Alcoholism

[Web Rider]

This thread was created from posts split from the Alcoholic dies after being refused liver transplant thread. Carry on. --Jae

 

All of you guys that are saying that you don't have sympathy for him are sick.

 

ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE.

 

While there is some research into addictive personalities, alcoholism is not a disease in the same sense as say, brain cancer, or meningitis. And I think calling it a disease is a load of bull****. But that's just IMO.

 

This is not a person who had no choice in his condition. Many ex-alcoholics are no longer alcoholics exactly for the reason that they made a conscious decision to fight their addiction. There are dozens of help programs out there and like all addictions, personal force of will is also necessary.

 

I do not believe for one second that this kid couldn't have done any of that or even stayed sober for 6 months to get the transplant.

[Nedak]

I'll try to put the way I view this situation into perspective. If I were to contract lung cancer and die due to my 20 years of smoking, I know that I would have no one but myself to blame for it. This is no different.

 

Being addicted to tobacco is not a disease.

 

Also, I agree that a person with a more serious illness should have received the liver, but my point is that he should be treated like any other person with a DISEASE.

[Web Rider]

Obviously none of you have been alcoholics or had to deal with alcoholics.

Of course, clearly because we disagree with you it means we're wrong. I know several, am friends with a couple, and have a few that are relatives. ~snip~

 

Alcoholism is a CUNNING disease. Alcoholics believe that there is nothing wrong with them. Even if everybody in the world told an alcoholic that they had a problem they wouldn't believe it, it takes an alcoholic to hit a bottom before he can come to any sort of understanding of the seriousness of their disease. Your brother-in-law does not think he's an alcoholic, he thinks he can stop at any time. It's not his choice.

Diseases are not "cunning". Diseases don't even think. They are genetic conditions or microorganisms programmed to do a basic task. That basic function is damaging to the host. And don't give me this AA, 12-step "Put your faith in a higher power to stop" BS.

 

When you have a problem and won't admit it, that's called an addiction.

 

YES, you can be an alcoholic at 13. For whatever reason he probably got curious, decided to drink and hit the bottom extremely fast. For some people it takes a long time to hit bottom and for others it's a quick process.

So, on that argument, everyone's an alcoholic, some people just come to their senses faster. Hmmm....Oh right, generally we call that "coming to your senses". While I agree many people lack common sense, that does not make it a disease.

 

Before I give any retort to the rest of the posts, I ask you all to read up on Alcoholism.

 

http://ncadistore.samhsa.gov/catalog/facts.aspx?topic=3

Did you know that every one of those appears under the definition for "addiction" too? I mean, I never would have guessed, but it's true.

 

Being addicted to tobacco is not a disease.

Strange then that the government page YOU linked on alcoholism states

* Craving: A strong need, or compulsion, to drink.

* Loss of control: The inability to limit one’s drinking on any given occasion.

* Physical dependence: Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety, occur when alcohol use is stopped after a period of heavy drinking.

* Tolerance: The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol in order to “get high.”

 

Replace "drink" with smoke, and "alcohol" with tobacco, and it's exactly the same.

 

Also, I agree that a person with a more serious illness should have received the liver, but my point is that he should be treated like any other person with a DISEASE.

 

Which he was. The criterion for having "beaten" his disease was to be sober for 6 months. Which there are endless numbers of programs to help with. Just as I would need medicine to cure meningitis, his medicine was to not drink, which he did not do. Therefore, he did not get the liver.

 

 

I'm sorry if I don't believe that addictions are diseases. I really don't care if scientists say they are. I still think most scientists are under the thumb of the politically correct police and anything they come up with that isn't "nice" to everyone is shut down.

[Nedak]

Diseases are not "cunning". Diseases don't even think. They are genetic conditions or microorganisms programmed to do a basic task. That basic function is damaging to the host. And don't give me this AA, 12-step "Put your faith in a higher power to stop" BS.

 

It's not suppose to be taken literal. What it does to your mind, makes it cunning... THE EFFECTS of alcoholism to the mind makes it trick you into think that you don't have a problem.

 

And I never quoted anything from AA? I'd also like to note that I'm not an alcoholic and I've never drank alcohol. But Alcohol has drastically effected my life from my childhood to now, so I'm fairly educated on the subject.

 

When you have a problem and won't admit it, that's called an addiction.

Most people who have an addiction are alcoholics

 

 

So, on that argument, everyone's an alcoholic, some people just come to their senses faster. Hmmm....Oh right, generally we call that "coming to your senses". While I agree many people lack common sense, that does not make it a disease

 

No, not EVERYBODY is an alcoholic...

 

EVERY alcoholic that "comes to their senses" come to their senses by hitting a "bottom". It has nothing to do with common sense.

 

Here is an article explaining it as a disease.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa022697.htm

 

 

 

 

Strange then that the government page YOU linked on alcoholism states

 

 

Replace "drink" with smoke, and "alcohol" with tobacco, and it's exactly the same.

I never said I agreed with everything.

