Choice vs disease
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 356
Choice vs disease
In case anyone is interested, this is a very good documentary on addiction and alcoholism specifically. They showed it to us in rehab for family week and it is finally on YouTube in its entirety. I highly recommend it to anyone that is affected by addiction, both addicts and their family. Hopefully they won’t pull it off of YouTube.
Pleasure Unwoven
https://youtu.be/ptyrwcBICaE
Pleasure Unwoven
https://youtu.be/ptyrwcBICaE
Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 681
That was a very well made program. It actually opened my mind to the fact that just maybe there really is damage done to the brain, and the alcoholic really might find it almost impossible to stop. Still dont agree 100%, but the program was so easy to understand, simply explained and just all around great.
Forum Leader
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,944
There was a good discussion about that here:
https://www.soberrecovery.com/forums...50-choice.html (Choice?)
https://www.soberrecovery.com/forums...50-choice.html (Choice?)
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 232
It opens up the discussion in a balanced assessment.
The question that stuck to me is 'what is the causality?'.
While I can't say it in scientific terms but this is exactly how I tell my children about drugs and alcohol:
In almost every thing you could ever try(ALMOST), the chances of becoming addicted are almost non-existent. Beer, cigarettes, pot, whatever(except crack): chances are you won't become addicted on the first drink, puff, whatever. There is no 'magic number' a person's gotta hit before they become addicted, as most addicts will tell you they just woke up one time and asked 'how did I get here?'. But what I can tell you is the magic number that will all but guarantee that you WON'T become addicted to any of that garbage is ZERO. If you don't drink, it's impossible to suffer from alcoholism. Same with nicotine addiction or any other addiction (aside from pain meds from an injury or operation). So that first beer puts you one drink closer to alcoholism, that first snort of coke, the same, etc.
Don't even start and it'll be one 'disease' that you wouldn't have 'caused' to happen...
The question that stuck to me is 'what is the causality?'.
While I can't say it in scientific terms but this is exactly how I tell my children about drugs and alcohol:
In almost every thing you could ever try(ALMOST), the chances of becoming addicted are almost non-existent. Beer, cigarettes, pot, whatever(except crack): chances are you won't become addicted on the first drink, puff, whatever. There is no 'magic number' a person's gotta hit before they become addicted, as most addicts will tell you they just woke up one time and asked 'how did I get here?'. But what I can tell you is the magic number that will all but guarantee that you WON'T become addicted to any of that garbage is ZERO. If you don't drink, it's impossible to suffer from alcoholism. Same with nicotine addiction or any other addiction (aside from pain meds from an injury or operation). So that first beer puts you one drink closer to alcoholism, that first snort of coke, the same, etc.
Don't even start and it'll be one 'disease' that you wouldn't have 'caused' to happen...
Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 681
Yep, agree 100%. With all the alcoholics in my family I decided I wouldn't drink even a drop of alcohol after my early 20's. I never wanted my kids to grow up in an alcoholic home. I havent had a drop of alcohol. Ironicly, I was clueless or in denial, and I married an alcoholic. At least they had one sober parent. So, you're right, never start and you'll never have to stop.
Originally Posted by Spinner-007 
It opens up the discussion in a balanced assessment.
The question that stuck to me is 'what is the causality?'.
While I can't say it in scientific terms but this is exactly how I tell my children about drugs and alcohol:
In almost every thing you could ever try(ALMOST), the chances of becoming addicted are almost non-existent. Beer, cigarettes, pot, whatever(except crack): chances are you won't become addicted on the first drink, puff, whatever. There is no 'magic number' a person's gotta hit before they become addicted, as most addicts will tell you they just woke up one time and asked 'how did I get here?'. But what I can tell you is the magic number that will all but guarantee that you WON'T become addicted to any of that garbage is ZERO. If you don't drink, it's impossible to suffer from alcoholism. Same with nicotine addiction or any other addiction (aside from pain meds from an injury or operation). So that first beer puts you one drink closer to alcoholism, that first snort of coke, the same, etc.
