Are You An Alcoholic?

[Neeranam]

I think you've missed the point. I don't personally see that doctors are effective for diagnosis (the subject of this thread). As for treatment, it all depends on the doctor, most doctors aren't addiction specialists, so it's difficult to generalise about 'most doctors'.

What's so diffficult to understand - most doctors aren't addiction specialists so therefore most can't treat alcoholics - which is what I said!If you're so much into statistics, go ask all the doctors if they cn help alkies or not and see what they say. I'll bet most of them say they can't!

What's your source for saying 'most doctors' advise AA (how did this thread come around to AA again - I sense an agenda ermm.gif)? Are we talking about general practitioners or addiction specialists? Perhaps you could start a separate thread about the medical profession's take on substance abuse, where we could look beyond ad antiquitatum?

Your post a few back mentioned AA.

I would only judge doctors or treatment therapies by their track records. Treatment programmes devised and administered by trained professionals--whether MDs or clinical psychologists--have higher success rates than 'traditional' programmes (such as AA), as well as self treatment (which itself ranks relatively high) according to the available statistics.

I agree to judge on track record. Please explain what 'agenda' you see. What could I possibly gain from mentioning AA? I sense some kind of agenda by yourself and your buddy Robuttsin to discredit a highly successful organisation - some personal resentment perhaps?

The following from Time magazine:- do you disagree with them as well as the National Council on Alcoholism, The WHO and other such agencies which state alcoholism is a disease?

¶ At least 60% of doctors do not treat alcoholics in any shape or form. ¶ Municipal hospitals, when they admit drunks, treat them with indifference, sober them up, try to get rid of them as quickly as possible (usually in less than 24 hours). Most private hospitals bar them.

This report, a stern rebuke to the medical profession, was delivered last week by a committee of the New York Academy of Medicine. The survey covered only New York City. But other cities are apt to be worse; most dump alcoholics in jail.

Some 60 doctors, judges and other experts, gathered at the Academy to consider the report, agreed that it was high time medics recognized alcoholism as a disease. The conferees, headed by grizzled old Anton J. Carlson, famed University of Chicago physiologist, resolved that: 1) New York should create a state commission on alcoholism* ; 2) medical and hospital societies should back medical care for alcoholics; 3) New York City should set up experimental "colonies" for long-term rehabilitation of compulsive drinkers.

Medicine is coming close to finding a cure for this disease, if it hasn't already. There is a fairly recent drug called 'Naltrexone', an opiod inhibitor, which is the favourite now. I've taken this in the past and it did take away the cravings, and stop the DTs. Do I have to rely on statistics or does my experience count for anything? Anecdotal, yeah.

Please tell me what you think of modern addiction specialists and alcohol addiction agencies giving a drug to alcoholics if it can be stopped by will-power and it isn't a disease!

Again, you're getting confused with heavy drinkers or people who become addicted to alcohol and people with the disease of alcoholism. Can't you see the difference?

[Mobi]

Do I have to rely on statistics or does my experience count for anything? Anecdotal, yeah.

Haven't you got it yet?

Real life experiences count for nothing.

According to Mr Sabaijai et al the oinly thing that matters is numbers that spew out of computers.

You can have friends, family and personal experiences till you're blue in the face - but it doesn't matter - they are all anectdotal - and don't mean a thing. Only his precious stats have any relevance to anything.

It's a waste of time arguing - he'll go on for ever and ever about his bloody stats

[robitusson]

Please tell me what you think of modern addiction specialists and alcohol addiction agencies giving a drug to alcoholics if it can be stopped by will-power and it isn't a disease!

Again, you're getting confused with heavy drinkers or people who become addicted to alcohol and people with the disease of alcoholism. Can't you see the difference?

What do you think the difference between a heavy drinker, alcohol addict and a "diseased" alcoholic is? Describe their drinking habits. What would someone be who drinks vodka on their own way to a social engagement? What about someone who steals money to buy alcohol? What about someone who drinks heavily in the pub every evening but holds down a job?

[Neeranam]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-09-10 01:23:54) *

Please tell me what you think of modern addiction specialists and alcohol addiction agencies giving a drug to alcoholics if it can be stopped by will-power and it isn't a disease!