 

Alcoholics ARE addicted to alcohol, but that doesn't mean that it's not a disease.

 

 

 

Which he was. The criterion for having "beaten" his disease was to be sober for 6 months. Which there are endless numbers of programs to help with. Just as I would need medicine to cure meningitis, his medicine was to not drink, which he did not do. Therefore, he did not get the liver.

 

Fist of all, you don't know if it went to a more deserving person.

 

Second of all, I realize this and I agree that it should go to a more deserving person, but that does not mean that we should deny alcoholics liver transplants.

 

I'm sorry if I don't believe that addictions are diseases. I really don't care if scientists say they are. I still think most scientists are under the thumb of the politically correct police and anything they come up with that isn't "nice" to everyone is shut down.

 

Oh yeah? Then explain to me why EVERY SINGLE male in my family is an alcoholic.

 

If it is not a disease why can't it ever be cured?

 

http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_abuse_and_alcoholism/article.htm

[Web Rider]

It's not suppose to be taken literal. What it does to your mind, makes it cunning... THE EFFECTS of alcoholism to the mind makes it trick you into think that you don't have a problem.

A lot of people think like this from everything to speeding, hard-drugs, and a number of other things. I have yet to see the consistent need to drive fast called a "disease".

 

And I never quoted anything from AA? I'd also like to note that I'm not an alcoholic and I've never drank alcohol. But Alcohol has drastically effected my life from my childhood to now, so I'm fairly educated on the subject.

You said it wasn't in the person's power to change. That's right from the AA book where they want you to admit you are powerless to help yourself. It sounded so similar, I thought you were taking it from them. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Most people who have an addiction are alcoholics

In the US I imagine that is true. However, globally, more people are addicted to other substances.

 

No, not EVERYBODY is an alcoholic...

 

EVERY alcoholic that "comes to their senses" come to their senses by hitting a "bottom". It has nothing to do with common sense.

Right, which you stated is a variable point. If there's no way to tell if a person has hit their own "bottom", then everyone and anyone could have hit their bottom already.

 

Here is an article explaining it as a disease.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa022697.htm

I do not doubt the ability of doctors and scientists to call something a disease.

 

I never said I agreed with everything.

 

Alcoholics ARE addicted to alcohol, but that doesn't mean that it's not a disease.

Yet, since it's symptons are the same as other addictions, why are other addictions not diseases?

 

Fist of all, you don't know if it went to a more deserving person.

 

Second of all, I realize this and I agree that it should go to a more deserving person, but that does not mean that we should deny alcoholics liver transplants.

I never said it did, or that it should. Only that since he had not met the criterion for beating his disease, he did not get it, and as anyone who has not "met the mark" for getting a new organ, they don't get it.

 

Oh yeah? Then explain to me why EVERY SINGLE male in my family is an alcoholic.

Not knowing your family males personally, I don't know. I could throw out a lot of reasons men normally become alcoholics, but I'm sure you're familiar with it.

 

If it is not a disease why can't it ever be cured?

 

http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_abuse_and_alcoholism/article.htm

Perhaps because...it's not a disease? You can't cure something that by nature, isn't set up to have cures. Clearly, people have overcome their alcoholism, IMO, if people can beat it through programs and self-help, then that is a cure, or at least a highly effective treatment.

[Nedak]

A lot of people think like this from everything to speeding, hard-drugs, and a number of other things. I have yet to see the consistent need to drive fast called a "disease".

 

1) people who do hard-drugs are usually/always alcoholics.

 

Also, speeding... Are you serious? Do you think about speeding when you wake up in the morning, would you speed if your friend just died in a car crash and died? People who are alcoholics do.

 

 

You said it wasn't in the person's power to change. That's right from the AA book where they want you to admit you are powerless to help yourself. It sounded so similar, I thought you were taking it from them. Sorry for the confusion.

That's not what I'm trying to say.

 

It IS in the person's power to change, nobody can do it for them. My point was that they have to hit a bottom before they can change, or else they think in their mind "what is the point of stopping?"

 

Also, I'm not sure that's what it says in the Blue Book (AA book). I think that line was trying to tell you that you can't remain sober on your own (without a group like AA).

 

 

In the US I imagine that is true. However, globally, more people are addicted to other substances.

But it all stems from Alcohol, as Alcohol is a gateway drug.. They still drink but they are also addicted to other substances. This is shown because most of the alcoholics that come into AA abused other substances more than alcohol but still drank alcohol. You don't need to use a substance a lot to be addicted to it.

 

 

Right, which you stated is a variable point. If there's no way to tell if a person has hit their own "bottom", then everyone and anyone could have hit their bottom already.

You know when you've hit your bottom because you've went to the lowest point of your life and you come to a realization that you need help. It takes some people a lot time to reach this bottom and some never do reach. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

 

I do not doubt the ability of doctors and scientists to call something a disease.

If you mean that you DO doubt than there are no such thing as diseases.