Don't even start and it'll be one 'disease' that you wouldn't have 'caused' to happen...
The question that stuck to me is 'what is the causality?'.
While I can't say it in scientific terms but this is exactly how I tell my children about drugs and alcohol:
In almost every thing you could ever try(ALMOST), the chances of becoming addicted are almost non-existent. Beer, cigarettes, pot, whatever(except crack): chances are you won't become addicted on the first drink, puff, whatever. There is no 'magic number' a person's gotta hit before they become addicted, as most addicts will tell you they just woke up one time and asked 'how did I get here?'. But what I can tell you is the magic number that will all but guarantee that you WON'T become addicted to any of that garbage is ZERO. If you don't drink, it's impossible to suffer from alcoholism. Same with nicotine addiction or any other addiction (aside from pain meds from an injury or operation). So that first beer puts you one drink closer to alcoholism, that first snort of coke, the same, etc.
Don't even start and it'll be one 'disease' that you wouldn't have 'caused' to happen...
Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Midwest, USA
Posts: 394
We watched that when I was in rehab. I had heard about it going in, and I loved it. No excuse, but it explains a lot of WHY we don't just stop as smart, rational people otherwise. I've also heard (at least for drugs/pills, i'm too terrified to try with my damn brain), that only 15% of people that test/try drugs/pills etc., get addicted. The others can take it or leave it, but you don't know until you try or it happens to you. It really is in your brain. I should know. I grew up SO against drugs, have never touched ANYTHING and yet here I sit. Ironic eh?
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: maine
Posts: 1,545
This is a hypothesis, as I understand it. That being said, it was easy to understand and absorb. It was good explanation of why addicts are advised to stay away from other drugs as well as the one that they were addicted to.
It kind of lost me in the beginning, by stating we wouldn't take children away from someone who was blind or deaf. Well, no. Not if the blind or deaf parent still made the welfare of the children a priority, of course not. Blindness or hearing loss requires some compensating on the part of the parent, but doesn't endanger the child. It also misstates the reason some people end up incarcerated. They don't go to jail for *being alcoholics or drug addicts.* They go to jail for theft, or DWI. They lose custody of their children when their actions put the lives or the welfare of their children at risk. Are we going to say, okay, you can't steal, unless you need drugs, then it's okay? You're required to feed and clothe your kids, but if you use money for beer instead, well what then? It's okay? We'll come to your home every day and do it for you? We won't take your kids away because you have a disease, so they just have to suffer?
The disease model doesn't address one thing: the treatment is changing your behavior. That's it. No injections, radiation, setting bones, just changing your behavior. No one ceases to have epileptic seizures by changing his behavior. No one heals a broken bone that way, or treats cancer that way, or diabetes,or mental illness. To that end Spinner-007's point is well taken. I worked with a woman whose Mom and grandmother were both alcoholics, and she made a decision to never take a drink. My neighbor confided she used cocaine, once at a party. She told her husband they were never socializing with those people again, and they didn't. She said everything said about it was true; it felt euphoric while they were high, and they were devastated when it was gone.
My take-away: being an addict once leaves you vulnerable forever. Philip Seymour Hoffman had been sober for decades and still succumbed to an overdose.
It kind of lost me in the beginning, by stating we wouldn't take children away from someone who was blind or deaf. Well, no. Not if the blind or deaf parent still made the welfare of the children a priority, of course not. Blindness or hearing loss requires some compensating on the part of the parent, but doesn't endanger the child. It also misstates the reason some people end up incarcerated. They don't go to jail for *being alcoholics or drug addicts.* They go to jail for theft, or DWI. They lose custody of their children when their actions put the lives or the welfare of their children at risk. Are we going to say, okay, you can't steal, unless you need drugs, then it's okay? You're required to feed and clothe your kids, but if you use money for beer instead, well what then? It's okay? We'll come to your home every day and do it for you? We won't take your kids away because you have a disease, so they just have to suffer?