Again, you're getting confused with heavy drinkers or people who become addicted to alcohol and people with the disease of alcoholism. Can't you see the difference?

What do you think the difference between a heavy drinker, alcohol addict and a "diseased" alcoholic is? Describe their drinking habits. What would someone be who drinks vodka on their own way to a social engagement? What about someone who steals money to buy alcohol? What about someone who drinks heavily in the pub every evening but holds down a job?

Answering questions with questions is a good way to avoid them.

[robitusson]

I agree to judge on track record. Please explain what 'agenda' you see. What could I possibly gain from mentioning AA? I sense some kind of agenda by yourself and your buddy Robuttsin to discredit a highly successful organisation - some personal resentment perhaps?

Nice think-speak there Neeranam. If you disagree, point out errors or express dissent, it's a "resentment".

Highly successful? Care to find some statistics to back up that ludicrous claim. The success rate, as has been stated several times here before, is around 5% possibly slightly more. You did say that you want to judge on track record. I don't think that's discrediting AA. It's just providing a fact that is apparently not appreciated.

But if you judge AA's success by its real function, proselytising by providing amateur medical diagnosis, then I grant it is it is a rip-roaring success.

I don't think I'd describe there being an AA agenda here, bordering on it probably, just a strong but unfounded bias. Sometimes when certain things are so accepted and so unquestioned, people don't even realise that they're perpetuating a falsehood.

Edited September 10, 2006 by robitusson

[robitusson]

Again, you're getting confused with heavy drinkers or people who become addicted to alcohol and people with the disease of alcoholism. Can't you see the difference?

I was asking for a clarification but if you want this question answered, I can.

The difference is that if someone drinks til they fall down every day for 20 years, beats his wife, loses his job, kills children while drunk-driving, tries to give up repeatedly then finally does it on their own or by another method but not AA, then they're a heavy drinker or alcohol addict.

On the other hand if someone drinks heavily for a few years when they're in their late teens and while they're in their college years and misses a few days of work and their girlfriend leaves them because of it and they go to AA because a member told them they're a diseased alcoholic and then they give up alcohol (even if only temporarily) with the help of the 12 Steps, then they're an alcoholic.

That's the difference, isn't it? Or am I still "in denial"?

Edited September 10, 2006 by robitusson

[Neeranam]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-09-10 01:23:54) *

Again, you're getting confused with heavy drinkers or people who become addicted to alcohol and people with the disease of alcoholism. Can't you see the difference?

I was asking for a clarification but if you want this question answered, I can.

The difference is that if someone drinks til they fall down every day for 20 years, beats his wife, loses his job, kills children while drunk-driving, tries to give up repeatedly then finally does it on their own or by another method but not AA, then they're a heavy drinker or alcohol addict. Nonsense, they might be an alcoholic.

On the other hand if someone drinks heavily for a few years when they're in their late teens and while they're in their college years and misses a few days of work and their girlfriend leaves them because of it and they go to AA because a member told them they're a diseased alcoholic and then they give up alcohol (even if only temporarily) with the help of the 12 Steps, then they're an alcoholic. Again total nonsense, they might call themself an alcoholic.

That's the difference, isn't it? Or am I still "in denial"Why do you keep mentioning denial(who says you're in denial?) - you're not an alcoholic, full stop, get over it?

I'm beginning to see what your problem/resentment is. Most people that I know drink heavily in their teens. You went to AA and realised that you weren't an alcoholic. Someone told you you were. That person was not speaking for AA, probably just some nut. AA cannot tell you that you're an alkie, and don't. I think(not speaking for AA) that there are probably a lot of people in AA that are not alcoholics(my definition), but they enjoy the fellowship and find it easier to give up the booze. I understand where you are coming from, thinking(incorrectly) that AA try to 'press-gang' members because of your experience, which is purely anecdotal.

Nice think-speak there Neeranam. If you disagree, point out errors or express dissent, it's a "resentment". laugh.gif laugh.gif

What ?

Highly successful? Care to find some statistics to back up that ludicrous claim.

How many people do you think that have got sober since AA started?

These statistics that you so heavily rely on to have an argument are bullshit.

