Alcoholism - a disease or a choice?

by Sirona 93 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rebel8

  My answer to your question is: neither. It is an illness, IMO.

  Things alcoholism has in common with a disease:

  1. pathological condition

  2. presents a common set of symptoms

  3. tends to respond to a common treatment regimen (abstinence + therapy)

  Yet a disease is a pathological condition of the body, according to medical dictionaries. Although a person with an illness may suffer just as much as a person with a disease, an illness is not measurable in the body nor is it caused by the body. That is not to say there are no physical factors playing a role in the illness's development. Genes have been shown to be an influencing factor, though not a direct cause. The direct cause is still unproven.
• 

  kls

  It has to be a disease because i could not live with knowing the mother did the things she did at will and died because of it. I will not go into detail of the horrors it was like living with a 24/7 drunk but i have to believe she could not help herself.
• 

  Sirona

  Happydad

  Thanks for the info and your own experience. That site is interesting but I think a little bit too critical of AA and other groups.

  Sirona
• 

  Sirona

  Blondie, thanks for the stats. It does sound about right that 85% is the choice to drink, after all, recovering alcoholics do manage not to drink.

  Jim W, thanks for that information! The "intervention" thing does sound a bit cultish though.

  Sirona
• 

  JH

  Thats sad kls....
• 

  Sirona

  Kls,

  Sorry to hear that.

  I suppose the thing is that when an alcoholic gets to a certain point, they can't help themselves without some outside help from family / therapy / group whatever. A long term alcoholic could get themselves into a state where they are not even thinking anymore - and that must have been where your mum got to.

  Sirona
• 

  kls

  JH , sad but a fact of life.
• 

  Abaddon

  Sirona

  Maybe this is semantics, but I find the differentiation between 'disease' and 'genetic predisposition' a slender one, as the predisposition elevates the chance of sucumbing to the disease.

  An addictive personality is one that has a problems with certain substances (or behaviours) when they are exposed to it.

  Someone can equally have medical problems with other environmental factors when you are exposed to them, due to a genetic predispositon.

  In modern society, one can have no knowedge that they will have problems due to exposure to alcohol. People almost always have access to alcohol, most people have no problem with it, most of those that do have a problem with it didn't know that they would when they were first exposed to it. But due to the genetic predispostion they get the disease of alcoholism.

  In modern society, one can have no knowedge that they will have problems due to exposure to certain foods. People almost always have access to certain foods, most people have no problem with it, most of those that do have a problem with it didn't know that they would when they were first exposed to it. But due to the genetic predispostion they get heart disease.

  What I am saying is that an alcoholic is either totally free of responsibility because it is an unavoidable disease, or they are responsible because they unfortunately have the addiction gene and chose to drink to excess.

  If only life did consist of polarised black-and-white choise like that! It would be a lot simpler.

  Your argument is an 'excluded middle'.

  It also fails to take into account that even when one does include the middle ground, the grey area, that is the fairest represetation of the issue (predisposition is not the same as predestination ), people will have differing degrees of personal responsibility and that to characterise alcoholism as a 'choice' fails to take this into account.

  Family history is the best guide, as far as telling if one has that trait. As far as I am aware there is not a specific test as whilst there is a proven genetic predisposition (through hereditry studies), we don't know the exact genes that give this predisposition.
• 

  doogie

  What I am saying is that an alcoholic is either totally free of responsibility because it is an unavoidable disease, or they are responsible because they unfortunately have the addiction gene and chose to drink to excess.

  is heart disease a disease or a choice? (i know, it says 'disease' right in the name...)

  for people with a family history of heart disease, they know that they have a genetic predisposition so they need to be careful to maintain a healthy lifestyle. if they are less careful than they should be and they end up suffering a heart attack, does this make it less of a 'disease'? the person has more responsibility than, say, the person suffering from leukemia, but i would still say that the deck was stacked against them and they had a VERY high liklihood of developing the condition.

  if 2 people, one with the "genetic predisposition" and one without made the same decisions (diet and exercise, or alcohol use as the case may be) the one with the predisposition has a greater liklihood of developing the disease than the one with no family history.
• 

  Amazing1914

  Hi Sirona,

  Jim W, thanks for that information! The "intervention" thing does sound a bit cultish though.

  An "intervention" has nothing to do with cultishness. Alcoholism affects the people in the life of the alcoholic. If they stand by and do nothing, they become "enablers" and at times "co-dependant" in the psychological (mental) aspect of the disease. BY conducting an "intervention" with a trained professional as a facilitator, they help the alcoholic and they help themselves.

  I have conducted an intervention, and, if anything, it helps to end the cycle of dependence. In fact, our participation on this forum is a form of religious "intervention" for JWs who finally realize that there is something wrong with their lives. We help them take responsibility, and see the religious for what it is ... a toxic addition to the organization and its silly beliefs. Likewise, an alcoholic has to learn how much power they have given to the "bottle" and how much they need to stay far away from it.

  Hi Doogie,

  " ... for people with a family history of heart disease, they know that they have a genetic predisposition so they need to be careful to maintain a healthy lifestyle. if they are less careful than they should be and they end up suffering a heart attack, does this make it less of a 'disease'? the person has more responsibility than, say, the person suffering from leukemia, but i would still say that the deck was stacked against them and they had a VERY high liklihood of developing the condition."

  Excellent points. A fair comparison in several ways. I have heart disease. I was thin most of my life. While my mother had heart disease, my dad did not. My mothers' mom did not have heart disease. I had no clue whatsoever that I had a genetic flaw in this respect or that I was on a path to have a heart attack. Only in recent years has technology been available to get a clear determination that a person's arteries were clogging up, and action was needed. Now, though, if I fail to take medicine, eat foods loaded with cholosterol, and ignore high blood pressure ... then I am making a bad choice that has death-dealing consequence.

  Jim W.