Is Alcoholism a disease?

[Lord Tyrion]

It starts as a choice, so is in no way a diseases imo.

Circumstances can then lead to it becoming a habit or addiction. But unless you're a heroine baby you aren't born with a taste for it. I sympathies with those that become enthralled in any addiction as they all ruin lives. But classing it as a disease is a discredit to true illnesses imo.

I'm with this and a number of the other responses. There are choices taking place at various stages. I accept there comes a point when the ability to make rational decisions reduces but for me it is not a disease. Too many people want to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions now.

I think Hobbit called it an addiction and should be treated as such. I think that is a good assessment. Incidentally, I do not underestimate the impact or destruction it can have.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It seems that sympathy and understanding are rare commodities around here.

Most on here probably have a drink and made the choice to do so, just like the alcoholic.

But none, when making that initial choice, would know that they have an addiction disorder.

It is a mental illness that requires treatment if it is to controlled.

 

[Papas1982]

It seems that sympathy and understanding are rare commodities around here.

Most on here probably have a drink and made the choice to do so, just like the alcoholic.

But none, when making that initial choice, would know that they have an addiction disorder.

It is a mental illness that requires treatment if it is to controlled.

Tjat may well be the case. But even it If It is. Surely alcoholism isn't the disease as such. The mental illness is. So treating the addict (illness) not the alcoholic (symptom) would be better.

I know a few people who are recovering from alcohol or substance abuse. And rarely is the substance they use the real issue. It's what they're trying to escape. If that isn't solved then relapse is inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Tjat may well be the case. But even it If It is. Surely alcoholism isn't the disease as such. The mental illness is. So treating the addict (illness) not the alcoholic (symptom) would be better.

I know a few people who are recovering from alcohol or substance abuse. And rarely is the substance they use the real issue. It's what they're trying to escape. If that isn't solved then relapse is inevitable.

Sorry but I fail to see the distinction apart from semantics.

Alcoholism, drug addiction, smoking, substance abuse; they are all outward manifestations of a mental illness that will almost certainly have destructive effects upon the person's physical health.

 

[Kellfire]

Sorry but I fail to see the distinction apart from semantics.

Alcoholism, drug addiction, smoking, substance abuse; they are all outward manifestations of a mental illness that will almost certainly have destructive effects upon the person's physical health.

As is the case with many mental illnesses, those who don't suffer them can't begin to comprehend the way it feels. It's along the same lines as telling someone with depression to "man up".

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As is the case with many mental illnesses, those who don't suffer them can't begin to comprehend the way it feels. It's along the same lines as telling someone with depression to "man up".

And many alcoholics will tell you that they can now recognise the symptoms of a mental illness in respect of alcohol (and often only in respect of alcohol) when they were otherwise perfectly normal and in very good health - and often from childhood. And what happens is that the alcoholic also develops physical illnesses and spiritual illness - a hole in the soul.

A friend of mine told me that he was an alcoholic as he has an allergy to alcohol - because when he drinks he falls down

Though more seriously - his explained how his allergy to drink was akin to an allergy to peanuts - when he drank his body reacted in a most dangerous way - and a way that he had no control over.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

As is the case with many mental illnesses, those who don't suffer them can't begin to comprehend the way it feels. It's along the same lines as telling someone with depression to "man up".

Agree with you 100%.

Perhaps it's because the illness cannot be seen that many show so little understanding.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Agree with you 100%.

Perhaps it's because the illness cannot be seen that many show so little understanding.

Which is why I felt sorry about the nature of the criticism meted out by many on Anthony McPartlin. Yes of course driving when well over the limit is completely and 100% unacceptable (and McPartlin will sadly but willingly I am sure accept whatever punishment he is due) - but the alcoholic mind and the illness do not work in a way that tells him so - or in a way that enables, indeed allows, him to think in a logical or socially and personally responsible manner. And so the moral outrage triggers the usual questions - 'how could he - and with his mum in the car?'. Well...he's an alcoholic - that's how.

And Ray Wilkins' serious illness? Well he might have heard from others that with drink he was killing himself - but his alcoholic head would have told him that he was probably going to be alright. In any case - if he wasn't then it would only be himself who would suffer...

