurled at it.
>
> Just rambling.Clear skies,
I wish I had a clear-cut answer for you -- but even after many years of drinking and not drinking, I dont. I really think that it is an individual thing. As I said in my post above, I just up and stopped going to 12 step groups after about twenty years. Most of that time I did not drink, but I learned in the last few years that I could have a glass of wine socially and stop there.(I never drink alone and never buy anything myself - just setting my own limits)
Personally, I dont feel I am "powerless" over drugs or alcohol -- I believe that I truly have a choice. My "healing" came through a faith-based situation, if you will, and I will be glad to discuss it over on the "Faith" board if anyone is interested. (Understanding that my way is not right for eveyone) Also, I am 60+ years old and just plain ole' life experience finally sank in I guess.
Posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 8:11:23
In reply to Re: Is it necessary to abstain completely? » ClearSkies, posted by mama141 on November 4, 2005, at 7:44:11
> Personally, I dont feel I am "powerless" over drugs or alcohol -- I believe that I truly have a choice. My "healing" came through a faith-based situation, if you will, and I will be glad to discuss it over on the "Faith" board if anyone is interested. (Understanding that my way is not right for eveyone) Also, I am 60+ years old and just plain ole' life experience finally sank in I guess.
I'll pass on the faith discussion, thanks. 6 of the 12 steps of AA refer to G*d or a greater power. I have to turn myself over to G*d, admit things to G*d, and seek G*d through prayer or meditation. I personally don't fit AA's religious format, and have successfully maintained sobriety for over 75 days so far, using Women For Sobriety and I participated in an intensive outpatient programme.
Posted by antigua on November 4, 2005, at 11:44:02
In reply to Is it necessary to abstain completely?, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:29:39
For me, it's necessary to abstain completely because then it isn't an issue to consume me: well, I can just have one tonight and handle it, and I probably can, but it's the temptation of tomorrow that sends me over the edge into oblivion, back even worse than when I was before. So, for me, abstention just means it's not on the table at all, and that I choose to make this choice because while I could handle a couple, I would ultimately end up back in my own private gutter.
I just find it easier to deal w/it this way.
best,
antigua
Posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:51:12
In reply to Is it necessary to abstain completely?, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:29:39
"My experience over the years has been that after a period of abstinence, if I start this bad habit again, my body responds as if I had never stopped. It picks up where I left off - stomach upset, days-long hangovers, blackouts - and not back at the beginning of the habit.
I think you answered your own question. It seems that for you, at least for a good while, you need to abstain.
Posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 13:59:13
In reply to Is it necessary to abstain completely?, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:29:39
I'm not afraid of not drinking again. It is fine with me if I never have another hangover!
Just want to make that clear, ok?thanx
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 19:10:13
In reply to This was a rhetorical question everyone, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 13:59:13
> I'm not afraid of not drinking again. It is fine with me if I never have another hangover!
> Just want to make that clear, ok?yeah. i understand. i think auntiemel nailed it. you answered your own question about what is best for you at this point in time. and based on what you said... sounds like a pretty clear headed decision to me.
about the disease thing. okay so try not to jump on me for saying so but it really is the case that...
the answer to the question depends entirely on how you define 'disease'. i'm serious. there are lots of tricky questions like that 'are viruses alive?' (depends on how you define living) etc.
the notion of 'disease' has been broadened significantly in order for mental illnesses to count as diseases. a lot of people fight and resist the 'disease' conception of (most but not all) mental illnesses. because they believe it is too much of a stretch, too much of an abuse of the concept of disease.
there are other health problems (significant health problems) which are health problems and yet they do not count as diseases. there are other things that are heritable that do not count as diseases too. so to say that mental illnesses (most of them) are not diseases is NOT AT ALL TO SAY it is 'all in the head' or 'within the persons volountary control' or whatever. but for a lot of people... they fear that if mental illnesses aren't considered diseases then the rest of that stuff will have to follow as a matter of logical necessity.
but that is simply false.
the concept of disease has been stretched still further in order to make addictive behaviours out to be a disease.
that is something that is (and IMO should be) resisted.
because...
if addictive behaviours count as a 'disease'...
then shouldn't that go down on your health record as an ongoing condition?
you have the disease forever and ever even if you have been clean for 50 years...
i don't see how this helps...
i think it is more likely to harm...
