Is alcoholism a disease?

[SoberforME]

Originally Posted by Iriss

I have just had under & beyond the influence delivered, to add to my ever growing stack.. I will read them.... Thanks

You will love them! They helped answer a lot for me!!

[RufusACanal]

I have debated for and against the disease model of Alcoholism over the years, but as I said earlier, I am sober, finally and living free of the bondage of active Alcoholism.

[Mariposa18]

unhealthy behavior that leads to an addiction

I've read through the posts and this made the most sense to me. Alcoholism CANNOT progress if we STOP drinking, right? You can't say the same for diseases like Diabetes and Cancer. And it really gets to me to hear alcoholism referred to being like those two. I'm sorry but nobody chooses to get cancer. Whether you smoke or not you can get cancer. Alcoholism is not that way. You HAVE to drink to become addicted and we chose to pick up those drinks. JMO and I hope I don't get flamed for it.

[nelco]

Hi Iriss, just thought you might like to hear a piece from the bb to get all views...hope it helps...

A.A's early understanding of alcoholism came from Dr. William Duncan Silkworth, who

viewed alcoholism as a manifestation of allergy. As in “The Doctor’s Opinion”

introduction to Alcoholics Anonymous, what A.A. learned from Dr. Silkworth was that:



.

. . the body of the alcoholic is quite as abnormal as his mind. It does not satisfy us to

be told that we cannot control our drinking just because we were maladjusted to life, that

we were in full flight from reality, or were outright mental defectives. These things were

true to some extent, in fact, to a considerable extent with some of us. But we are sure that

our bodies were sickened as well. In our belief, any picture of the alcoholic which leaves

out this physical factor is incomplete.

The doctor's theory that we have a kind of allergy to alcohol interests us. As laymen,

our opinion as to its soundness may, of course, mean little. But as ex-problem drinkers, we can

say that his explanation makes good sense. It explains many things for which we cannot

otherwise account.

Alcoholic anonymous the doctors opinion page xxiv

[gmaklay]

Can it be cured? the answer is no.... it can remain dormant if you do not drink, however it's like a virus it never goes away.

[sfgirl]

People keep bringing up the book Beyond the Influence. In fact quotes from its predecessor are all over this site: Under the Influence. I ordered Beyond the Influence a while ago and hadn't picked it up yet. I just looked at it and you can imagine my disappointment that the two primary authors of a book arguing for alcoholism as a medical disease are just that— authors. Katherine Ketcham is a non-fiction writer and has been her whole life and William Ashbury is a journalist. There are two other authors tagged on there, both addiciton field, one in the alternative medicine field albeit with a PhD links to Harvard, etc, whatever that means. However, this is supposedly a medical book with no MDs, barely a Phd, no scientists, what? I don't know. I haven't read it but it makes me a skeptic.

I then just looked at a review on the LifeRing site:

Beyond the Influence

It seems that Under the Influence was the book I should have bought, although should I really, things have changed a lot in 20 years, too bad Dr. Milam is no longer around to have written a better, more probing, and groundbreaking sequel.

[doorknob]

Originally Posted by sfgirl

I then just looked at a review on the LifeRing site:

Beyond the Influence

Leave it to Marty N. to drop some knowledge on the subject.

Thanks for the link!

[CarolD]

:The fact is we are all here to explore and share

It's best to share what is working for you.

I don't think anyone said either "Under" or "Beyond" was
a medical book.
Yes! I did stop drinking it 20+ years ago after I read "Under"
that is what I share about on SR and in person.

...Before decideing about books..
reading is recommended.

[Sara9009]

I personally don't believe it is a disease. I believe it was something that I did with full knowledge of the eventual consequences and chose to do it anyway. I knew my families genetic history and the probable outcome and still did it. I knew when I had reached that point where I could stop and not become an alcoholic and I still did it. It wasn't because I had a disease it was simply because I felt like it.

I also think about this in terms of drug addiction. Everyone knows that if you shoot heroin you will become addicted to it.... so why start?

The disease concept always confuses me in that if some do believe it is a disease then I find the cure to be very strange. If someone posted on here my wife has cancer and is throwing up blood, behaving erratically, and in an immense amount of physical pain but I am sick of dealing with this and am going to ignore it. We would all say "are you crazy?" Get your arse home and call 911. However, if it is an alcoholic them prescription is let them drink till they hit some imaginary bottom. We wouldn't let cancer progress until it reached a bottom.

I have congenital health problems that I have to deal with every single day of my life and I in no way think I can compare the two as being in the same boat. Alcohol was a choice I made. I didn't choose the health problems I have.

I have a raging migraine so I apologize if my thoughts are not the most cogent at the moment.

[navysteve]

I like the disease concept. Perform a few actions on a daily basis and keep it in remission. This doesn't interfere with my life, on the contrary it allows me to have one worth living.

