I’m absolutely certain that posters can come up with more up-to-date statistics that show that such a widespread and popular program as AA is much more successful than the official 1989 figure of 5%.
That’s pretty much why you’ll never get the answer what you want. AA was founded based completely on anecdote. It was is and will always be based on individuals experiences as they relate to alcoholism, where they were, what they did to get out and where they are now. The first meeting of AA was two men sharing their experiences about their alcoholism. And the only solution, according to anyone that I’ve ever met in AA who’s got a happy life and any kind of solid time in sobriety is a spiritual one, which is also impossible to back up with facts. IN FACT, people learn to get sober and work the steps based on the person before them that was successful. That’s in the big book if you need a cite for it. It’s also hard to cite these kinds of things because people talk about them in meetings which are closed for the most part to outsiders and there are also the twelve traditions and principles which stress anonymity at the level of press and film… So not a whole lot gets written about first hand accounts outside of the big book and no ‘studies’ are really performed. You kind of have to take an alcoholics word for it really. Also, any kind of statistics that come from AA itself are totally voluntary and probably don’t mean much. Any statistics that come from anywhere else come from treatment centers which might expose people to AA but have nothing to do with AA as a whole on any level. There’s a saying in AA that “rehabs and treatment centers are for people who need to medically detox” and it’s true. If you’re not going to die because you’re coming off drugs or alcohol you’ve got no business being there because it’s not where the solution lies at all. peace.
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
“This is disturbing in a way. What if someone has a situational drinking problem, goes to the most common and advertised program out there(AA), is told that are addicted to alcohol forever and dare not take even one drink lest they fall off the wagon…and it turns out that maybe, with professional help, they could have controlled it all that time. Am I wrong in thinking that AA takes all who show up to the meetings, without question? I don’t know which is worse in a case like this: self diagnosis, or a group diagnosis by others predisposed by their own history to mark someone as a life-long alcoholic?”
I’ve never ever seen anyone coerced into believing that they’re an alcoholic. It’s totally up to you. The idea is that you can come, compare and contrast, read the literature and decide for yourself. Why would I for instance want to waste my time trying to convince a total stranger that they’re an alcoholic? What do I have to gain from that? It’s a ridiculous notion. Also in my experience people usually convince themselves by going and drinking more. Or they’re proved right that they’re not alcoholics. More power to them, I can’t say that I wish that wasn’t the case for me. No one wants to be an alcoholic. These debates are so ridiculous; if the program works for someone and they’re happy with their results what’s the problem with that? Live and let live. There is no grand conspiracy in AA, read the Twelve Concepts and the Twelve Traditions, those should be enough to dispel any idea that AA is there to brainwash or make money off of unsuspecting souls. Read the 12 and 12 and the big book, there’s nothing malicious or manipulative, there’s no money to be gained by ‘converting’ someone except for a dollar or two in a basket if you WANT to contribute. The whole entire program is voluntary, you can work the steps or not, you can come to meetings drunk if you want and no one’s going to hate you for it, in fact they’re going to try and help you out to the best of their ability. … I just don’t get the naysayer’s and haters out there.Oh and BTW AA doesn’t advertise, read about it before you start posting things that aren’t true. Again I site the big book and the twelve and twelve…
So you get to decide for yourself whether or not you have a disease. Are there any other diseases where this is an accepted practice?
…
The disease theory is much debated, and alcoholism is akin to mental illness. There are plenty of mental illnesses where people have to be medicated before they even realize that they have one, or are willing to acknowledge it ie. mania or schizophrenia… Alcoholism is similar admittedly in a more benign way, but people have to chose to acknowledge it to treat it.
This is also the problem with this debate. Go read the forward to the big book, the doctor’s opinion and anything leading up to page one. You’ll see that AA and alcoholism in general is pretty loose, there’s nothing approaching “accepted practice” the majority of what works in the program is intangible the ‘hard facts’ to win a debate one way or the other are anecdotal and personal and individualistic. It just works. Hard science and AA won’t ever mesh, one is based in measured results that are documented on paper and the other is based in spirituality and is passed on through oral tradition… But, if you’re really a stickler there is evidence that pleasure centers in the brains of alcoholics or anyone addicted to anything react very differently than those who aren’t, but this science is also debatable and in it’s infancy. Google it?
Most mental diseases share this characteristic to a degree. It is one of the aspects that make treatment of such diseases so difficult. They require an entirely different diagnostic/prognostic methodolgy; yet none really exist which live up to modern day science. Or none yet.
http://asktom-naturally.com/articles/addictive.html here’s a cite btw to the pleasure center stuff I was talking about. Also I wanted to add that AA is evidence based in theory meaning that sober long time members present their experience to the newcomer, and the newcomer can believe them or not, and chose to take their suggestions or not. We believe in attraction, not promotion. We naturally attract people to the AA of life by just living it. Believe me, a person who chooses to label themselves as an alcoholic that isn’t sober will gladly try out a new way of living if they see that someone like themselves , with a very similar story, who is sober, working the steps etc is so effing happy with their lives that it’s not even funny. We don’t have to promote, there is no ‘recruiting’ despite what the conspiracy theorists might think.
That is not even a little bit what “evidence-based” means. That would be more like “biased anecdote-based”.
That isn’t evidence-that’s confirmation bias from a group with an incredibly large drop-out rate.
Most mental diseases are self-diagnosed, without diagnosis from a trained professional? Cite? Anyone else want to back up this statement?
Trained professionals in mental health rarely agree on diagnoses. A patient can go to five different doctors and get five different diagnoses. Mental health diagnosis is largely subjective; there is no blood test for the vast majority of disorders.
It is perfectly fine for an untrained amateur to self-diagnose diseases: Yes or No?
“Perfectly fine?” Is that a medical term?
Is that a refusal to commit to an actual answer? If alcoholism is a disease, is it o.k. to self-diagnose this disease, and if so what other diseases fall into this category?
OK? OK with whom? People self diagnose disease every day; colds, allergies, upset stomach; and they self prescribe medication, hence the popularity of OTC medications.
More juvenile game playing? Fine.
Is it your contention that, as a disease, alcoholism is comparable to a cold or an upset stomach, and that we need not worry medical professionals about such a minor matter?
Never, ever? Is that what you are saying?
Clearly, you have a personal axe to grind. I suggest you take it to the appropriate forum.
Aaand…jumping off this silly hijack.
The question remains-is alcoholism a disease that is curable, and if it is a disease who should be diagnosing it and prescribing treatment for it?
Alcoholism has a very low cure rate, no matter who is treating it. That does not mean it is not a disease. The same is true for depression. Some people are cured by doctors and medication; many people are not. Some people are cured by alternative treatments that are self prescribed; many are not.
I don’t understand why you are so hung up on this false dilemma about curable/incurable, disease/not disease, etc. . Mental illness is squarely in the excluded middle. We might as well be arguing whether light is a particle or a wave; it’s two mints in one.