Disease or not?
Guest
Posts: n/a
NOT!!
I wholeheartedly agree with whoever posted that if Alcoholism is a disease, so then is any addiction (cigarettes, coffee, etc.)
My partner has advanced cancer. Now THAT is a disease. I drank for 20+ years very heavily, but I am not diseased. My drinking ultimately, was my choice, while my partner's cancer isn't. Just as I chose to drink, I chose to stop. My drinking came with big costs, and with herculian efforts, I stopped two years ago.
For those of us who process alcohol differently and cannot handle drinking, labelling ourselves "diseased" is sometimes an advantage - it gives us a convenient excuse to relapse, but at the same time, gives access to insured treatments and counseling. It's really a catch-22 situation.
While we do not choose diabetes, or cancer, we do have the power to choose not to drink.
My partner has advanced cancer. Now THAT is a disease. I drank for 20+ years very heavily, but I am not diseased. My drinking ultimately, was my choice, while my partner's cancer isn't. Just as I chose to drink, I chose to stop. My drinking came with big costs, and with herculian efforts, I stopped two years ago.
For those of us who process alcohol differently and cannot handle drinking, labelling ourselves "diseased" is sometimes an advantage - it gives us a convenient excuse to relapse, but at the same time, gives access to insured treatments and counseling. It's really a catch-22 situation.
While we do not choose diabetes, or cancer, we do have the power to choose not to drink.
Paused
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15
Alcoholism certainly isn't cancer and I'm sorry for you and your partner. But calling it a disease does not demean other diseases. It is simply a recognition of what is. Others here have put down the disease concept. Are you all smarter than the AMA. They judged it to be a disease almost 50 years ago. And continue to do so. Why? Have they all taken bribes or sexual favors from cute alcholics? Maybe Bill W. Hypnotized them, you know, cast a spell or something. Come on people. If the AMA considers it a disease, why in the hell are lay people arguing it is not.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Riverside, Ca.
Posts: 388
I don't know how you guys drank but I lost to ability to chose to drink or not years before I got sober, If you still had that option be gratefull, I wouldnt wish the disease on anybody, and it looks like some of us never had to get that far, what a blessing.
But Very, Very Bruisable...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Palm Springs, Ca.
Posts: 548
Stoip Ignoring Me!!! (LOL)
I repeat: Anybody who "chooses" to take that first drink, knowing from experience what the results and/or consequences will be, simply cannot be considered rational.
I KNOW what happensto me when I drink. My EXPERIENCE has shown me that when I drink I end up in jail, psych wards, emergency rooms, behind the wheel of a car, etc. Yet I have still made that "choice." This is a simple definition of insanity or, at the very least, a death wish.
My all-powerful mind can only handle an obsession for so long.
My solution is to do what is necessary to prevent the obsession from occuring in the first place.
AA states, in it's very own text, that AA has NO MONOPOLY on recovery.
My opinion: If you do not suffer from obsessions, and do not crave more after the first one, you may not be an alcoholic.
There is so much more than the physical act of picking up the first one. It is a convolution with my perception and my reality. My mind is warped. It tells me that "this time I WONT go to jail, this time I WONT lose my job, this time I WONT go into seizures."
But back to choice...
Since we all have so much power in choice, why badger or belittle or argue with those that have chosen AA? You can't have it both ways.
Final Comment:
If you have the power to choose, and you have chosen not to drink, and it works for you, then you are obviosuly done with drinking. Great! That is awesome!!! Question- Since you don't need "support", why exactly are you here???
I repeat: Anybody who "chooses" to take that first drink, knowing from experience what the results and/or consequences will be, simply cannot be considered rational.
I KNOW what happensto me when I drink. My EXPERIENCE has shown me that when I drink I end up in jail, psych wards, emergency rooms, behind the wheel of a car, etc. Yet I have still made that "choice." This is a simple definition of insanity or, at the very least, a death wish.
My all-powerful mind can only handle an obsession for so long.
My solution is to do what is necessary to prevent the obsession from occuring in the first place.
AA states, in it's very own text, that AA has NO MONOPOLY on recovery.
My opinion: If you do not suffer from obsessions, and do not crave more after the first one, you may not be an alcoholic.
