Iriss

I would be interested to hear some thoughts on this. This might sound like a silly question, but I am being genuine.. Have, or do any of you question this theory? I know that this theory is officially supported by the professionals, but I have read much speculation which contradicts this..

Personally I find it hard to accept, maybe, I could find long term sobriety if I did accept this, but I struggle with the concept.

They say it a "progressive disease" which I understand, my drinking certainly progressed, but I cant help relating it to something like smoking, we start on 1 or 2 and end up on 20/40/60 a day, so we progrees with our nicotine intake over years.

It would be interesting to hear if anyone else thinks along these lines..

Thanks..

doorknob

I don't believe addiction is a disease in the traditional sense, and don't believe that accepting the concept is necessary for recovery.

tellus

That's a tricky one for me. I think comparing it to diseases like cancer can be dangerous, because those kind of comparisons can be a pity thing. I do not want to be looked at like someone with a terminal illness, nor do I want to look at myself that way.

At the same time, I do believe in the disease concept. I have a condition, whether it's physiological, psychological, or both, that means I cannot drink alcohol. There are some physiological elements to alcoholism, at the very least: it's been shown to "progress" more rapidly in women than in men, to run along genetic lines, et cetera. I think I've even read somewhere that our livers produce enzymes differently than most people's.

CAPTAINZING2000

I just call it an allergy an let it go at that!!!

tommyk

It is a disease for me, but I don't know if it is for anyone else.

CarolD

Here are the resons I think it is a disease

http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...influence.html

If I am incorrect....it does not matter to me.
I stopped drinking after I read it in '89...

Call alcoholism whatever you choose...
quiting alcohol and staying quit is possible

laurie6781

Is it a disease? Is is NOT a disease?

I don't know. I don't care. All I know is I got it, lol and it killed me. Yes, it did. Many on here know, they were putting the TOD on my ER chart when my heart started on it's own.

What I did find out in early recovery is that I OVER ANALYZED everything. The trick if you want to call it that for me to STAY STOPPED was to ACCEPT that 1) my alcoholism had progressed, and 2) that I could no longer drink and live.

White knuckle? Sure, I white knuckled at first, I don't know of too many that don't. But every day was just a teeny bit better. Then it got worse as all the WRECKAGE started catching up to me, but thank HP for new sober friends that walked through the mess with me.

Disease, not a disease, doesn't matter. There are ways for me to control it, big one being that I don't drink. I have diabetes too and a big way of controlling that is my diabetic eating plan.

Once ACCEPTANCE of 'not being able to drink' hits, then the not drinking becomes easier. Life becomes better, and we get on with the business of living life on life's terms SOBER AND CLEAN.

J M H O

Love and hugs,

Tommyh

I think of my alcoholism as a illness with a bunch of bad insane behavior attached to it

Iriss

[QUOTE=laurie6781;2126197]

Disease, not a disease, doesn't matter. There are ways for me to control it, big one being that I don't drink. I have diabetes too and a big way of controlling that is my diabetic eating plan.


Thanks that's helpful, I think maybe I do over analyze, but that's my nature..
I dont suppose it really matter, its how to stay sober that does...

collinsmi

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.

SoberforME

I would suggest reading Beyond the influence and Under the Influence.

If it's a disease or not, it's something I couldn't control on my own. That was enough for me to stop.

gmaklay

It's an addictive behavior which can be inherited therefore it can be considered a disease.

I have addictive behaviors on both sides of my family, however mine has gotten the best of me. They have never tried to stop drinking. If they ever decide to stop I would imagine the sh&t would hit the fan too. As long as I kept drinking I didn't have problems, it's when I would try to dry out is when things went south.

Iriss

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

flutter

This is a huge debate among the medical/psych/addiction communities. Yes, the AMA designated it as a disease based on a loose interpretation of an archaic disease model.

I dont think it matters in the long run.

I don't believe that it is a disease, personally.

Another good book that looks at the disease concept versus dependency behavior is The Alcoholism and Addiction Cure. Even if you just read the first 2 chapters, it's an interesting take on the idea. One part that kinda resonated with me was when Prentiss was talking about how if someone took a lot of aspirin for a headache, they aren’t going to be diagnosed with ‘aspirinism’ or labeled an ‘aspirinaholic’, however the reason a person was taking the aspirin would be checked by a doc, and treated. If I’m a smoker, and I quit, I may have lung disease, but I’m not a smoker for life. I know chronic alcohol use can contribute to the causes of many medical diseases and conditions that are fatal. Can be debated forever I suppose, all I know is that I drank too much, and I don’t anymore.