You still didn't ansewr my question about the use of the drug Naltrexone, that addiction specialists and doctors worldwide are now prescribing to alcoholics. Why are they doing this if alcohol can be cured with will-power. It's like saying to someone with diahoerria, here take this medicine or try and will yourself better.

I think you are more intent on belittling AA that keeping to the facts about alcoholism.

***discussion of moderation removed***

Edited September 10, 2006 by sabaijai

[sabaijai]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-09-10 01:23:54) *

Again, you're getting confused with heavy drinkers or people who become addicted to alcohol and people with the disease of alcoholism. Can't you see the difference?

I was asking for a clarification but if you want this question answered, I can.

The difference is that if someone drinks til they fall down every day for 20 years, beats his wife, loses his job, kills children while drunk-driving, tries to give up repeatedly then finally does it on their own or by another method but not AA, then they're a heavy drinker or alcohol addict. Nonsense, they might be an alcoholic.

On the other hand if someone drinks heavily for a few years when they're in their late teens and while they're in their college years and misses a few days of work and their girlfriend leaves them because of it and they go to AA because a member told them they're a diseased alcoholic and then they give up alcohol (even if only temporarily) with the help of the 12 Steps, then they're an alcoholic. Again total nonsense, they might call themself an alcoholic.

That's the difference, isn't it? Or am I still "in denial"Why do you keep mentioning denial(who says you're in denial?) - you're not an alcoholic, full stop, get over it?

I'm beginning to see what your problem/resentment is. Most people that I know drink heavily in their teens. You went to AA and realised that you weren't an alcoholic. Someone told you you were. That person was not speaking for AA, probably just some nut. AA cannot tell you that you're an alkie, and don't. I think(not speaking for AA) that there are probably a lot of people in AA that are not alcoholics(my definition), but they enjoy the fellowship and find it easier to give up the booze. I understand where you are coming from, thinking(incorrectly) that AA try to 'press-gang' members because of your experience, which is purely anecdotal.

Nice think-speak there Neeranam. If you disagree, point out errors or express dissent, it's a "resentment". laugh.gif laugh.gif

What ?

Highly successful? Care to find some statistics to back up that ludicrous claim.

How many people do you think that have got sober since AA started?

These statistics that you so heavily rely on to have an argument are bullshit.

You still didn't ansewr my question about the use of the drug Naltrexone, that addiction specialists and doctors worldwide are now prescribing to alcoholics. Why are they doing this if alcohol can be cured with will-power. It's like saying to someone with diahoerria, here take this medicine or try and will yourself better.

I think you are more intent on belittling AA that keeping to the facts about alcoholism.

***discussion of moderation removed***

Ad hominem and off topic (all of us). If you'd like to debate treatment, why not start a separate thread?

[robitusson]

The difference is that if someone drinks til they fall down every day for 20 years, beats his wife, loses his job, kills children while drunk-driving, tries to give up repeatedly then finally does it on their own or by another method but not AA, then they're a heavy drinker or alcohol addict. Nonsense, they might be an alcoholic.

On the other hand if someone drinks heavily for a few years when they're in their late teens and while they're in their college years and misses a few days of work and their girlfriend leaves them because of it and they go to AA because a member told them they're a diseased alcoholic and then they give up alcohol (even if only temporarily) with the help of the 12 Steps, then they're an alcoholic. Again total nonsense, they might call themself an alcoholic.

Glad you agree this typical AA view of problem drinkers and alcoholism is nonsense.

That's the difference, isn't it? Or am I still "in denial"Why do you keep mentioning denial(who says you're in denial?) - you're not an alcoholic, full stop, get over it?

Fascinating, how the hel_l do you know what I am or I'm not? I haven't use my imaginations of your circumstances to try to prop up an argument. I'd appreciate if you'd keep your guesswork about my situation out of this.

I'm beginning to see what your problem/resentment is. Most people that I know drink heavily in their teens. You went to AA and realised that you weren't an alcoholic. Someone told you you were. That person was not speaking for AA, probably just some nut. AA cannot tell you that you're an alkie, and don't. I think(not speaking for AA) that there are probably a lot of people in AA that are not alcoholics(my definition), but they enjoy the fellowship and find it easier to give up the booze.