Posted by maddawgz on November 4, 2005, at 19:16:16
In reply to Is it necessary to abstain completely?, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:29:39
like u siad after 10yrs u pick up where u left off? So that says chemical chemical = disease ru kidding? course i'ts a disease like overeating and i wish ppl would educate themselves more in society not you but ppl in general rather then saying ur lazy ur fat ur a druggy!!! cmon folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by maddawgz on November 4, 2005, at 19:21:21
In reply to Re: Is it necessary to abstain completely? » ClearSkies, posted by mama141 on November 4, 2005, at 7:44:11
mama id love to hear your faith based story!!!. Im always looking for new ways to live happier weather it be subsitute or not as in my case mmt? !!
Posted by Maynerd on November 5, 2005, at 2:20:47
In reply to Re: Is it necessary to abstain completely? » ClearSkies, posted by mama141 on November 4, 2005, at 7:44:11
Very interesting question, and one that I have no real answer for. For as long as I can rem,ember I have had what my doc calls an addictive personality or something like that. When I start something I go overboard with it, I can't seem to ever exercise conrol or restraint. I will keep hearing the little fiend in the back of my mind constantly trying to entice me into doing the next load of whatever. If I don't start the cycle then I can ignore the fiend, but if I even take a hit off a bong or bottle I am done for, the fiend ALWAYS wins no matter how strong I try to be. I was depressed once and did Meth, it took over 4 months to fight my way out of the cycle. Therefore, for myself at leat abstaining is a must. Funny that my best friend doesn't need to abstain, she says for her the fiend has little if any power. The only drugs she refuses to abstain from is her Lamictil.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 7:05:49
In reply to Re: Is it necessary to abstain completely?, posted by maddawgz on November 4, 2005, at 19:16:16
> course i'ts a disease like overeating
overeating isn't a disease either.
i have been known to overeat...
(doesn't everyone on some holiday occasion or other?)
yet what sense is there in calling that a disease?some diseases may increase eating...
but eating...
isn't a disease...> and i wish ppl would educate themselves more in society not you but ppl in general rather then saying ur lazy ur fat ur a druggy!!! cmon folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah. still... maybe i'm lucky or something but i haven't heard that for a long long time...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 7:06:51
In reply to Re: Is it necessary to abstain completely?, posted by Maynerd on November 5, 2005, at 2:20:47
> For as long as I can rem,ember I have had what my doc calls an addictive personality or something like that.
Yeah. But that just DESCRIBES the following behaviours:
> When I start something I go overboard with it, I can't seem to ever exercise conrol or restraint.
It DESCRIBES it it doesn't CAUSE it...
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2005, at 8:43:04
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » ClearSkies, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 19:10:13
Hi.
> the notion of 'disease' has been broadened significantly in order for mental illnesses to count as diseases. a lot of people fight and resist the 'disease' conception of (most but not all) mental illnesses. because they believe it is too much of a stretch, too much of an abuse of the concept of disease.
Do you think it has been too much of a stretch?
Does it depend on the mental illness?
Disease:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disease
Guess what? According to this dictionary definition, both mental illness and addiction would qualify as disease. I think this definition serves as an interesting guideline to further this discussion.
------------------------------------------
DISEASE:1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
3. 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 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.
4. An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning
------------------------------------------
Interesting.One example:
Q: Why is the rate of alcoholism so high in native american populations?
A: Genetics. Chromosomes 4 and 12 coding for alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase respectively.
Now what do we say?
I have seen people who have invested over twenty years of sobriety sacrafice it all for the taking of a single drink. That one drink, often taken recreationally as opposed to as an attempt to self-medicate, led to benders and the destruction of the life they worked so hard to build. What do you think is going on here?
Has this sort of thing ever happened to you?