The disease model doesn't address one thing: the treatment is changing your behavior. That's it. No injections, radiation, setting bones, just changing your behavior. No one ceases to have epileptic seizures by changing his behavior. No one heals a broken bone that way, or treats cancer that way, or diabetes,or mental illness. To that end Spinner-007's point is well taken. I worked with a woman whose Mom and grandmother were both alcoholics, and she made a decision to never take a drink. My neighbor confided she used cocaine, once at a party. She told her husband they were never socializing with those people again, and they didn't. She said everything said about it was true; it felt euphoric while they were high, and they were devastated when it was gone.
My take-away: being an addict once leaves you vulnerable forever. Philip Seymour Hoffman had been sober for decades and still succumbed to an overdose.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by velma929
The disease model doesn't address one thing: the treatment is changing your behavior. That's it.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: W Washington
Posts: 11,589
recovery DOES include choice.....otherwise no addict would ever recover. one has to choose to NOT use. ever. in fact, it is when most addicts steeped IN their addiction that they reach out for help.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 994
I am concerned the disease theory will make co dependants put up with worse and worse behaviour from the addicts in their lives cos it's a disease so they "can't help it." This could also include abuse which is not a feature of addiction.
The choice to change seems to be a bit muted in the video and putting everything down to a series of chemical reactions kind of sanitises how addicts behave in full blown addiction and almost trivialises the very real consequences families of addicts go through. My exah told me he had a disease and I had promised in sickness and in health so I should put up with him come what may. He failed to understand it wasn't his drinking that I left him over but the consequences of it which I felt he had a choice over. When I turned it around and asked him if it were me who was the addict would he stick by me he said no way..he'd have been long gone but he thought his case was unique and he had a right to drink.
The choice to change seems to be a bit muted in the video and putting everything down to a series of chemical reactions kind of sanitises how addicts behave in full blown addiction and almost trivialises the very real consequences families of addicts go through. My exah told me he had a disease and I had promised in sickness and in health so I should put up with him come what may. He failed to understand it wasn't his drinking that I left him over but the consequences of it which I felt he had a choice over. When I turned it around and asked him if it were me who was the addict would he stick by me he said no way..he'd have been long gone but he thought his case was unique and he had a right to drink.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 78
Tell me more....
Originally Posted by Ladybird579
I am concerned the disease theory will make co dependants put up with worse and worse behaviour from the addicts in their lives cos it's a disease so they "can't help it." This could also include abuse which is not a feature of addiction.
The choice to change seems to be a bit muted in the video and putting everything down to a series of chemical reactions kind of sanitises how addicts behave in full blown addiction and almost trivialises the very real consequences families of addicts go through. My exah told me he had a disease and I had promised in sickness and in health so I should put up with him come what may. He failed to understand it wasn't his drinking that I left him over but the consequences of it which I felt he had a choice over. When I turned it around and asked him if it were me who was the addict would he stick by me he said no way..he'd have been long gone but he thought his case was unique and he had a right to drink.
The choice to change seems to be a bit muted in the video and putting everything down to a series of chemical reactions kind of sanitises how addicts behave in full blown addiction and almost trivialises the very real consequences families of addicts go through. My exah told me he had a disease and I had promised in sickness and in health so I should put up with him come what may. He failed to understand it wasn't his drinking that I left him over but the consequences of it which I felt he had a choice over. When I turned it around and asked him if it were me who was the addict would he stick by me he said no way..he'd have been long gone but he thought his case was unique and he had a right to drink.
You mentioned that abuse is not a feature of addiction. Why does it seem like it is? It seems like they're tied sometimes (I'm saying this because of the plethora of stories I've been reading..... whether it be emotional/verbal or physical abuse.) It feels like it's there in some capacity. I'm trying to understand this.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,450
Originally Posted by Lakegirl111
You mentioned that abuse is not a feature of addiction. Why does it seem like it is?