There is so much more than the physical act of picking up the first one. It is a convolution with my perception and my reality. My mind is warped. It tells me that "this time I WONT go to jail, this time I WONT lose my job, this time I WONT go into seizures."
But back to choice...
Since we all have so much power in choice, why badger or belittle or argue with those that have chosen AA? You can't have it both ways.
Final Comment:
If you have the power to choose, and you have chosen not to drink, and it works for you, then you are obviosuly done with drinking. Great! That is awesome!!! Question- Since you don't need "support", why exactly are you here???
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dreaming Summer
Posts: 821
Originally posted by Jon
But back to choice...
Since we all have so much power in choice, why badger or belittle or argue with those that have chosen AA? You can't have it both ways.
But back to choice...
Since we all have so much power in choice, why badger or belittle or argue with those that have chosen AA? You can't have it both ways.
From the RR forums:
"Rational Recovery® provides the very best AA-bashing to be found anywhere. AA-bashing is a direct outcome of AVRT®, and a necessary part of addiction recovery.
Jack Trimpey"
phoenix
But Very, Very Bruisable...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Palm Springs, Ca.
Posts: 548
AVRT has it's merits. Jack just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Besides, anybody that believes AVRT can help a person "cure" their homosexuality can't be all "rational" in the first place.
And he designed AVRT.
"Nuff said..."
Besides, anybody that believes AVRT can help a person "cure" their homosexuality can't be all "rational" in the first place.
And he designed AVRT.
"Nuff said..."
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 610
Going by the differences in how a typical drinking spree ended:
I suppose there are different types of drinkers and I'm guessing that different recovery methods work for different types of drinkers. And that includes beliefs as well. So, would'nt it be dangerous, or foolish at best, to assume that any one of them would work for everyone? I don't see AA assuming this? I sure see others doing it.
This thread sure has taught me a lot about my own assumptions, and I'm really glad you've all taken the time to post here.
Amy
Originally posted by munchdaddy
Plop on the couch and do as little as possible. Pop some Tums to combat the vodka and wings. I doesn’t get any better than this.
Plop on the couch and do as little as possible. Pop some Tums to combat the vodka and wings. I doesn’t get any better than this.
Originally posted by Ninerfan
It s not a question of choice, I cant or dont want to stop until I've passed out or gotten arrested or punched out etc.
It s not a question of choice, I cant or dont want to stop until I've passed out or gotten arrested or punched out etc.
This thread sure has taught me a lot about my own assumptions, and I'm really glad you've all taken the time to post here.
Amy
Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 46
Father X.: Bill, I noticed that in your talk you did not use the word "disease" Did you intend to make any kind of distinction between disease and sickness?
Bill W.: We AAs have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease. Instead there are many separate heart ailments or combinations of them. It is something like that with alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity.
http://www.a-1associates.com/AA/wils...the_clergy.htm
Bill W.: We AAs have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease. Instead there are many separate heart ailments or combinations of them. It is something like that with alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity.
http://www.a-1associates.com/AA/wils...the_clergy.htm
Paused
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15
Looks like you've made your point. I suggest we all read this thing. Here is an excerpt that mitigates the damage:
Sickness Concept Versus Responsibility
Early in A.A.'s history, very natural questions arose among theologians._ There was a Mr. Link who had written a popular treatise called "The Return to Religion."
One day I received a call from him._ He strongly objected to the A.A. position that alcoholism was an illness._ This concept, he felt, removed moral responsibility from alcoholics._ He had been voicing this complaint
about psychiatrists in the American Mercury._ And now, he said, he was_ going to lambaste A.A. too._
Of course I made haste to point out that we AAs did not use the concept of sickness to absolve our members from moral responsibility._ On the contrary, we used the fact of fatal illness to clamp the heaviest kind of moral
responsibility on to the sufferer.__
The further point was made that in his early days of drinking the alcoholic often was no doubt guilty of irresponsibility and gluttony. But once the time of compulsive drinking, veritable lunacy, had arrived, he could
not very well be held accountable for his conduct._ He then had a lunacy which condemned him to drink in spite of all he could do; he had developed a bodily sensitivity to alcohol that guaranteed his final madness and death
This is from the same article.