It is a horrific thing to witness.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 18:39:56
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on November 5, 2005, at 8:43:04
These aren't tooooo bad.
They give a bit of an account of the problem.This one talks about the EXTREMISTS on both sides. So... The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle:
http://www.counselormagazine.com/display_article.asp?aid=Advocates_and_Critics.asp
This one talks about how we should understand the concept of disease. Basically... It talks about how we need to define the concept of disease:
http://www.counselormagazine.com/display_article.asp?aid=disease_concept_for_21_century.asp
> Do you think it has been too much of a stretch?
Okay... I think that what is most useful here is to look at WHY some people consider it to be a disease and WHY some people don't want it to be a disease.
Then we need to figure out where we stand regarding those issues. And then given where we stand... Is the disease concept most helpful or not? Personally... I don't care whether it is considered a disease one way or the other. Not really. But if people make assumptions about the nature of addictive behaviours on the basis of whether it is called a disease or not, well, then our decision as to whether to call it a disease or not does have consequences. It is those consequences we need to look at.
> Does it depend on the mental illness?Sometimes people say that a disease needs to have a unique etiology or marker. So... Schizophrenia might come the closest... Brief adjustment disorder might not come anywhere near so close...
> Guess what? According to this dictionary definition, both mental illness and addiction would qualify as disease. I think this definition serves as an interesting guideline to further this discussion.
I would say that a medical dictionary would be one better. Though the fact that psychiatry (as a branch of medicine) is based (fairly much) on the ASSUMPTION that the disease model of mental illness is true there would be bias there.I would say a biology dictionary would be one better again. Though of course the very point is that this is a controversial topic. If I ask you to write an essay on what knowledge is you can't just have a look at Mirriam Webster and go with what it says. Becuase the point is that it is controversial. If we are discussing whether addiction is a disease you similarly can't just say 'the dictionary says it is so that is that'. The very problem is... Is the dictionary right?
> Q: Why is the rate of alcoholism so high in native american populations?
> A: Genetics. Chromosomes 4 and 12 coding for alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase respectively.
> Now what do we say?What I say is.... How about social factors. Do you think they are completely irrelevant? You dont' think history of oppression, current discriminations, current standards of living etc etc play a significant role as well?????
Lets take a person with whatever genetic thingie you think determines whether someone is an addict or not. Lets put them in an environment where there simply isn't any alchohol or whatever. They never use in their whole life. Are they still an addict??????
Sorry but... It just ain't that simple...
> I have seen people who have invested over twenty years of sobriety sacrafice it all for the taking of a single drink.
Yeah. Same with gambelling... I have seen the same with gambelling. Is that genetic too do you think???
>That one drink, often taken recreationally as opposed to as an attempt to self-medicate, led to benders and the destruction of the life they worked so hard to build. What do you think is going on here?
They had a period of prioritising long term goals... Then they prioritised short term over long term and the consequences of that were pretty bad as you noted.
> It is a horrific thing to witness.Yeah.
But I don't see how considering it a 'disease' helps.
Actually, I don't care one way or the other.
But it is an interesting exercise to consider the controversy because it brings us close to understanding just what is going onWhatever you decide to label that....
Posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 20:20:51
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 18:39:56
> But I don't see how considering it a 'disease' helps.
>
> Actually, I don't care one way or the other.This is an issue I have with this thread. I read that you don't care one way or another, and I wonder, why did you even question whether addiction is a disease or not if you don't care? For the sake of argument and debate, I am guessing.
Personally, which is the only way I can really speak with any authority on this subject, considering addiction as a disease gives me the ammunition I need to conquer it. I can change my habits, my diet, my thinking, my environment (up to a point); and I understand that if I choose to revert, for any length of time, back to the behaviours I practised when I was in active addiction, that it will, undoubtedly, happen again.
Unfortunately, I have proven this, time and again. Each time my health has been at greater risk. I understand that this is a disease that will kill me if I don't treat it as an adversary.
Alexandra, I do not enjoy debate. I also choose not to censor what I can and cannot read on this site, for the sake of interest, compassion, and education. I think it may be wise for you to consider that your words here are read by all, and that what is perhaps intended as debate is not necessarily how it is interpreted.