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 356
"The disease model doesn't address one thing: the treatment is changing your behavior. That's it"
I think it is more complicated than that. I do believe it is a disease bcause there is a genetic predisposition for it. It definitely is a combo of choice and disease.
Fatty liver is a disease, the only treatment for it is weight loss (or liver transplant once the liver is too far gone). If you consider obesity a disease, the treatment for that is weight loss as well.
Lots of people are predisposed to diabetes or high blood pressure or heart disease. And not everyone can avoid getting it no matter what they do. But a large number of people don't live healthy and are overweight and as a results they end up suffering at a much younger age from these disease than if they had made the choice to eat healthy, exercise and maintain a healthy weight. Some very obese people without a family history of diabetes or high blood pressure will get both because of their weight. When they chose to change their lifestyle they will no longer be diabetic or hypertensive.
Lung cancer more often than not is related to the choice to smoke cigarettes, mouth/throat cancer is due to chewing tobacco/alcohol use.
So I think there are plenty of diseases out there that are a result of lifestyle choices but still considered a disease
Like they said in the movie, having the genetic predisposition for addiction doesnt mean you will end up an addict. There are a lot of environmental factors that play a role as well.
Now I certainly don't feel like I should just forgive and forget everything that I have been through because of my RAH disease, far from it actually, because ultimately it still came down to choice. It just helps explains why some people can drink and have zero problem stopping and why addicts cannot do the same. I honestly do not think I could ever become an alcoholic even if I tried. At some point and time I was drinking more than I should because I naively thought if I helped him drink the bottle of wine he would stop once the bottle was empty and somehow control how much he drank. I know now that was silly. But I never had the urge or need to drink more and I actually would've preferred to drink less. Once I realized that my strategy was completely pointless I stopped trying and just stuck with a glass of wine instead of trying to keep up with him.
During family week they said that all those anti drug campaigns in school like just say no are really useless. They biggest thing to help prevent addiction issues is for kids to learn to express their feelings instead of keeping them bottled up inside, keeping their emotional backpack light so to speak. It is simple but not easy because that would require a family that has healthy communication skills. So hopefully now that my RAH is sober and has changed a lot and I myself am dealing with getting rid of my codependency with improving my own issues with expression of emotions at least our kid will grow up with healthier communication skills and therefore her chances of relying to a substanced will decrease dramatically.
So far his 2 older kids and 2 nieces (whom we raised because of their drug addicted parents) have managed to avoid the addiction (they're in their 20s). His kids lived out of state with their mom and we had them about 6 weeks out of the year so maybe they were removed from it enough to be affected much by his drinking (plus they didnt even know). The nieces have seen what it did and decided they wanted nobparr of it. No guarantees obviously but considering my RAH started at 13 it is a good start.
I think it is more complicated than that. I do believe it is a disease bcause there is a genetic predisposition for it. It definitely is a combo of choice and disease.
Fatty liver is a disease, the only treatment for it is weight loss (or liver transplant once the liver is too far gone). If you consider obesity a disease, the treatment for that is weight loss as well.
Lots of people are predisposed to diabetes or high blood pressure or heart disease. And not everyone can avoid getting it no matter what they do. But a large number of people don't live healthy and are overweight and as a results they end up suffering at a much younger age from these disease than if they had made the choice to eat healthy, exercise and maintain a healthy weight. Some very obese people without a family history of diabetes or high blood pressure will get both because of their weight. When they chose to change their lifestyle they will no longer be diabetic or hypertensive.
Lung cancer more often than not is related to the choice to smoke cigarettes, mouth/throat cancer is due to chewing tobacco/alcohol use.
So I think there are plenty of diseases out there that are a result of lifestyle choices but still considered a disease
Like they said in the movie, having the genetic predisposition for addiction doesnt mean you will end up an addict. There are a lot of environmental factors that play a role as well.