 

[Lord Tyrion]

And so the moral outrage triggers the usual questions - 'how could he - and with his mum in the car?'. Well...he's an alcoholic - that's how.

And Ray Wilkins' serious illness? Well he might have heard from others that with drink he was killing himself - but his alcoholic head would have told him that he was probably going to be alright. In any case - if he wasn't then it would only be himself who would suffer...

Do you believe they are then absolved from blame? They both made choices to drive after drinking. They both know that is wrong, even if their head is telling them otherwise. Even if they believe they are not affected they know the law has put them over the limit yet they still chose to drive. That was a choice. Drinking, or not drinking is another issue but drinking and then driving is not, imo.

 

[Papas1982]

As is the case with many mental illnesses, those who don't suffer them can't begin to comprehend the way it feels. It's along the same lines as telling someone with depression to "man up".

And that response is a pompous as those that say “you wouldn’t understand, you’re not a parent”.

Addiction is a mental illness, let’s say I agree and that it’s pure luck some of us aren’t alcholics as we’ve all tried a drink and some got lucky and didn’t have the personality. There are still allowed to be different povs on there cause and definition without the need for people to think they’re somehow better than others due to their opinions.

From what I’ve seen, alcholics get lots of support and sympathy. Smokers and drug addicts a lot less. There’s certainly a lot less pressure on smokers to quit. I’ve never heard someone be told “sorry, I can’t sell you those, I think you’ve had enough” when they go to the newsagents and ask for a pack of 20 mayfairs..

 

[Papas1982]

Do you believe they are then absolved from blame? They both made choices to drive after drinking. They both know that is wrong, even if their head is telling them otherwise. Even if they believe they are not affected they know the law has put them over the limit yet they still chose to drive. That was a choice. Drinking, or not drinking is another issue but drinking and then driving is not, imo.

I would say in the current climate, it won’t be long till some clever lawyer try’s to defend someone caught drink driving along the lines of diminished responsibility due to their debilitating illness.....

that alone is eniugh for me to not classify alcoholism as an illness.

 

[Jimaroid]

Take alcoholism out of the debate for a moment and consider that the definition of disease is semantically awkward in the first place. Cause & Effect are often interchanged and "disease" covers many areas of pathology.

Now consider alcohol as a cause, and alcoholism as a symptom. Because diseases can be classified either through cause or effect (symptom) it's pretty clear to me that alcoholism can be considered a disease. And the World Health Organisation seems to agree, it classifies Alcoholism as a Mental and Behavioural Disorder due to Psychoactive Substance Abuse in the International Classification of Diseases.

So I'm going to continue calling alcoholism a disease. And a very unpleasant one it is too. I have lost friends and family due to alcoholism, and struggled through my own life wrecking relationship with an alcoholic, and, frankly, people that try to fob alcoholism off as "just a choice" have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Do you believe they are then absolved from blame? They both made choices to drive after drinking. They both know that is wrong, even if their head is telling them otherwise. Even if they believe they are not affected they know the law has put them over the limit yet they still chose to drive. That was a choice. Drinking, or not drinking is another issue but drinking and then driving is not, imo.

Absolutely not absolved of responsibility - and I made clear that with McPartlin his punishment is due - but a better understanding from the press and public would not go amiss. That they still chose to drive misses the point that, with the alcoholic, logical choice rather goes out of the window - the alcoholic is blind to it.

 

[GB72]

Agreed with the comment above it is no way 'just a choice'. Whether you want to class it as a disease, an illness, an affliction or whatever you like makes little difference. It is, however, an awful, often fatal struggle that many do not understand. How many times have I heard comments along the lines of 'well all they need to do is stop drinking'. To an alcoholic you may as well be asking them to stop breathing. It is like saying that someone suffering from depression just needs to cheer up a bit.
Like others, this does not absolve anyone from liability if they drink drive etc but it is naïve to think that an alcoholic thinks about such things. Whether it is part of their concealment or a simple fact that driving in such a state is a normal or necessary part of their life, alcoholics do not see things in the same rational way that we may do.
I think that there is an overall difference in perception between those who have lived with or been close to an alcoholic and those that have not.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

For me it’s not a disease. Everyone knows the dangers of drinking and drugs and yet people still make the choice to drink and take drugs.