Sickness Concept Versus Responsibility
Early in A.A.'s history, very natural questions arose among theologians._ There was a Mr. Link who had written a popular treatise called "The Return to Religion."
One day I received a call from him._ He strongly objected to the A.A. position that alcoholism was an illness._ This concept, he felt, removed moral responsibility from alcoholics._ He had been voicing this complaint
about psychiatrists in the American Mercury._ And now, he said, he was_ going to lambaste A.A. too._
Of course I made haste to point out that we AAs did not use the concept of sickness to absolve our members from moral responsibility._ On the contrary, we used the fact of fatal illness to clamp the heaviest kind of moral
responsibility on to the sufferer.__
The further point was made that in his early days of drinking the alcoholic often was no doubt guilty of irresponsibility and gluttony. But once the time of compulsive drinking, veritable lunacy, had arrived, he could
not very well be held accountable for his conduct._ He then had a lunacy which condemned him to drink in spite of all he could do; he had developed a bodily sensitivity to alcohol that guaranteed his final madness and death
This is from the same article.
Paused
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15
Again, this is from the Bill W. interview:
Presently I began the weary round of hospitals.
Finally, Dr. William D. Silkworth of Towns Hospital at New York, a medical saint if there ever was one, took an interest in my case._ Knowing my desperate desire to stop, he thought I might be one of the rare ones who
could recover._ But in the end he had to give up._ Gently, but very definitely, he had to tell my wife: "Your
husband has an obsession that condemns him to drink; nothing that I know_ no treatment at all can put an end to it._ He also has some sort of physical defect -- maybe an allergy -- that guarantees he will damage his brain if he
keeps on._ Indeed, there is a little damage already.
"He also has some sort of physical defect -- maybe an allergy -- that guarantees he will damage his brain if he keeps on."
Hmmm
Presently I began the weary round of hospitals.
Finally, Dr. William D. Silkworth of Towns Hospital at New York, a medical saint if there ever was one, took an interest in my case._ Knowing my desperate desire to stop, he thought I might be one of the rare ones who
could recover._ But in the end he had to give up._ Gently, but very definitely, he had to tell my wife: "Your
husband has an obsession that condemns him to drink; nothing that I know_ no treatment at all can put an end to it._ He also has some sort of physical defect -- maybe an allergy -- that guarantees he will damage his brain if he
keeps on._ Indeed, there is a little damage already.
"He also has some sort of physical defect -- maybe an allergy -- that guarantees he will damage his brain if he keeps on."
Hmmm
Paused
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: scottsdale az
Posts: 118
Rational Recovery and is alcoholism a disease?
Rational Recovery is what you take from it. Jack Trimpey does have some bizzare ideas such as the ability to cure homosexuality...somebody is a couple beers short a six pack. I believe that he is trying a little too hard to gain attention and recognition, and what better way by bashing AA, a program that has helped alcoholics for over 70 years. He has intentions in both helping alcoholism and also making money, for you do have to pay for the tapes. You also have to put into consideration that due to his views on how to help alcoholics, the idea of attending meetings does not fit with his. His ideas are that alcoholism is not a disease and that sticking with attending meetings everyday and dwelling on the disease concept may only lead to relapse and that it makes it harder for one to fully enjoy life. He has proven that alcoholics have recovered by just using tools to ward off those unwanted voices, or cravings, and therefor making it easier to enjoy life without constant meetings. He also believes that a higher power isn't neccesary to recover because there have been many atheists who have recovered. That every addict is their own individual. So you can see the conflicting ideas between the two programs. I believe that he could have stated his ideas without bashing another program and that it is completley unnecessary. Jack has put some great ideas on his tapes but I don't follow him as an individual. He is a crude in many ways. Rational Recovery is not a program just to clear it up. The bashing is prevalent but not everyone who uses this recovery bashes AA.
Is alcoholism a disease?
Knowing this, I could care less if alcoholism is a disease. If it is then my goal is recovery. If alcoholism isn't a disease then my goal is recovery. In what way is bickering over this idea helping YOUR recovery? And in what way will this idea change your recovery plan? As I watch everyone bitch about this I only see people straying away from their inital recovery. We all know that alcohol is a poison and that it is not good for our body so naturally if we keep drinking we are only hurting ourself. Our body does become physically and mentally dependent upon it and there is no arguing that.
