|
Post by Magalucia on Mar 16, 2008 12:29:03 GMT -5
The whole point which needs to be reiterated in my view is that if an alcoholic could "choose" to stop drinking then he wouldn't be an alcoholic would he? Alcoholism is a pathological condition. Look it up. You can't use "choice" as a support for your argument that alchoholism is a disease..because if could, then why not say cigaratte smoking, or, drugg abuse, or even suicide is a "disease" because otherwise why would people choose to do those things? The alcoholic has the ability to choose. But part of the disease is denial and addiction. It is not easily done and requires medical and psychological intervention. For some, even that is not enough. It is easy to say, they are weak and if they were only stronger of character they would beat the disease. I am not prepared to say, if I were an alcoholic, I would have been able to pull myself up by my bootstraps. I am frankly scared to death for my kid because she has the pre-disposition from both my side and her dad's.
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Mar 17, 2008 9:05:03 GMT -5
One can argue that all diseases have an element of choice. For example, the cancer survival rate among patients who decide to live is much higher than among those who decide to die. Attitude can make a difference regardless of the affliction.
Finding, I don't disagree with the part of your initial assertion that has to do with accountability for one's own choices. However, I would suggest that for everyone who uses the "disease" label as a crutch to enable their bad choices, there's at least one person who is given more hope for a "cure" by that same label. Ultimately, hope is a huge factor in overcoming any affliction - why deny hope to those in need?
|
|
|
Post by rocko on Mar 17, 2008 10:48:41 GMT -5
Ultimately, hope is a huge factor in overcoming any affliction - why deny hope to those in need? Yup, what he said.
|
|