I believe that is the key, it is a condition which we can treat. Lung Cancer is classified as a disease and can be caused by unhealthy behavior such as smoking, But it is still a disease. Is the unhealthy behavior a disease? Not in my opinion ( mind you, I have no PHD attached to my name). I do believe the disease idea gets twisted in AA meetings ( my disease is talking to me...) In that respect I would argue against the disease concept. I like the fact that the Big Book only uses the word disease in the first 164 pages in reference to resentments. The use of the word disease is there to illustrate how damning these behaviors can be. But once again, the word disease also lets us know these can be treated...

Anyway, that is just my two cents. To make a long rant short, I don't care if it is a disease, I am recovered from whatever it is, but I will have it until I die ( contradiction? I think not!)

[sfgirl]

Originally Posted by CarolD

:The fact is we are all here to explore and share

It's best to share what is working for you.

I don't think anyone said either "Under" or "Beyond" was
a medical book.
Yes! I did stop drinking it 20+ years ago after I read "Under"
that is what I share about on SR and in person.

...Before decideing about books..
reading is recommended.

CarolD—

While I totally understand we are all here to explore and share what is working and I don't want to take away from something that can be really helpful to someone, I fully believe everyone has their own path, and I really don't care whether someone believes if it is a disease or not. I mean I don't even know if I think it is one or not. I probably think it contains components of a disease but that does not fully explain it (by disease here I mean biological factors).

However, I do believe it is really important to know where your information is coming from. Of course I can't judge something that I haven't read. But I can judge someone's qualifications to write a book on a topic. "Under" was written by a doctor with the help of Keetcham. The doctor was a maverick in the addiction field and was presenting groundbreaking premises twenty years ago. "Beyond" did not have an authority like its prequel. It is hard therefore for me to lend the same weight to its information when I read it as I would to say diClemente, who is a professor of psychology at University of Maryland and has been studying and publishing on addiction for decades. When one is in the academic/research community and running their own experiments one is up to speed on all the new theories and will have to reconcile them. You know, I think I am a pretty good researcher and I am sure Keetcham is, but I would never think that I could write a better book on the link between say smoking and cancer or I don't know vaccines and autism than a doctor who had been working in those respective fields for decades. With such a controversial subject, that creates such divergent opinions even in the addiction community, I think that I really would appreciate a true authority and think it is dangerous when non-authorities manage to pass themselves off as such.

[LosingmyMisery]

Whatever it is, I've got it. I can't drink. If I don't drink it can't progress, but don't let that fool you. It does lay dormant and if you pick up again your drinking progresses in an astonishing way. There is no cure, but there is a solution. I'm grateful to have found it. Disease, addiction, sickness, malady, allergy, weakness, it doesn't really matter. What matters is getting and staying sober.

[nelco]

on a lighter note I once heard a guy ask an alcoholic would he like a drink ............"Im allergic to alcohol, I wake up in spots" the alcoholic replied.

"oh dear, what kind of spots" the guy asked

The alcoholic answered "oh you know , park bench, strange beds, police cell . etc"

[Iriss]

[QUOTE=sfgirl;2126972]CarolD—

However, I do believe it is really important to know where your information is coming from. Of course I can't judge something that I haven't read. But I can judge someone's qualifications to write a book on a topic. "Under" was written by a doctor with the help of Keetcham. The doctor was a maverick in the addiction field and was presenting groundbreaking premises twenty years ago. "Beyond" did not have an authority like its prequel. It is hard therefore for me to lend the same weight to its information when I read it as I would to say diClemente, who is a professor of psychology at University of Maryland and has been studying and publishing on addiction for decades. csuch -QUOTE]

Hi SFgirl, I really appreciate your response, and if you wouldnt mind me adding to that... I must have collected about 15 books on addiction, alcohoism etc... I dont really give much weight to how qualified the author is before I read a book, to me experience would come before academic understanding of acoholism and addiction. I would much rather listen to someone with first hand experience who has overcome it, than somone who hasnt.. Thats just my opinion, but as I am so early in recovery, I might yet change my thinking.. Thankyou it was helpful

[CarolD]

sfgirl....
There are SR members who have used either or both
"Under" and "Beyond" to their advantage.

I think it's important for members to know
those books have helped other people.

I used the eating plan + supplements in 'Under"
for about 6 months in my early sobriety.
That worked quite well for me.


Your research may be valuable for members too.
I certainly hope so. How has it helped you?

I sure hope everyone finds a healthy joy filled life.

[ananda]

I think of alchoholism as a disease just cause its what i've been taught to do...when i analize it...i don't know...i know it is physical in nature sorta like diabedis which i also have (but can't spell lol).