There is no scientific proof whether or not alcoholism is a disease and there never will be because it will always be an opinion. An opinion that leads to nothing but what I see going on right now. Conflict. Ask yourself. Is conflict good for YOUR recovery?
Is alcoholism a disease?
Knowing this, I could care less if alcoholism is a disease. If it is then my goal is recovery. If alcoholism isn't a disease then my goal is recovery. In what way is bickering over this idea helping YOUR recovery? And in what way will this idea change your recovery plan? As I watch everyone bitch about this I only see people straying away from their inital recovery. We all know that alcohol is a poison and that it is not good for our body so naturally if we keep drinking we are only hurting ourself. Our body does become physically and mentally dependent upon it and there is no arguing that.
There is no scientific proof whether or not alcoholism is a disease and there never will be because it will always be an opinion. An opinion that leads to nothing but what I see going on right now. Conflict. Ask yourself. Is conflict good for YOUR recovery?
Paused
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ny, ny
Posts: 46
I have reread through this entire thread, and here are my final thoughts on the subject. I recognize and respect the need for some individuals to subscribe to the disease concept. This subscription fits into their overall “program” that is working to maintain abstinence from alcohol. Like I said at the onset, if this works for you, you are the only one qualified to determine that and keep it up.
The problem that I have with the disease concept is that “alcoholism” and “addiction” do not fit the criteria of a disease, as it is outlined by the definition of a disease itself. Each individual here who has argued to the contrary, has done so in one of two ways:
First, they have argued that the consequences of excess intoxication (liver disease, bad judgment, “defective spirit”, etc., etc., etc.) prove the “disease of alcoholism.” The failings of these arguments are that they focus on the end and not the means. True diseases are diseases in and of themselves, and are diseases independent of their initial cause. If you smoke and get cancer, you have cancer and not the disease of smoking. If you eat too much fast food and get heart disease, you have heart disease and not the disease of Ronald McDonald. If you drink to excess and develop ______, you have _______and not the “disease of Alcoholism.”
Second, people here have used the AMA classification as “empirical proof” that alcoholism is a disease. This ignores the reasons for this AMA classification. Labeling alcoholism as a disease is based on the concept that it can be diagnosed and treated as a “disease process” with a characteristic chain of events. This paradigm also includes arsenic, lead, asbestos, ricin and deficiencies such as iodine, vitamin D, calcium, etc. We have laws that address these disease processes such as acceptable levels of arsenic, lead, and the addition of iodine to salt. What is also clear is that we do not catch addiction like a cold, we chose it. Even if we catch it, we chose to continue or stop. (Provided by jefff). Using such classifications of a disease to say that you have an illness is doing so regardless of the original intent of theses classifications.
I could be wrong, but I do not think that people who ingest too much iodine feel as though they have an illness to blame.
So, I appreciated this debate. I am now going to enjoy my health. I wish those of you who need it the very best of luck in treating your sickness for the rest of your life.
One of many if you take the time to look:
http://193.78.190.200/2/4/failing.htm
The problem that I have with the disease concept is that “alcoholism” and “addiction” do not fit the criteria of a disease, as it is outlined by the definition of a disease itself. Each individual here who has argued to the contrary, has done so in one of two ways:
First, they have argued that the consequences of excess intoxication (liver disease, bad judgment, “defective spirit”, etc., etc., etc.) prove the “disease of alcoholism.” The failings of these arguments are that they focus on the end and not the means. True diseases are diseases in and of themselves, and are diseases independent of their initial cause. If you smoke and get cancer, you have cancer and not the disease of smoking. If you eat too much fast food and get heart disease, you have heart disease and not the disease of Ronald McDonald. If you drink to excess and develop ______, you have _______and not the “disease of Alcoholism.”