Thanks for the free consultation and diagnosis. Again, you don't know sh1t about my past. Stick to the issue please.

I understand where you are coming from, thinking(incorrectly) that AA try to 'press-gang' members because of your experience, which is purely anecdotal.

There's been several posts here, not mine, mentioning legal requirments for people to attend. Let me know if you need evidence about AA's 12th Step recruiting methods. I'd be happy to open your eyes. You're right my experience with AA coloured my opinion of it to a certain extent. It wasn't until I really looked into it, in particular the way it's practiced in America, that I learned the full story.

How many people do you think that have got sober since AA started?

About 5% of those who tried, possibly slightly more. I thought that had been mentioned already.

These statistics that you so heavily rely on to have an argument are bullshit.

Oh, I see. Really? And your reasoning is....?

You still didn't ansewr my question about the use of the drug Naltrexone, that addiction specialists and doctors worldwide are now prescribing to alcoholics. Why are they doing this if alcohol can be cured with will-power. It's like saying to someone with diahoerria, here take this medicine or try and will yourself better.

Sounds to me like they're trying something new which is welcome. I never said will-power is the answer to alcoholism. It is one of many possible solutions and probably an important factor in most recoveries.

I think you are more intent on belittling AA that keeping to the facts about alcoholism.

Possibly. You did make baseless claims about AA though. I pointed out a fact about it. The facts tend to belittle AA all by themselves. I think there's more than enough people promoting AA to have one person question it anyway. If it works so well and it's founded in science then where does all the dissention come from? Wait, don't tell me! It's all a big resentment.

Edited September 10, 2006 by robitusson

[Couthy]

ATTN : Neeranman:

Sir,

You continually use the wording 'disease' with regard to alcohol abuse.

Any doctor on the planet will explain to you the difference between what is a disease and what

is actually an illness.

Alcohol abuse is an illness.

As an illness it is treatable, it is not an incurable disease.

After sustained periods of alcohol abuse people become severly depressive and indeed their personality does undergo fundemental changes, and in large part through bad diet, lowered serotonin levels and especially, dehydration.

Some people will become addicted to almost anything, even water, but that is a problem relating to the individual for whatever reason that they have to feel the security of addiction and that is the job for the professionals to work out why you want to destroy yourself.

People who wish to drink themselves to death will normally find another substance to abuse if alcohol is not available. No, I am not going to quote facts and figures to you as you seem to be a convert of the AA method.

If god is all that bloody good why does he allow people to suffer these problems and the AA message is religious - like it or bloody lump it.

Become a muslim instead - hey why not, same thing eh?.

I have had friends destroy themselves and their families through drink, I nearly got on that train myself as I was idle with too much money and too many thoughts for a few months one time.

A visit to my local GP (In Scotland) who explained to me that there are two aspects to alcohol abuse:

One is the mental health aspect and the other is the physical aspect.

They must be treated in conjunction with the support of your friends and or family.

Alcohol abuse is an illness - it is not a disease ; you cannot catch it from another person. It is self inflicted and as such the individual with willing medical help can recover and continue with perhaps a wry smile in the future.

Did you ever ask yourself why you had to drink yourself into oblivion every day?.

Nah- forget the absolute craving for alcohol excuse - that is because you got yourself there to start with. Did your AA mates actually ask why you were so unhappy that you wanted to drink yourself to death?. Did you ask yourself that very question?.

Sometimes in our life we have to look in the mirror and accept that what we see needs changed.

Then we have to be honest with ourselves.

I reiterate : it is an illness, not a disease.

Cheers,

Couthy.

[sabaijai]

ATTN : Neeranman:

Sir,

You continually use the wording 'disease' with regard to alcohol abuse.

Any doctor on the planet will explain to you the difference between what is a disease and what

is actually an illness.

Alcohol abuse is an illness.

As an illness it is treatable, it is not an incurable disease.

After sustained periods of alcohol abuse people become severly depressive and indeed their personality does undergo fundemental changes, and in large part through bad diet, lowered serotonin levels and especially, dehydration.

Some people will become addicted to almost anything, even water, but that is a problem relating to the individual for whatever reason that they have to feel the security of addiction and that is the job for the professionals to work out why you want to destroy yourself.