Now I certainly don't feel like I should just forgive and forget everything that I have been through because of my RAH disease, far from it actually, because ultimately it still came down to choice. It just helps explains why some people can drink and have zero problem stopping and why addicts cannot do the same. I honestly do not think I could ever become an alcoholic even if I tried. At some point and time I was drinking more than I should because I naively thought if I helped him drink the bottle of wine he would stop once the bottle was empty and somehow control how much he drank. I know now that was silly. But I never had the urge or need to drink more and I actually would've preferred to drink less. Once I realized that my strategy was completely pointless I stopped trying and just stuck with a glass of wine instead of trying to keep up with him.
During family week they said that all those anti drug campaigns in school like just say no are really useless. They biggest thing to help prevent addiction issues is for kids to learn to express their feelings instead of keeping them bottled up inside, keeping their emotional backpack light so to speak. It is simple but not easy because that would require a family that has healthy communication skills. So hopefully now that my RAH is sober and has changed a lot and I myself am dealing with getting rid of my codependency with improving my own issues with expression of emotions at least our kid will grow up with healthier communication skills and therefore her chances of relying to a substanced will decrease dramatically.
So far his 2 older kids and 2 nieces (whom we raised because of their drug addicted parents) have managed to avoid the addiction (they're in their 20s). His kids lived out of state with their mom and we had them about 6 weeks out of the year so maybe they were removed from it enough to be affected much by his drinking (plus they didnt even know). The nieces have seen what it did and decided they wanted nobparr of it. No guarantees obviously but considering my RAH started at 13 it is a good start.
"O you must wear your rue with difference".
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,146
Originally Posted by Ladybird579
I am concerned the disease theory will make co dependants put up with worse and worse behaviour from the addicts in their lives cos it's a disease so they "can't help it." This could also include abuse which is not a feature of addiction.
Addiction changes the brain, but one gets there by choice. No one starts out with a damaged brain. You don't take one drink at age 21 and -- boom -- you become an addict. You need to be drunk a few times before you find out you can't (easily) stop. Also, you can choose to get help and choose to get better. You can choose recovery. You must choose recovery.
I used to watch videos like this when I was living with my "qualifier". I thought, if I am more understanding of his sickness, he can feel secure enough to seek help. He said, "I'm sick and therefore I do this because I HAVE to... because I'm sick. I can't help it, I'm sick." But did he want help (medical help? AA or NA help?) to stop? No. Did he want to stop? No. So the "disease model" became an excuse for stbxAH. I also read a lot of articles about how addicts need "love and understanding". I was even told by a psychologist that because AH was sick, it was necessary for our counseling sessions to "focus on his sickness". Really, these things kept my boundaries amorphous for a long time. I now health issues from stress.
This is a good video for the general public. But I feel it does nothing for codependency or people trying to escape abuse. Thanks Kev, for reminding me of the ways I've failed to understand the sweetness of a Madeline.
I think society fails addicts by not understanding addiction -- they think it's either/or: either a choice or a disease. I think society fails US by not understanding that F&F of addicts need boundaries and we also need compassion... and what about the children? I also think that we all fail ourselves.
If you're an addict and you don't make the choice to quit, you're failing yourself. If you're the spouse of an addict and you're not getting help for your codependency issues, you are also failing yourself.
Contrary to what my stbxAH thinks, I don't get to "ignore" his disease by leaving him. I have to live with the consequences of having had faith in his ability to save himself. I "get to" lose him (and no matter how angry I sound to you now, he really was the big love of my life), lose years and years of my life to his disease... and watch the person I thought I once knew waste away into a manipulative, deceitful, and scary perpetrator of violence.
I live with the consequences of my actions. It is my responsibility to heal. It is the addict's responsibility to heal too... and the only way to do that is to change their behavior... even if they have a disease that makes it difficult for them to do so.
"O you must wear your rue with difference".
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,146
Originally Posted by Sleepyhollo
During family week they said that all those anti drug campaigns in school like just say no are really useless. They biggest thing to help prevent addiction issues is for kids to learn to express their feelings instead of keeping them bottled up inside, keeping their emotional backpack light so to speak.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