Second, people here have used the AMA classification as “empirical proof” that alcoholism is a disease. This ignores the reasons for this AMA classification. Labeling alcoholism as a disease is based on the concept that it can be diagnosed and treated as a “disease process” with a characteristic chain of events. This paradigm also includes arsenic, lead, asbestos, ricin and deficiencies such as iodine, vitamin D, calcium, etc. We have laws that address these disease processes such as acceptable levels of arsenic, lead, and the addition of iodine to salt. What is also clear is that we do not catch addiction like a cold, we chose it. Even if we catch it, we chose to continue or stop. (Provided by jefff). Using such classifications of a disease to say that you have an illness is doing so regardless of the original intent of theses classifications.
I could be wrong, but I do not think that people who ingest too much iodine feel as though they have an illness to blame.
So, I appreciated this debate. I am now going to enjoy my health. I wish those of you who need it the very best of luck in treating your sickness for the rest of your life.
One of many if you take the time to look:
http://193.78.190.200/2/4/failing.htm
Paused
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: scottsdale az
Posts: 118
Though I could care less whether alcoholism is a disease or not, munchdaddy has certainly provided the most clear cut answer to this topic if you were to ask me. He went beyond the empirical evidence. I found the "Ronald McDonald" theory partically amusing. "We eat too much junk food and get heart disease, not Ronald McDonald disease." The same goes with smoking.
I use the term addiction and not disease. NOt because I care whether or not it is a disease but because clearly, I am addicted. There is no argue with that debat
I use the term addiction and not disease. NOt because I care whether or not it is a disease but because clearly, I am addicted. There is no argue with that debat
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Leaving Sparta
Posts: 2,912
Thanks for the article Munch.It is worth reading.
However If you are happy that this is "empirical proof" then that is your perogative.
This section alone indicates that the findings are inconclusive.
Justaround,lighten up.
Recovery means the ability to get on with our lives and to face life on life's terms.There is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate,but if you feel debating may pose a threat to your sobriety then dont participate.
Peter.
However If you are happy that this is "empirical proof" then that is your perogative.
Despite much that has been written and argued, answers to these and other questions are by no means clear, although it may be fair to conclude that control of socially costly 'addiction' problems may not be attained without new social structures. In this context, if 'addiction' is a disease, it is more a social than a medical disease. Sociology and psychology may hold the key to its control, although not likely to
Justaround,lighten up.
Recovery means the ability to get on with our lives and to face life on life's terms.There is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate,but if you feel debating may pose a threat to your sobriety then dont participate.
Peter.
member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Posts: 281
If I understand him correctly I think the point munchdaddy is basically trying to make is that calling alcoholism a disease leads some people to see an alcoholic as a helpless victim rather than as a miscreant who needs to take responsibility for his actions. He seems to see alcoholism as something that just needs to be walked away from (mind over matter) rather than as something that needs to be treated as a disease. I do not see this argument as being without merit, but I think perhaps it takes the definition of "disease" as being extremely limited and unflexible.
On the other hand Phoenix had mentioned the 5 criteria the AMA used in determining that alcoholism is a disease. I don't think this was to say alcoholism as a disease is exactly the same as others such as cancer or heart disease. Sometimes there are variations of the same thing that make them...well, not exactly the same.
For example, if I was to say I'm going skiing tomorrow, two very similar but very different things may come to mind. I could be talking about snow skiing, or I could be talking about water skiing. They both use skis and have some other similar characteristics, but if you've ever tried both of them like I have (and probably even if you haven't) you know they are far from being the same activity.
I think the AMA's criteria simply shows that alcoholism has some remarkable and substantial similarities to other conventional diseases and should be treated with a similar sense of urgency. If someone has skin cancer they may want to stay away from the sun. If someone has trouble controlling how much alcohol they consume, sometimes referred to as alcoholism, they may want to stay away from alcohol.
I don't see any real danger or problem in calling it a disease. People know the difference between alocholism and cancer or any other disease for that matter just like they know the difference between water skiing and snow skiing. The important thing is what works for each individual, as munchdaddy already has conceded. So is alcoholism a disease? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to that question, it's just a matter of perspective. Does it have some substantial similarities to other conventional diseases? The AMA, Phoenix, and many others think it does and I agree. Does it have some substantial differences to other conventional diseases? Munchdaddy and I'm sure many others think it does and once again, I agree.
