|
Post by finding on Mar 15, 2008 11:15:49 GMT -5
I am so sick of hearing alcoholism referred to as a disease. Yes, I am aware that people are genetically predispositioned for alcoholism when things such as autism are referred to as a disorder when it has been proved there is a genetic cause.
No one has the choice to have cancer, autism, and the such. They can't wake up in the morning and decide it's gone when with alcohol and drugs you can. Granted it is hard to break an addiction, and there is a lot of work that must be done to give it up, but it by no means deserves the classification it has. There are choices that must be made, whereas with a true disease you cannot make the choice for it to just go away.
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Mar 15, 2008 11:18:10 GMT -5
Disease is probably not the right word for it.
Addiction is more likely.
|
|
|
Post by finding on Mar 15, 2008 11:19:06 GMT -5
Disease is probably not the right word for it. Addiction is more likely. Addiction is classified as a disease.
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Mar 15, 2008 11:20:56 GMT -5
ok
How about "affliction" then?
|
|
|
Post by finding on Mar 15, 2008 11:22:51 GMT -5
ok How about "affliction" then? That is more like it. Now beat up the rest of the medical community and the huge portion of the general population that buy into this crap and make them fix it will ya?
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Mar 15, 2008 11:45:29 GMT -5
ok How about "affliction" then? That is more like it. Now beat up the rest of the medical community and the huge portion of the general population that buy into this crap and make them fix it will ya? What will you do for me if I do that for you?
|
|
|
Post by Magalucia on Mar 15, 2008 11:49:21 GMT -5
ok How about "affliction" then? That is more like it. Now beat up the rest of the medical community and the huge portion of the general population that buy into this crap and make them fix it will ya? So would you call diabetes an affliction and not a disease? How about certain melanomas or other cancers? There are a number of diseases that result from personal choices. Should we reclassify those as well? IMHO calling it a disease is not absolving the alcoholic from the need to act responsibly no more than it absolves a diabetic from having to take care of what they put in their mouth and how they care for their body. "Disease" does not equal "excuse" in my way of thinking. It is an explanation and perhaps a call to compassion, but does not mean we have to blindly accept anyone's poor behavior.
|
|
|
Post by finding on Mar 15, 2008 12:03:07 GMT -5
There are a number of diseases the result from personal choices. Should we reclassify those as well? Yes. Personal choices that have an effect and cause certain diseases should be reclassified. Diabetes is not always caused by poor choices either. A lot of the time it is, but not always. My oldest son has been battling prediabetes for almost 6 years now by no fault of his own or mine. He isn't allowed junk or processed foods, but his blood suger flucuations are something we have to deal with, especially if he gets sick and as he gets older.
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Mar 15, 2008 12:04:40 GMT -5
Thank you Mags - you said EXACTLY what I wanted to, without having the words.
My father is an alcoholic, I choose not to drink or to rarely drink. I hate that society as a whole assumes drinking to excess is pretty much assumed and even a good thing. Had a bad day? Get drunk. Need to celebrate a good one? Get drunk. But for those who can't handle it or stop - the alcoholics - they are bad.
Likening it to diabetes is EXACTLY right. We say the same thing about sugar foods - bad day? Eat chocolate. Good day? Have cake. Then when someone's body makes it so they can't handle it... are they bad?
Would you think it is ok to offer sugar to a diabetic? Yet we offer alcohol to alcoholics, and essentially tell poor people to drown their sorrows because we sure won't help them any other way! I don't think of it as excusable just because someone can't handle it (it wasn't ok for my dad) - but I think the root causes of why alcoholism exists are NOT being addressed, and society as a whole wants to blame the alcoholic rather than society and genetics or acknowledge that it isn't 100% the person's fault and assume the alcoholics are just weak.
Shey
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Mar 15, 2008 12:10:47 GMT -5
Finding - reclassifying them won't change what you want to get at.. You want people to take personal responsibility - to fix what they can, stay away from what they need to. You want people to not tell people with ANY disease, really, that it is ok to just let yourself go because you have a disease.