What i was told which is why i don't worry about it too much was that when an alchoholic is told they are a sick person trying to get better, not a bad person trying to get good they tend to recover...and that has been true for me....is it a crutch...a lie....???? well...it seems to be one that works at the moment and if it isn't true i figure i'll realize it at some point and then deal with it....but debating it doesn't seem to help me out much

Course i am notorius for mis using words ... it's my forte (lol)

[Iriss]

[QUOTE=ananda;2127299]Iit seems to be one that works at the moment and if it isn't true i figure i'll realize it at some point and then deal with it....but debating it doesn't seem to help me out much

Sorry this hasnt helped you out, and your right if it works for you, thats fantastic, however, for me, I cannot accept it, and I just wanted some thoughts from others who feel the same to see if it could help me.. Thanks

[mattcake79]

I think that it's all about belief systems. If you believe that you suffer from a disease, then you think, feel, and act accordingly. If you don't believe in the disease model, your approach might be different. What matters is the end result, and all points of view agree on it: if you don't want to be a drunk, then don't drink!

However, though I disagree with the disease model, I eventually chose to stop thinking so much

[gerryP]

I have never bought into the disease model for alcoholism.

There is so much more research being done in the area of addiction. I like to read current material. Reading a book that was published 20 years ago....

[Eroica]

If you believe its a disease, then how can you hold alcoholics accountable for what they do while they're drunk? In other words, if they do something horrendous under the influence when driving then you can argue it was out of their control because they're diseased, and therefore not charge them with a crime.. If a person has a heart attack while driving we certainly wouldnt hold him accountable if in that brief second he crashed his car.

[gerryP]

Eroica, that's an interesting point. I have always felt that the disease model has allowed the powerlessness myth to fester.

While the courts take drinking and driving very seriously and do not hesitate to hold those accountable, i often wonder if the disease model of alcoholism is sometimes responsible for relapses.

[paulmh]

It would really help me in this thread if people could give some idea of how long they've been sober. I think that's the great arbiter of whether something works or not. I know this sounds like an invitation to pull sober rank, but I think it's dead important when we're discussing something like this that we get an idea of not just what people's beliefs are but how well those beliefs serve them.

I spent most of my drinking career arguinbg that alcoholsim wasn't a disease and that ppowerlessness was a load of bunk, and my drinking got worse.

Five years and eight months ago I accepted that I was powerless over alcohol - that I had a disease, for want of a better word - and I took responsibility for the unmanageable mess that my life had become. I haven't had a drink since. I've had the craving removed - or certainly it's gone.

There are newcomers reading this thread. They may be swayed by the opinions here. So let's just put it out there - disease model has served me well for more than five years. How about you?

[Dee74]

LOL I'm not sure I'm with you on the sobertime argument Paul - I'm unconvinced we have to bring our 'length of service' in to bolster our arguments.

I've known some long termers who had, in my opinion, some pretty dodgy ideas about addiction/recovery...but the people were technically sober.

LOL if someone had 50 years, and they believed they had been possessed by a demon named Trevor, would that view then hold sway?

My personal experience is I freely admit I don't know what alcoholism is - and don't much care.

I'm not at all scientifically minded - never have been - I'm in to feelings and emotions and...all manner of wibbly wobbly non quantifiable 'stuff'.

All I know is...drink make Dee go bad.

That's enough for me. It's served me perfectly well for night upon two years, but I'm not sure that means diddly to anyone else LOL.

It might go against ideas of scientific validity and empiricism, but I believe sooner or later we each find some concept of alcoholism that makes some kind of sense to us, and we work with that.

I doubt we're gonna find an objective truth here, but I'll leave you all with it
D

[paulmh]

I know you're right Dee, about length of sobriety, but honestly I get confused with some of the things that are written. I did spend a lot of time making a "study" of alcoholism before I got sober and I found that pretty much all that knolwedge was academic.

The disease concept was really fundamental to me getting sober. It changed how I lived with my alcoholism. I don't really like to see people throwing the baby out with the bath water - and particulalrly if they can't get sober themselves - in other words they're still ligving in the problem rather than the solution. And would it be fair to say for yourself - that until such time as you lived in the solution, you couldn't imagine or conceive of what that solution was like? Anyway, taht was true for me. I feel very different in recovery than I did before recovery. So what that means is that people are throwing out things like the disease concept - without actually knowing how it works.

Good to see you by the way!

[Dee74]

I don't really like to see people throwing the baby out with the bath water - and particulalrly if they can't get sober themselves - in other words they're still ligving in the problem rather than the solution.

I absolutely agree with you on this Paul.

I had to come to my recovery with a mind as open as I could possibly make it...I nearly died...and I so badly wanted to live - I wanted that second chance.

So I examined everything, no matter how risible I may have found it, and tried to leave my pride and arrogance and my preconceptions out of it as much as possible.

It wasn't easy, and it's still not - I had, and still sometimes have, to swallow a lot of...well lets say humble pie. I listened a lot.

I wanted to know as much as possible, have as much knowledge as I could (even if I did veer toward the wibbly wobbly stuff LOL) to beat this thing once and for all.

Like you say, I know me then, and I know me now.

I tried many times to fix myself while in the midst of addiction. Not surprisingly? I failed.

To me, to succeed you need perspective, you need patience, you need humility, and you need commitment...none of which I had in any particular abundance until I stopped drinking...and was posting here a good couple of months.

Good to see you too mate
D