It then becomes an addiction for some but again everyone knows there is help there for people that want it

My sympathies will always be directed towards the families or victims of someone who is addicted

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And that response is a pompous as those that say “you wouldn’t understand, you’re not a parent”.

Addiction is a mental illness, let’s say I agree and that it’s pure luck some of us aren’t alcholics as we’ve all tried a drink and some got lucky and didn’t have the personality. There are still allowed to be different povs on there cause and definition without the need for people to think they’re somehow better than others due to their opinions.

From what I’ve seen, alcholics get lots of support and sympathy. Smokers and drug addicts a lot less. There’s certainly a lot less pressure on smokers to quit. I’ve never heard someone be told “sorry, I can’t sell you those, I think you’ve had enough” when they go to the newsagents and ask for a pack of 20 mayfairs..

My wife is a Breast Care Nurse Specialist - has been for nearly 15 years. Her working day comprises working with, informing and counselling women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer - explaining their diagnosis, the treatments and their prognosis.

She feels she understands the worries, issues and concerns of women with breast cancer.

Two years ago she herself was diagnosed with a serious breast cancer. During her treatment we spent three days at the Penny Brohn cancer centre in Bristol. We spent these three days with a small group of women - all undergoing treatment or living with breast cancer. At the end of the 3 days my wife said to me that before she herself had BC, she thought that she understood the women - but now that she herself has BC she realises that she actually didn't.

So whereas before in her working life when she was sitting with women with BC, she realises she was with - but apart from the women. In the sessions at Penny Brohn she, for the first time, felt with and a part of that group.

Despite all her qualifications, knowledge and experience - she understood in a way that not having the disease she could not.

 

[Papas1982]

My wife is a Breast Care Nurse Specialist - has been for nearly 15 years. Her working day comprises working, informing and counselling women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer - explaining their diagnosis, the treatments and their prognosis.

She feels she understands the worries, issues and concerns of women with breast cancer.

Two years ago she herself was diagnosed with a serious breast cancer. During her treatment we spent three days at the Penny Brohn cancer centre in Bristol. We spent these three days with a small group of women - all undergoing or living with breast cancer. At the end of the 3 days my wife said to me that before she herself had BC, she thought that she understood the women - but now that she herself has BC she realises that she actually didn't - but that now she does.

So whereas before in her working life she was sitting with women with BC, she realises she was with - but apart from the women. In the sessions at Penny Brohn she, for the first time, felt with and a part of that group.

She understood in a way that not having the disease she could not.

Firstly, I sincerely hope everything worked out well for your wife.

I’m sure there are differences between levels of understanding and appreciating things depending on circumstances. Your wife’s understanding has clearly been enhanced (for want of a better word) due to her circumstances.

But of course those that haven’t suffered it can still show levels of understanding and empathy to the plight of those that are suffering (as your wife already did).

The original reponse of mine was simply to what I think is a catch phrase used by many that feel that their opinion is the only one and they then try to condescend to any that disputes that view.

 

[Kellfire]

The original reponse of mine was simply to what I think is a catch phrase used by many that feel that their opinion is the only one and they then try to condescend to any that disputes that view.

It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending, merely highlighting something I believe to be true.

 

[turkish]

For me it’s not a disease. Everyone knows the dangers of drinking and drugs and yet people still make the choice to drink and take drugs.

It then becomes an addiction for some but again everyone knows there is help there for people that want it

My sympathies will always be directed towards the families or victims of someone who is addicted

You don't half waffle a lot of Garbage at times

 

[Papas1982]

It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending, merely highlighting something I believe to be true.

My problem with that line in this instance is that if nobody without mental illness can possibly understand them. Are we to believe all doctors, psychologists, health workers that help those with mental illness are also sufferers, or went into the field beciase they were close to a sufferer?

doesnt seem plausible to me, so some must understand.

For the record, I wasn’t saying you were condescending, just that the use of the phrase is at times used in that manner. Tone is usually an indicator to its intentions and via te to its hard to tell.