Iriss

Thanks very much, you mirror many of my thoughts.. I think Ive read most of the book your talking about, father and son, he now runs a clinic in calafornia I think.... I am just also waiting for rational recovery to be delivered by Jack Trimpey x Thanks

Eroica

I believe addiction is a very unhealthy lifestyle choice. A disease has

1) A clear set of symptoms applicable to all who suffer from it, and

2) A mode of action that causes bodily harm

In both cases, there is no definite meaning for alcoholic disease as there is for say another disease, such as diabetes or heart disease. Once someone is diabetic, something happened in their pancreas that can never be reversed and now that person suffers from high glucose levels. Yes you can try to prevent diabetes but its either there or not. The mechanism by which its harming your body is totally out of your control. (Unless I'm totally wrong on this. I'm not a doctor. LOL) No is cured of diabetes.

A lot of people try to prove alcoholism is a disease by comparing it diabetes, but I see few similarities. Yes you can manage the course of both diseases depending on lifestyle choice, but once you stop drugging and drinking, there are no symptoms, and nothing is harming your body. Then where is the disease? Even if you say that there underlying issues causing the drinking, are these issues applicable to all addicts? If they're not then the only clear symptom is the desire to use.

CAPTAINZING2000

the good thing is, it's treatable what ever you want to label it

yeahgr8

I believe it is a disease and don't care if i am wrong.

Eroica

Its really hard to stop drinking and drugging. If all cancer patients had to do was something that was really hard for them in order to be cured, then cancer wouldnt be a disease. If they could cure it through tons of support, it wouldn't be a disease. Unfortunately, there is nothing they can do besides treatments. If you could cure HIV by not doing something, then it wouldn't be a pandemic. Just my opinion.

sfgirl

The best explanation that I have found as an answer to this question is from Addiction and Change by Carlo diClemente. His answer, and it seems that of the medical community is that the disease model is not all encompassing enough:

p5-6: "In most disease models [of addiction], understanding etiology is critical because it often uncovers the source of the problem— a virus or a contaminated environment and a mode of transmission—which when attacked or resolved leads to the eradication of the problem."

p11 "The physiological effects of tolerance and withdrawal as well as the movement away from an explanation of addiction of morally reprehensible behavior has led to addictions being understood within a medical model. This perspective has also been promoted in the materials describing the 12 steps and 12 traditions of AA that talk about the disease of alcoholism, which they liken to a chronic allergic reaction (alcoholics Anonymous, 1952). Others believe that alcoholism is a disease that is not completely physiologically based (miller & Keurtz, 1994; Sheehan & Owen, 1999). The disease model has been instrumental in shifting society's view of alcohol dependence from one of moral deviance and sinful behavior to one that promotes understanding and treatment. However, there are many criticisms of this use of a disease model for understanding alcoholism (Donovan & Marlatt, 1988; Miller & Rollnick, 1991). It is also interesting to note that proponents of the disease model for alcoholism will not always use the same explanation for drugs of abuse and have some difficulty when the concept is extended to behaviors like gambling.
For all addictive behaviors there appears to be a role for physiological mechanisms and, potentially, for genetic factors in the behavior's initiation, problematic long-term use, abuse, and dependence. However, there are many questions and concerns about assigning sole causality or primacy to genetic/physiological factors (Newlin, Miles, van den Bree, Gupman & Pickens, 2000). Because so many individuals can become addicted to so many types of substances or behaviors, biological or genetic differences do not explain all the cultural, situational, and intrapersonal differences among addicted individuals and addictive behaviors (Cadoret, 1992)."

p19 "The diverse etiological perspectives for understanding addiction discussed above most often offer partial, often one dimensional views of the problem of addiction. The social/environmental model envisions addiction arising mostly as a reflection of the type of social environment (poverty/lack of education and opportunity, and so on) surrounding the individual who becomes addicted or highlights the influence of labeling and other social phenomena. The genetic/physiological model searches for answers in the biological dimension. The personality/intrapsychic model views addiction as a failure of character and will. The coping/social learning model sees addictions as function of personal coping behavior and the influence of role models, peers and parents. Conditioning/reinforcement models search the environment or the cues and reinforcers that create an addiction. However, it bears repeating that no single source of influence has been found that can explain any single addiction, let alone all the carious types of addiction. There is also no single developmental model or singular historical path that can explain acquistion of and recovery from addictions."

So basically his answer is that while biological factors contribute they certainly are not the only contributing factors. Also that the disease model alone cannot fully explain addiction, in fact no model taken alone can fully explain addiction and the real answer lies in sort of a transtheoretical approach.

I get annoyed by this question not for the reason that I think other people do but simply because I never understand it. I think that when someone asks it each person means something entirely different by the word disease. I just wish especially when using the word disease with alcoholism that people would qualify the term better— do you mean to say then that alcoholism is caused by purely biological factors? do you mean then that it is genetically caused? or is it not my fault? I just think people mean very different things by this word and I never understand what. Hence my probably annoyingly long winded response.