I agree with that sentiment - but I think if we really want that it isn't about reclassifying it - it is about going after root causes. Not to excuse the behavior, but to help change it. Know what I mean? My dad is an alcoholic, that DOESN'T mean him drinking/gambling my family's money away was ok cause he was "sick" - but it DOES mean he needed help. In his case, I think he needed help making friends and communicating sober.
Shey
|
|
|
Post by Magalucia on Mar 15, 2008 12:47:24 GMT -5
There are a number of diseases the result from personal choices. Should we reclassify those as well? Yes. Personal choices that have an effect and cause certain diseases should be reclassified. I think that is a bit short-sighted. Consider HIV/AIDS or cervical cancer. With your reasoning a person who acquired AIDS via a blood transfusion has a disease but a person who acquired it through unprotected sex perhaps does not? What if the reason for the transfusion was thrill-seeking behavior that resulted in a serious injury? What if the sexually-transmitted AIDS resulted from a cheating husband who gave it to his faithful wife? Let's go further. What if the thrill-seeking behavior of the person who received the transfusion was the result of peer-pressure and goading by popular kids on a socially-awkward teenager? What if the woman who got AIDS from her cheating husband knew he was a cheater and continued to have unprotected sex with him? What about cervical cancer acquired from a sexually transmitted disease? Does it matter if one woman got it as a result of her own promiscuity vs. a woman who got it from a spouses' promiscuity? Do you see my point? I understand that you are frustrated that your sons' autism is not classified as a disease while alcoholism is. Perhaps that is the argument to mount. That autism is a disease just like many others. I also understand the urge to quantify suffering. That is, a person who causes and/or exacerbates their own illness perhaps deserves less compassion or sympathy than an innocent child who had no choice or say. However easy it is to look at illness and suffering as black and white on a message board, it is incredibly complex IRL and too complicated to easily dismiss as fault vs. no-fault.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Mar 15, 2008 13:12:02 GMT -5
It seems to me that the standard definition of disease could be used to describe autism...
dis·ease /dɪˈziz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-zeez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -eased, -eas·ing. –noun 1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment. 2. any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc. 3. any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease. 4. decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease. –verb (used with object) 5. to affect with disease; make ill.
I doubt that anyone other than a doctor would bother to correct you if you referred to your children's autism as a disease.
|
|
|
Post by kittenhart on Mar 15, 2008 14:05:17 GMT -5
Mags, thanks for your post...pain and suffering is pain and suffering regardless of whether you "deserve" it or not. Cause and effect isn't always straightforward, there is alot of grey area, and life isn't fair either. case in point: my stbx used to engage in high risk motorcycle/ crotch rocket stunting and other crazy ass extreme sports ... I have always been a "safety first" sort of person, I behave prudently with my body, fundraise for spinal cord research, lift with my knees and not my back etc... ....and now I'm the one that's injured. Yep. Life is fair. But it wouldn't make him or someone like him less needing of compassion if he were to get hurt. I think sometimes it is tempting when people feel slighted and hard done by to look for someone to place blame on, but it doesn't help anything.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 15, 2008 14:27:48 GMT -5
I think sometimes it is tempting when people feel slighted and hard done by to look for someone to place blame on, but it doesn't help anything. Very good point, khart. Disease... disorder... both require professional help. The Center for Disease Control doesn't seem to pay much attention to the terminology, giving each affliction research and attention regardless of the cause or the official name.
|
|
|
Post by ionysis on Mar 15, 2008 17:26:22 GMT -5
Er, does that mean that bulimia or anorexia are not diseases either then? I mean, the alcoholic could just not drink right? "Disease" gone??? Well the anorexic could just go have a burger. "Disease" gone??? Just because an illness has its root cause in the brain rather than the body doesn't make it less of an illness, or make the sufferer less worthy of aid and empathy.
|
|