People who wish to drink themselves to death will normally find another substance to abuse if alcohol is not available. No, I am not going to quote facts and figures to you as you seem to be a convert of the AA method.

If god is all that bloody good why does he allow people to suffer these problems and the AA message is religious - like it or bloody lump it.

Become a muslim instead - hey why not, same thing eh?.

I have had friends destroy themselves and their families through drink, I nearly got on that train myself as I was idle with too much money and too many thoughts for a few months one time.

A visit to my local GP (In Scotland) who explained to me that there are two aspects to alcohol abuse:

One is the mental health aspect and the other is the physical aspect.

They must be treated in conjunction with the support of your friends and or family.

Alcohol abuse is an illness - it is not a disease ; you cannot catch it from another person. It is self inflicted and as such the individual with willing medical help can recover and continue with perhaps a wry smile in the future.

Did you ever ask yourself why you had to drink yourself into oblivion every day?.

Nah- forget the absolute craving for alcohol excuse - that is because you got yourself there to start with. Did your AA mates actually ask why you were so unhappy that you wanted to drink yourself to death?. Did you ask yourself that very question?.

Sometimes in our life we have to look in the mirror and accept that what we see needs changed.

Then we have to be honest with ourselves.

I reiterate : it is an illness, not a disease.

Cheers,

Couthy.

Substance abuse is substance abuse, dependence is dependence, nothing more, whether you choose to call it a 'disease', an 'illness' or a 'syndrome'.

If you Google for 'disease' or 'illness' you'll find all manner of definitions. In some quarters, for example, 'aging' is considered a disease. The terms chosen don't matter much, but rather the way they are used to gain legal attention, public funding, insurance claims and so on. 'Illness' is generally considered a synonym for 'disease', the main difference being it is usually keyed to the perception of the patient (ie if the patient feels ill, there's an illness, even if that illness is only hypochondria).

From a semantic perspective, 'syndrome' seems most logical to me, since addiction/abuse patterns involve both physical and psychological factors. When it comes to addiction, the theory of rational addiction ('rational' here refers to a consistent plan to maximize utility over time, nothing to do with reason) seems most plausible to me.

Different medical organisations classify alcohol abuse/dependence in different ways. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, classifies alcohol abuse/alcoholism as a mental health disorder.

The American Medical Association recognises two separate conditions with relation to alchohol, abuse and dependence. The AMA has it's own diagnostic questionaire (see page 5) that elucidates the differences clearly.

The term 'alcoholic' is obviously problematic, hence the endless debate as to its diagnosis (in this thread) and its definition (in another thread). I don't think we're going to settle it here. It's a bit old-fashioned like 'leper' or 'nymphomaniac' or 'dipsomaniac'.

Dipsomania" is usually thought of as a dated term, considered different from alcoholism because it is defined as an uncontrollable urge rather than an addiction. from Wikipedia

Diagnostic questionnaires such as the one the AMA has devised seem helpful in identifying alcohol abuse patterns, even if many abusers don't have the presence of mind to recognise them and even if the world at large can't agree as to the precise definition/terms.

[Neeranam]

A visit to my local GP (In Scotland) who explained to me that there are two aspects to alcohol abuse:

One is the mental health aspect and the other is the physical aspect.

They must be treated in conjunction with the support of your friends and or family.

A visit to the Royal Edinburgh Hospital alcohol abuse unit, the head psychiatrist told me otherwise and gave me Naltrexone. She told me that the bodies of alcoholics react to alcohol differently than 'normal' drinkers. She also said that alcoholism was heredity. Medical views change all the time, but the most recent is the use of this drug which combats the disease/affliction or whatever.

Did your AA mates actually ask why you were so unhappy that you wanted to drink yourself to death?.

I didn't want to drink. I tried SO many things to stop. I found one way, so am happy now. All I can do now is share that experience with others.

Disease, syndrome, illness, affliction - does it really matter?

I actually think that it is an 'allergy', but that could well change next week

If you are addicted to strawberries, does your doctor advise you to cut down your intake?

If there is a drug that is found to combat alcoholism, I'll be very happy - I can get drunk every night.