On the other hand Phoenix had mentioned the 5 criteria the AMA used in determining that alcoholism is a disease. I don't think this was to say alcoholism as a disease is exactly the same as others such as cancer or heart disease. Sometimes there are variations of the same thing that make them...well, not exactly the same.
For example, if I was to say I'm going skiing tomorrow, two very similar but very different things may come to mind. I could be talking about snow skiing, or I could be talking about water skiing. They both use skis and have some other similar characteristics, but if you've ever tried both of them like I have (and probably even if you haven't) you know they are far from being the same activity.
I think the AMA's criteria simply shows that alcoholism has some remarkable and substantial similarities to other conventional diseases and should be treated with a similar sense of urgency. If someone has skin cancer they may want to stay away from the sun. If someone has trouble controlling how much alcohol they consume, sometimes referred to as alcoholism, they may want to stay away from alcohol.
I don't see any real danger or problem in calling it a disease. People know the difference between alocholism and cancer or any other disease for that matter just like they know the difference between water skiing and snow skiing. The important thing is what works for each individual, as munchdaddy already has conceded. So is alcoholism a disease? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to that question, it's just a matter of perspective. Does it have some substantial similarities to other conventional diseases? The AMA, Phoenix, and many others think it does and I agree. Does it have some substantial differences to other conventional diseases? Munchdaddy and I'm sure many others think it does and once again, I agree.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Leaving Sparta
Posts: 2,912
A disease is a sickness,illness,malady of the mind or body.
Alcoholism may not be like cancer, but it is certainly like high blood pressure.it's a disease with no known physical cause but with known physical consequences like cirrhosis of the liver and brain damage.
As alcoholism worsens, voluntary control rapidly deteriorates. Calling alcoholism a disease exposes how little control its victims have. Choice matters at first, but in later phases, alcoholics have almost no choice.
Since Munch seems to be so good at determining cause and effect maybe he will define the nature of the disease/illness/sickness/malady of high blood pressure.
Peter.
Alcoholism may not be like cancer, but it is certainly like high blood pressure.it's a disease with no known physical cause but with known physical consequences like cirrhosis of the liver and brain damage.
As alcoholism worsens, voluntary control rapidly deteriorates. Calling alcoholism a disease exposes how little control its victims have. Choice matters at first, but in later phases, alcoholics have almost no choice.
Since Munch seems to be so good at determining cause and effect maybe he will define the nature of the disease/illness/sickness/malady of high blood pressure.
Peter.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dreaming Summer
Posts: 821
Kinda funny....if the RR folks could simply say that they don't feel that their drinking qualifies as a disease, I doubt that any of us would argue.I certainly wouldn't.
Unfortunately,the Rational Recovery program mandates the negative attitude and the bashing of AA and the disease concept.A visit to their website makes that very clear.It is the main focus of their discussions,even amongst themselves.Jack himself mandates it as a requirement.A program of recovery based on it's founder's obsessive resentment
(Rational Recovery® provides the very best AA-bashing to be found anywhere. AA-bashing is a direct outcome of AVRT®, and a necessary part of addiction recovery.
Jack Trimpey)
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in hearing the other aspects of the RR program.There is probably a lot of merit in it.But everything I have ever heard from those who post here,or found on the RR website is all tangled up in the relentless bashing.At best they may come across with a condescending attitude.
If anyone of them could start a thread about the positive techniques of RR,and steer clear of the anti AA spiel just for a while,I would be very interested in reading it.
phoenix
Unfortunately,the Rational Recovery program mandates the negative attitude and the bashing of AA and the disease concept.A visit to their website makes that very clear.It is the main focus of their discussions,even amongst themselves.Jack himself mandates it as a requirement.A program of recovery based on it's founder's obsessive resentment
(Rational Recovery® provides the very best AA-bashing to be found anywhere. AA-bashing is a direct outcome of AVRT®, and a necessary part of addiction recovery.
Jack Trimpey)
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in hearing the other aspects of the RR program.There is probably a lot of merit in it.But everything I have ever heard from those who post here,or found on the RR website is all tangled up in the relentless bashing.At best they may come across with a condescending attitude.
If anyone of them could start a thread about the positive techniques of RR,and steer clear of the anti AA spiel just for a while,I would be very interested in reading it.
phoenix
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
