Best as I understand it, the idea that alcoholism is a “disease” comes from the popular 12-Step methods (such as Alcoholics Anonymous) so lauded for their ability to help sufferers of alcoholism. But also, best as I understand it, 12-Step programs are made up bullshitty support groups with no science to back them up, and have a ridiculously high failure rate.
So you often get (and I believe this was parodied on South Park once) people living their lives with utter reckless abandon, hurting family members left and right, and blaming their behavior on the horrible “disease” of alcoholism that renders them helpless to change. I’ve heard people describe their alcoholism as if it’s something comparable to cancer or MS, something completely beyond their control for which they must always suffer and for which we ought to feel sorry for. (I think a good indication of this in AA is the idea that alcoholics should never take a single drop because they are so unbelievably helpless that they wouldn’t be able to control themselves.)
It comes off, if you don’t mind my saying, as whiny “poor-me” victim ideology.
I don’t have a lot of tolerance for people who blame their behavior on things beyond their control. Some of the most interesting science I’ve seen on addiction indicates that one of the hugest factors toward physiological addiction is the addict’s environment. A person in a bad environment becomes easily addicted, whereas a person in a comfortable environment does not (okay, they weren’t people–they were lab rats–but you can gather the implications of such a study.)
However, I’m also aware that whether alcoholism is a “disease” or not, it has a clear physiological component, and some genetic predisposition as well. But so do other things… depression comes to mind… and you still wouldn’t feel very sorry for a depressed person who murdered his kids. It seems like at some point we have to step up to the plate and assume responsibility for our actions. I view 12-Step’s imagining of alcoholism as a “disease” as stepping away from that… and as I said, as best I can gather, Alcoholics Anonymous has a pathetically high failure rate.
So I’m curious what you all think about it. Is Alcoholism really a disease?
This is verging on trolling but I’ll nibble a bit. Alcoholism as a disease model is more a play on words and meaning. I do not necessarily subscribe to the whole disease model in that you can take a medication and fix it. But I do subscribe to it being a malady that one must seek treatment for, and AA if nothing else provides many with a good outlet for group therapy.
You’ll have to give a cite for that one in this crowd bub. You are obviously not an addict or have spent any time with one… :rolleyes:
There is absolutely a genetic difference in some people that make them prone to alcoholism or addiction. This is similar to a genetic difference that makes them prone to cancer or diabetes.
If a person has a family history of diabetes, they ought to do their best to prevent getting it themselves, taking reasonable steps like keeping their weight in check. Same with being prone to obesity, or high blood pressure, or… you name it.
We’ve had this discussion numerous times over the years, and I’m sure one of the medical people around here will be able to outline how it behaves as a disease (i.e., it’s progressive and chronic). There are also those who look at it as a mental obsession. Still others as a bad habit. I’ve known people who appear to fall into each one of those descriptions. I don’t think anyone knows the answer for sure.
I’ve seen people walk away from it on their own, and I’ve seen people who couldn’t do it without the aid of a group. I’ve also seen people who simply couldn’t walk away from it and died. I’ve seen alcoholism ruin lives and I’ve seen other alcoholics who enjoyed every single second of their alcoholism right up to their deaths. This topic always makes for an interesting thread.
90% of your arguments are irrelevant or straw men. For instance alcoholism as a “disease” does not - in virtually anybody’s mind - excuse murder or other bad behavior. There’s very few people who would argue that, and in fact the 12-steps focus on taking responsibility for one’s actions. Depression, for the record, is also considered a disease, and also does not excuse grossly bad behavior - so I’m not sure why you’re pointing to it as evidence of anything.
I’d say it qualifies. It’s not really what I think of as a disease, but it fits the definition. Physisicans, however, might have a different opinion on what constitutes a disease.
You think I’m trolling because I have an opinion based on things I have learned, and want to know what other people think based on things other people have learned?
Here:
According to the Wiki most science refutes the results of this particular experiment. Which I did not know, at the time of posting. Happily retracted.
No, I obviously don’t have an alcoholic father who lost both parental rights to his kids as a result of his inability to take care of them. Apparently I also don’t have a predisposition to drinking myself. Jesus Christ.
Calm down, stating these things in an OP and doing a little reading first can help…Now I know we have something in common. But saying things like “whiny poor me victimology” is not a good way to start a scientific rationale, nor a way to pour an audiences sympathies one way or another.