[sabaijai]

I actually think that it is an 'allergy', but that could well change next week

If you are addicted to strawberries, does your doctor advise you to cut down your intake?

He might. But if you're allergic, then the best advice is to avoid them entirely. If you're allergic to alcohol, abstinence is obviously the best option. In fact it may be the best option for most people with alcohol disorders. Then the question becomes how abstinence is best achieved--perhaps reserved for another thread.

Back to diagnosis?

[Couthy]

Actually,

A bit of true levity here - I am allergic to strawberries!.

Not eaten one since I was 14 and love(d) them.

My missus loves buying a big tub of fresh strawberries then pours cream over them then eats them slowly and deliciously in front on me..........

Cruelty is a Thai female habit.

I actually think that it is an 'allergy', but that could well change next week

If you are addicted to strawberries, does your doctor advise you to cut down your intake?

He might. But if you're allergic, then the best advice is to avoid them entirely. If you're allergic to alcohol, abstinence is obviously the best option. In fact it may be the best option for most people with alcohol disorders. Then the question becomes how abstinence is best achieved--perhaps reserved for another thread.

Back to diagnosis?

[sabaijai]

Actually,

A bit of true levity here - I am allergic to strawberries!.

Not eaten one since I was 14 and love(d) them.

My missus loves buying a big tub of fresh strawberries then pours cream over them then eats them slowly and deliciously in front on me..........

Cruelty is a Thai female habit.

I actually think that it is an 'allergy', but that could well change next week

If you are addicted to strawberries, does your doctor advise you to cut down your intake?

He might. But if you're allergic, then the best advice is to avoid them entirely. If you're allergic to alcohol, abstinence is obviously the best option. In fact it may be the best option for most people with alcohol disorders. Then the question becomes how abstinence is best achieved--perhaps reserved for another thread.

Back to diagnosis?

So you're not 'powerless' when confronted by strawberries? Obviously strawberries don't make the perfect analogy ...

[Couthy]

I discovered when 14 years old working in a strawberry field in the school holidays (legalised UK slave labour) that I made more money than anyone else: Why?. I couldn't eat them as I came out in the most awful heat spots. (I think Americans have a different name).

Awww...you want to claw your skin off.

Ergo - most folk ate a proportion of their potential profits.

I didn't.

The alcohol thing was fixed for me in short order with a correct, conscise explanation of how alcohol is addictive, how it becomes addictive, and then the emotional, dietary, dehydration and subsuquent alteration of mental state.

I learned a lot from a very good Doctor very quickly and she does not treat people as idiots.

No, it was a behaviour change that I needed, a change of everything that I had doeng for 20 years- it was an attitude rethink.

My industry is a, and I speak this truly, it is a hard drinking industry; I got bored with it.

I am still in the industry = I still like a drink, but now - enough is enough and I never wake up in the morning wondering "Did I make an idiot of myself, who did I upset or even, where was I last night?".

God, (my invisible friend) will not help you. The Koran will not help you. AA will not help you.

They will indoctrinate you and provide no medical help or information at all.

If you break your leg you want to see the x-rays, right, to see exactly what the problem is?

Alchol abuse is exactly the same - you need a Doctor to explain why you are foing this to yourself, what it is doing to you and how to change.

The first law of applied mechanics: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For any person with an alcohol problem, find a sympathetic Doctor and tell that Doctor WHY YOU WANT TO BE DRUNK.

I suspect the AA brigade will not like this - but then again I don't have any 'Invisible friends'.

Doctors are paid to listen.

Cheers,

Couthy.

If you are addicted to strawberries, does your doctor advise you to cut down your intake?

He might. But if you're allergic, then the best advice is to avoid them entirely. If you're allergic to alcohol, abstinence is obviously the best option. In fact it may be the best option for most people with alcohol disorders. Then the question becomes how abstinence is best achieved--perhaps reserved for another thread.

Back to diagnosis?

So you're not 'powerless' when confronted by strawberries? Obviously strawberries don't make the perfect analogy ...

[sabaijai]

This thread started off on the topic of diagnostics but then veered into treatment, so I've created a new thread with everyone's fascinating comments on treatment approaches ....

