In the United States, but not in other
countries such as Great Britain (Robertson and Heather,
1982), the standard answer is to call the behavior a
disease - 'alcoholism' - whose key symptom is a pattern of
uncontrollable drinking.
This myth, now widely advertised
and widely accepted, is neither helpfully compassionate nor
scientifically valid. It promotes false beliefs and
inappropriate attitudes, as well as harmful, wasteful, and
ineffective social policies.
The myth is
embodied in the following four scientifically baseless
propositions:
1) Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern
of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily,
mental, and social deterioration.
2) The condition
once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is
irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has
begun.
3) Medical
expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition
(cure the disease) or at least ameliorate its
symptoms.
4) Alcoholics are
no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking
and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for
the consequences of their movements during
seizures.
The idea that
alcoholism is a disease has always been a political and
moral notion with no scientific basis. It was first
promoted in the United States around 1800 as a speculation
based on erroneous physiological theory (Levine, 1978), and
later became a theme of the temperance movement (Gusfield,
1963). It was revived in the 1930s by the founders of
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), who derived their views from an
amalgam of religious ideas, personal experiences and
observations, and the unsubstantiated theories of a
contemporary physician (Robinson, 1979).1
Another
observation is offered by Jeffery Schaler, Ph.D. in June of
1995:
Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a
voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by
individual psychological and environmental factors, than
physiology and the chemical properties of drugs."
2
In another article
authored by Dr. Phil Stringer entitled Disease,
Victimization, and Personal Responsibility he raises the
question, "How many people who never decide to drink would
'catch' the 'disease' of alcoholism?"
The obvious answer
is none. In the traditional meaning of the word "disease,"
a chosen behavior (i.e. drinking alcohol or taking drugs)
does not define a disease in that one can just as
reasonably choose not to drink or use drugs. The disease
theory simply provides the person with a drug or alcohol
problem an easy out from taking responsibility for
themselves, their behavior, and the problems they cause
others.
There are hundreds
of researchers who have looked carefully at the alcoholism
disease theory. Most have rejected the notion that
alcoholism is a disease. The studies that have touted
alcoholism as a disease are researchers who derive a
living, in one way or another, from the treatment industry.
These are hardly sources that can be trusted.
Finally, consider
the paradoxical nature of the disease theory: the theory
contends that once the disease is in place (diagnosed), the
alcoholic has lost the power of choosing not to drink or
the drug addict to not use drugs. But, how can that be true
when millions of diagnosed alcoholics have stopped drinking
and never return to problem drinking and drug addicts have
stopped using drugs? If, indeed, they lost their power to
choose to not use alcohol or other drugs, how did these
millions of people with drug and alcohol problems stop
drinking and/or drugging? Are we to believe that counselors
and other professionals can make the choice for their
patients because their patients have "lost their personal
power of choice?" Or perhaps Alcoholics Anonymous and other
12-step programs provide some "magic" that gives members
their choice back, but only "one day at a time." Or maybe
we are to believe that there is some universal power
(choice power) that is channeled only through licensed
counselors and other would-be professionals.
The millions that
at one time had a substance abuse problem and now do not,
do not have one because they made a choice not to. You can
too. The Jude Thaddeus Home Recovery Program ™ cannot make
that choice for you - only you can do that. What the Jude
Thaddeus Home Recovery Program ™ can do for you is help you
formulate your plans for sobriety and share with you our
experiences of making the choice not to drink and drug and
then make that choice a reality of your own
life.
Footnote 1: Extracted from:
Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism;
Herbert Fingarette, Ph.D.. in: Engs, Ruth C. [editor].
Controversies in the Addiction Field. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall Hunt, 1990. from: http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook. Down Loaded 24 February 2003.
Footnote 2: Jeffrey A.
Schaler, Ph.D., "Cult-Busting," The InterPsych Newsletter
2(5), June 1995, http://www.schaler.net/fifth/cultbusting.html.
See also Alexander, B. K. (1990). The Empirical and
Theoretical Bases for an Adaptive Model of Addiction.
Journal of Drug Issues, 20, 37-65. See also Alexander, B.
K. (1987) The Disease and Adaptive Models of Addiction: A
Framework Evaluation. Journal of Drug Issues, 17,
47-66.
Permanent Recovery From
Addiction - Alcohol drug
abuse and alcoholism are not diseases. We are alternative
to conventional drug alcohol alcoholism rehab and
treatment.
If you need more information call the St. Jude Retreat House™, at 1-888-424-2626 or Contact Us via e-mail below.
|
RECOMMEND THIS PAGE | 
PRINT THIS PAGE