Posted by verne on November 5, 2005, at 20:40:36
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k, posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 20:20:51
Do you remember a book I mentioned a while back, "Under the Influence"?
This book, along with "Seven Weeks to Sobriety" understands that alcoholism is a disease that has more to do with the alcoholic's physiology than psychological make-up or will power.
"Seven Weeks" is practically the bible for rehab at some clinics.
Hope all's well. I'm now enjoying my ninth day on the wagon. Something seems to be clicking. I invited my daughter and future son-in-law over for an informal get-together tomorrow. Leaf raking, movie watching, and whatever grabs us. My daughter was as surprised as I am. I've never had them over in the 3 years she's known him.
Verne
Posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 20:51:39
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » ClearSkies, posted by verne on November 5, 2005, at 20:40:36
> Hope all's well.
Yup - 77 days. Some are easier than others even though I try to be consistent with what I do.
>I'm now enjoying my ninth day on the wagon. Something seems to be clicking. I invited my daughter and future son-in-law over for an informal get-together tomorrow. Leaf raking, movie watching, and whatever grabs us. My daughter was as surprised as I am. I've never had them over in the 3 years she's known him.
What a wonderful gift! I'm so glad you're enjoying your family.
Thanks for the book links. I thought I had read all of the self help books out there LOL!
I just finished "A Million Little Pieces", a disturbing and at the same time, inspirational memoir. It had me clenching my jaw in reaction, a book I really connected with. It's important for me to read about others' experiences, for perspective and understanding.
I guess that's why I post here.ClearSkies
Posted by verne on November 5, 2005, at 21:04:32
In reply to That's so good! » verne, posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 20:51:39
I'll keep that "Million Pieces" book in mind although I'm not sure I'm ready for it now.
Another book I have on hand at all times is, "Stepping Stones to Recovery" by Bill Pittman. This book is full of gems and has a great appendix with hundreds of slogans and short prayers. It's a kind of spiritual anthology without being religious at all.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 21:04:50
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k, posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 20:20:51
> > But I don't see how considering it a 'disease' helps.
> > Actually, I don't care one way or the other.
> This is an issue I have with this thread. I read that you don't care one way or another, and I wonder, why did you even question whether addiction is a disease or not if you don't care?I care about the nature of addiction.
I care about how people move on from their addictions.
About how people recover...
About whether recovery is possible...
Those considerations are considerations that come to bear on the 'is it is disease or not' controversy. In considering the arguments and points from both sides... I find I can be more informed and thus am more likely to come to a tenable view of things for myself rather than just passively absorbing the indoctrinations of one camp (which is what happens unless you take a look at the other side as well)I don't care whether the party line is that it is or is not a disease. The answer to the question of whether it is a disease or not is wholey determined by the way in which one chooses to define the concept of disease.
The benefit to looking at the views of those who consider it to be a disease AND the views of those who consider it not to be a disease is that one is better able to get a grip on the points of controversy. What I find... Is that I agree with the 'disease' people on some points, and I agree with the 'non-disease' people on others.
What that does is it presents me with a range of information so I am better able to reach an informed view not so much on whether it is a 'disease' or not (I personally don't give a sh*t about the label) but because one is better able to reach an informed view on the nature of addiction itself.
That is the point. Because in reading about different views one is more likely to hear the best arguments / considerations on both sides which means... One has the material to construct ones own view.
Make sense?
> For the sake of argument and debate, I am guessing.
I thought I had addressed this already...
Thats a 'guess' aka an 'assumption'
please don't.
> considering addiction as a disease gives me the ammunition I need to conquer it.I thought one couldn't conquer it... All that was to be done was to 'manage' it...
> I can change my habits, my diet, my thinking, my environment (up to a point); and I understand that if I choose to revert, for any length of time, back to the behaviours I practised when I was in active addiction, that it will, undoubtedly, happen again.
'Undoubtedly'? Is it about that... Or is it more abotu the point that it is simply not worth the risk. Because if you do that then the cravings are so very much likely to get worse and thus you are so very much more likely to revert?