I’m a little surprised, frankly, olives, since while I haven’t read all your posts, I have seen you talk about therapy and the value of it, yet you don’t see the value of the talk therapy that is the 12-step program. Go read the text of the Twelve Steps; there’s nothing in there that tells you to blame your behavior on anything, and in fact, anyone doing these steps is clearly instructed to take responsibility for their own crap. Yes, AA has a very high failure rate, but there is absolutely no other treatment that works better. Go ahead and look for one, you won’t find it.
As Phlosphr said, alcoholism isn’t a disease in the sense that there’s any medical treatment that will cure it, but it most definitely is one that manifests with physical symptoms. After an alcoholic drinks for some period of time, they will have withdrawal symptoms; the body becomes habituated to having that substance and reacts to not having it any more. What gets people confused is that alcoholism is also (and really more than the physical) mental illness. The alcoholic becomes obsessed with drinking and it gradually becomes more important than anything else. The reason it’s so hard for non-alcoholics to understand alcoholics is because they’re not rational. They’re addicted; they’re mentally ill. The AA program talks about the insanity of the disease, and that’s what the program is meant to address. It has a high failure rate because, like any other form of talk therapy, it requires a great deal of self-honesty to work, and that’s very difficult for most people, especially those who have to face up to a lot of destructive behavior.
That’s good, but there’s still no evidence 12-Step programs work-- unless you count anecdotal testimony, which I don’t… and nobody else would for any other kind of argument, so why here?
I’m pointing to it because even if alcoholism does have the same physiological factors as depression does, neither are an excuse for bad behavior, as you have noted.
I’m extremely skeptical of the effectiveness of support groups in general. I’m not close-minded though. I just haven’t ever seen evidence that I’m wrong. If someone can provide evidence that I’m wrong, then my opinion is likely to change.
More generally, I’m not declaring my opinions to be unequivocal truth. I am asking for more information on a topic I know little about. I’m not trying to insult alcoholics, I’m trying to understand what alcoholism is, and I’m looking for solid evidence that 12-Step programs are effective, because everything I turn up says they have an atrocious failure rate.
I apologize, I definitely didn’t mean to offend anybody with this post. The reason I didn’t state that in the OP was because I feel like I’ve been mentioning my own personal history to an embarrassing degree lately and didn’t want to become that girl who never shuts up about her past. I’ve had a bug up my ass lately about the dangers of coddling unhelpful behaviors in the interest of “validating” people – because I feel like if someone had just given me a kick in my own ass six years ago I wouldn’t have wasted all this time being miserable. So yeah, it can come off vicious, and I’m sorry.
Why not start by going to an ALANON or AA 12 step open meeting and listening. It would not only change what you say in your posts but would give valuable information into your father’s behaviour. I feel silly even mentioning it, as I am sure you have already done some if not all of the above…no?
No need to apologize. Non at all. it’s all good
To be honest, I do believe in the value of therapy… but only the kinds that have been proven to work. I don’t think talk therapy has been proven to work in a one-on-one setting. I’ve never seen the science applied to a group setting, though, but given what I know about individual talk therapy, I’m skeptical. The problem with establishing the effectiveness of a given therapy is that there are so many factors that go into it… who the individuals are involved is one of the greatest (but not the only) factors.
What kind of evidence would you accept? And how might that evidence be gathered? What would “proof” that such and such an approach works consist of? I say that I have been sober over 21 years, and I attribute that to living by the Steps. What part of that is dismissable?
I’m not sure what the high failure rate of AA (and all addiction treatments, for that matter), has to do with whether addiction is a disease. One might expect that the more physiologically based a disease is, the more resistant it would be to behavioral intereventions. So I’d be more sympathetic (though not very) to an argument that pointed to the high failure rate as evidence that addiction is a disease. Though in general, treatability doesn’t say anything about whether something is a disease. Some diseases are trivial to treat, others are incurable.
Maybe if you sorted out the points you’re trying to make a bit this would be easier for all of us. Are you mainly arguing against AA as a treatment for alcoholism? Or is it the disease model that bothers you? Are you arguing for personal responsibility whether or not one has a disease? These are entirely different issues.
No, I haven’t. Because, to be honest, my feelings about my father’s alcoholism have been the least of my troubles. Occasionally I get to thinking about it, wondering and feeling, which is what prompted me to make this post. I didn’t realize what a can of worms I was opening!
That’s correct, they don’t ask you to blame it on anything, but they do ask you to turn your problem over to a higher power, i.e., they believe that relief from the disease comes from outside yourself. That ain’t true.
With a 5% success rate, AA’s “treatment” is hardly successful.
But saying things like “whiny poor me victimology” is not a good way to start a scientific rationale, nor a way to pour an audiences sympathies one way or another.