 

But I believe this from my own eyes

 

Yet, since it's symptons are the same as other addictions, why are other addictions not diseases?

They are.

 

Here is a more in-depth explanation.

 

http://www.helium.com/items/1259864-alcoholism-disease-drugs

 

 

Perhaps because...it's not a disease? You can't cure something that by nature, isn't set up to have cures. Clearly, people have overcome their alcoholism, IMO, if people can beat it through programs and self-help, then that is a cure, or at least a highly effective treatment.

That is not the cure, that is the treatment.

 

I know this, as I know of people who have been sober from 5+ years think that they can handle a sip of alcohol and then relapse.

[Nedak]

I have a solution that could make loads of difference, but ultimately won't be accepted because it requires going to too much effort for results that are not so apparent... physical activity.

 

Being physically active doesn't simply allow you to burn more calories per day and put on muscle mass, but it greatly improves your overall health. Statics show that the majority of illnesses can be reduced by greater physical activity. A person who eats a bad diet, but exercises intensely can virtually disregard the health risks of their diet because their metabolism is increased. The rule of thumb is that the more quickly you consume and burn off calories, the more water that flushes through your system, the more rapidly you expel toxins from your body; the more healthy you'll become.

 

That doesn't account so much for heavy metals from higher levels of the food chain, eating the same kind of food all the time, or other nutrient factors that I failed to address here. My point is that one of the reasons why some diseases are on the rise can be attributed to obesity, which can be remedied by greater physical activity and could include reduced calorie diets.

 

I hope you're not trying to infer that Alcoholism is caused by obesity or lack of physical activity... Because being an alcoholic doesn't mean you're out of shape. Some of the best athletes in the world are alcoholics.

 

I'd also like to point out that a lot of Native Americans are alcoholics while people of the Asian decent are not. This is thought to be because alcohol has been around in the Asian culture for much longer than any other culture which allowed them to adapt to it and become more "resistant".

 

This is another case that helps prove that alcoholism is heritable.

 

Now in regards to the TOPIC... The same thing can be applied to an alcoholic. I KNOW that people who drink in excess do it because they are addicted. But that is not an excuse if you should get ill and have your liver shot. That's what comes from excessive drinking, so livers should given to people who are expected to make the greatest use of the organ they are being given.

 

Imagine if the person who was given the liver, after they were given the liver, turned their life around and decided that they wanted to become sober because they knew that, that was their only chance.

 

In my opinion people with other illnesses should get first pick, but that doesn't mean we should deny every alcoholic a liver.

[Web Rider]

1) people who do hard-drugs are usually/always alcoholics.

Also, speeding... Are you serious? Do you think about speeding when you wake up in the morning, would you speed if your friend just died in a car crash and died? People who are alcoholics do.

I have no idea, I don't think thoughts like that, I'm certain some people do.

 

Also, I'm not sure that's what it says in the Blue Book (AA book). I think that line was trying to tell you that you can't remain sober on your own (without a group like AA).

Okay, I can buy that. Honestly I think everyone can do anything better with support from a group.

 

But it all stems from Alcohol, as Alcohol is a gateway drug.. They still drink but they are also addicted to other substances. This is shown because most of the alcoholics that come into AA abused other substances more than alcohol but still drank alcohol. You don't need to use a substance a lot to be addicted to it.

Er....no, it does not stem from alcohol. Addiction to opium is caused by OPIUM, not the scotch you downed before it. All drugs are gateway drugs. People are silly to think there's some linear path that follows alcohol<pot<LSD<heroin<whatever.

 

You know when you've hit your bottom because you've went to the lowest point of your life and you come to a realization that you need help. It takes some people a lot time to reach this bottom and some never do reach. That's what I'm trying to say.

I see, so the realization that alcohol has an effect on you without hitting bottom is what separates the alcoholics from the not-alcoholics?

 

If you mean that you DO doubt than there are no such thing as diseases.

"doctors" and "scientists" have called a lot of things "diseases" in the past. From things that are actually diseases, to things that are not. My point is that simply because something is called a "disease" does not make it true. I can call a bus a pigeon all I want, but it does not change the fact that if I get hit by the bus it will(probably) kill me.

 

They are.

 

Here is a more in-depth explanation.

 

http://www.helium.com/items/1259864-alcoholism-disease-drugs

And you see my problem with calling them "diseases"? "Diseases" require other people to cure you. Self-inflicted conditions(regardless of your affinity for them) require SELF control, as opposed to relying on the actions of others. Society is quite good at making people dependent on things beyond their means. It is unhealthy.

 

That is not the cure, that is the treatment.

Once again, I think this is a defining edge between disease, disorder, and condition.

 

I know this, as I know of people who have been sober from 5+ years think that they can handle a sip of alcohol and then relapse.

Which is not an unreasonable assumption to make. Some people can successfully control themselves after recovery, some people cannot. There is no fault in crashing, yet getting behind the wheel again. If you truly find you cannot control that wheel, then you should not get behind it.(yes, I like car metaphors)