I say this because if that is your view...
Then if you think this is the nature of addcition...
Then your line seems to be that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for someone who was once addicted to ever become a moderate user.
You might want to think abotu whether you really want to commit yourself to that view...So you think that IF addiction is a disease THEN there is some justification for your view. What I would like to add is that your view would be just as justified IF addiction wasn't called a 'disease'. I don't see what calling it a 'disease' buys us.
The reason I don't like to call it a disease is because of the points I have already stated.
The reason some people won't consider it is not a disease is because they believe then it must be 'all in the head'. But... A broken leg can be a serious health problem. It is not 'all in the head'. And yet... It is not a disease.
> Unfortunately, I have proven this, time and again. Each time my health has been at greater risk. I understand that this is a disease that will kill me if I don't treat it as an adversary.Okay. But is it the 'disease' that would kill you... Or is it the drinking that would kill you? Drinking too much is an adversary indeed...
> Alexandra, I do not enjoy debate.I do. And I like to debate sometimes. The reason WHY I like to debate is because considering things from lots of perspectives, hearing about the best reasons / arguments for different views mean I am better able to reach tenable and informed views myself.
If you don't enjoy debate then maybe that is becasue 'debate' means something different for you?
If 'debate' means something negative to you...
Then please don't be quick to assume I am *only* intending to do this... Please don't be quick to assume that I even *partly* intend to do this.>I also choose not to censor what I can and cannot read on this site,
That is your choice.
But I would prefer you to not read my posts if you are likely to feel upset in response. Most especially if you might be tempted to make assumptions etc in response...> I think it may be wise for you to consider that your words here are read by all, and that what is perhaps intended as debate is not necessarily how it is interpreted.
I don't think it is intended as debate in the sense in which you are thinking of 'debate'.
How is it interpreted?
No...
How are you interpreting it?Do you think your interpretation is fairly much inevitable?
Or... is something else going on...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 21:07:38
In reply to Re: That's so good! » ClearSkies, posted by verne on November 5, 2005, at 21:04:32
disease = not my fault
not disease = i'm a weak person / an immoral person or whateverthat is a fear that people have...
that is why some people get so very upset about whether it is considered a disease or not.both of those equations...
are strictly speaking false.
isn't anybody interested in a middle way???
see ya people.
Posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 21:14:24
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » ClearSkies, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 21:04:50
> But I would prefer you to not read my posts if you are likely to feel upset in response. Most especially if you might be tempted to make assumptions etc in response...
Is that a Do Not Post request? Please clarify. If you ask me to not read your post, in lieu of an Ignore feature, then by extrapolation you're asking me not to reply to them, right?
> I don't think it is intended as debate in the sense in which you are thinking of 'debate'.From the free online dictionary:
de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument
> Do you think your interpretation is fairly much inevitable?
>
> Or... is something else going on...I must ask you for clarification. What do you think is going on? I don't understand what you are implying, please don't guess that I know what you mean.
Posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 21:15:27
In reply to Re: i see, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 21:07:38
> see ya people.
>
>Wow, it's a night for goodbyes for you, isn't it?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 22:28:14
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k, posted by ClearSkies on November 5, 2005, at 21:14:24
> Is that a Do Not Post request?
Not at all. I just don't want you to get too upset by anything I have to say and risk getting blocked over it.
> From the free online dictionary:
> de·bate (d-bt)
> v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
> v.intr.
> 1. To consider something; deliberate.So you want me to stop considering and deliberating on things?
> 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
Or is it that you want me to stop presenting opposing points?
> 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument
Or perhaps you think I'm doing that? I'm not sure what they mean by formal...
> I must ask you for clarification. What do you think is going on? I don't understand what you are implying, please don't guess that I know what you mean.???
I'm getting a little lost at this point too...
I thought...
You were upset with something I said
I'm just trying to work out what is up with that
That is all...
Posted by mama141 on November 6, 2005, at 11:05:02
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » ClearSkies, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 22:28:14
Whew,
I go out of town for a couple of days without my laptop and the ball rolls!!
Hang in there Verne, I am happy for you!
Three thoughts concerning "disease --
First,if you want a real eye-opener read the book:
"Diseasing of America : How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control" -- by Stanton Peele
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-7844095-7367237Secondly, WHEN was the part about "society" added? And WHO did the adding?
"n : an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning"
Thirdly -- what about "choices" -- I sure didn't choose to get polio as a kid!! I did however CHOOSE to use alcohol the drown my sorrows so to speak, and I made that choice EVERY time I took a swollow.....
(Next trip the laptop goes along!!) >>>MAMA
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2005, at 11:37:36
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » ClearSkies, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 19:10:13
> the concept of disease has been stretched still further in order to make addictive behaviours out to be a disease.
The etymology of disease traces back to Old French, with written use at least as early as 1330. Probably came from the Norman conquest in 1066. Anyway, the early meaning, from "diseasu", was "not at peace" or "not at ease".
Once I discovered the history of the word, I personally found it very much easier to accept that I had the "not at peace" of addiction.
> that is something that is (and IMO should be) resisted.
>
> because...
>
> if addictive behaviours count as a 'disease'...
> then shouldn't that go down on your health record as an ongoing condition?Not all diseases are chronic, i.e. active over an extended period. Mumps is a disease, but once experienced, it is still a relevant part of the subject's medical history.
> you have the disease forever and ever even if you have been clean for 50 years...
...you would still have a history of the disease of addiction.
> i don't see how this helps...
> i think it is more likely to harm...Only if you label people based on their medical history.
Lar
Posted by SLS on November 6, 2005, at 12:03:31
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 18:39:56
Hi A_K.
When you say to me "Sorry but... It just ain't that simple...", I think I had already grasped that concept prior to submitting my first post along this thread. Complexity attracts me. Simplicity is often a brilliant way to manage the complex.
> This one talks about the EXTREMISTS on both sides. So... The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle:
No. I don't think so. I think the Truth lies in all direction and in all places all at once. I believe there are spectrums of contributions to the resulting phenotypes about which we are discussing.
As far as the native American example that I gave, the majority of the resulting alcoholic phenotypes WOULD NOT result without the contributions of the predisposing genotype.
With a sizeable percentage of cases of axis I mental illnesses, the pathological phenotype does not occur without precipitating psychosocial stresses. That you need an environmental trigger for the onset of these illnesses makes them no less the diseases that they are. Many cases have no trigger at all. Their induction is spontaneous. The sole contributor to their diseased phenotype is their genotype.
Excessive stress in general can leave one vulnerable to or directly cause disease.
Again, just because it might be necessary for epigenitic factors to contribute to the evolution of pathology does not render that pathology ineligible for the designation "disease".
> > Do you think it has been too much of a stretch?
> Okay... I think that what is most useful here is to look at WHY some people consider it to be a disease and WHY some people don't want it to be a disease.
I was asking the question of you personally. I want to know whether or not YOU consider mental illnesses to be diseases. Which of the following do you NOT consider to be diseases? I don't need to know why. I just want to see where you are at with things.
1. Schizophrenia
2. Schizoaffective disorder
3. Bipolar disorder
4. Major depressive disorder
5. OCD
6. GAD
7. SAD/Social phobia
8. PTSDI'm going to let personality disorders and addiction remain separate because their etiological dynamics are more complicated. I am not prepared to discuss them in this post. It would require much research and deliberation that I have not performed. On a philosophical level, these things are easier to deliberate. They are all diseases.
As you have said, it will depend on what is the definition of disease as to how to categorize each pathology.
So.
What is your definition of what disease is? (As opposed to what disease is not).
It would also be informative that you perhaps post those definitions you mention that may be found in medical dictionaries or biological dictionaries.
Can a mind be diseased?
I will go back and reread the material you cited. I don't think the concept of disease should be changed by a council with a social agenda. Nor should it be legislated in my opinion. Although appropriately dynamic, it should be based upon the science of the organism and its environment.
- Scott
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Substance Use | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.