[sbk]

I agree, lets try to get it back onto diagnosis and keep the whole treatment thing seperate.

But, I have to say good luck! So far, it seems to me, many threads veers off this way. You are a stronger man than I

[sabaijai]

You are a stronger man than I

I don't know about that, you're pretty strong, sbk!! Keep the faith ...

[Neeranam]

This thread started off on the topic of diagnostics but then veered into treatment, so I've created a new thread with everyone's fascinating comments on treatment approaches .... tongue.gif

Good moderating K.Sabajai And thank God for SBK to even things up

[sabaijai]

This thread started off on the topic of diagnostics but then veered into treatment, so I've created a new thread with everyone's fascinating comments on treatment approaches .... tongue.gif

Good moderating K.Sabajai And thank God for SBK to even things up

[ding]

Here's a 2 part test;

1) don't drink for 30 days.

2) after 30 days, draw a line halfway down the botlle and stop there for another week.

If that don't drive you batsh*t loopy then you're good to go.

[walkon]

Here's a 2 part test;

1) don't drink for 30 days.

2) after 30 days, draw a line halfway down the botlle and stop there for another week.

If that don't drive you batsh*t loopy then you're good to go.

In actuality, alcoholics have been known to have the willpower to stop based on a statement from a loved one alleging alcoholism ie; "OK, honey, as you say you are NOT acoholic, lets see you quit for 1 year" Usually the addict is awaiting the deadline and will drink themself to extinction. (see books named "love first" jeff jay; recovered alcoholic and interventionist. book has a wealth of knowledge for family and addicts. # i'll quit tomorrow" Vernon johnson; treatment and the alcoholic mind.

Resentment and denial are among the hallmarks of addiction and the so called screening tests are not meant to be dissected and/or held to absolute terms. one of the pearls to answering multiple choice medical exam questions is; answers containing "never" or "always" are usually the wrong choice.

Angry responses to a screening exam may represent resentment and defensive rationalizations, again, traits common in addiction, though, again, not absolute.

Chances are if you've had trouble at work, trouble with your family and non drinking friends, arguents/fights with drinkiners, marital problems and your spouse has mentioned alcohol, you just might have a problem.

Denial in addiction cana be very strong. It has made mothers/fathers neglect or abandon their babies/children. IN fact denial can be so strong that even if Jesus Christ descended to earth and told a christian addict he/she is alcoholic, they may not even care, or perhaps care enough to use it as an excuse to drink more.

By definition, an impaired mind cannot perceive an impaired mind. Loved ones and even rehab counselors can pull all their hair out trying to reason with an addict.

Ethanol aka alcohol causes very real changes to the brain. The NIH in Maryland has actual PET scan images if you search their site(lost url)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...Pst-2106100.php

"This study uses a unique technology -- namely, PET scans -- that allows us to look at the effects of alcohol on brain function while the person is awake," said Harriet de Wit, associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago. "Different researchers have been looking at the effects of drugs on brain activity using this technology, and this study uses it to look at alcohol. In addition, it compares the findings from this study with those from an earlier study on a drug which has a known effect on one neurotransmitter."

"We found that both drugs induced marked reductions in whole brain activity," said Volkow. "The reductions were most accentuated in the occipital cortex (visual area) and in the cerebellum (an area involved with motor control), which we believe is due to the fact that these areas have a very high concentration of GABA receptors." However, there were significant differences in brain activity changes induced by these two drugs, she noted.

"Ativan produced significantly larger reductions in activity in the thalamus (a brain region involved with sleep regulation) than alcohol did," Volkow said. "We believe that this difference accounts for the fact that Ativan was more sedating than alcohol. Moreover, after Ativan, the reduction in thalamic activity was associated with more intense self-reports of 'sedation' and 'sleepiness.' The larger decrements in thalamic activity associated with Ativan likely reflect the fact that there are differences in sensitivity between the different types of GABA receptors to the effects of alcohol than to those of benzodiazepines. Alternatively," she added, "this could reflect the effects of alcohol on other neurotransmitters that antagonize the decrements in thalamic activity."

Alcohol induced larger decrements in the basal ganglia, which is a brain region that receives extensive innervation (supply) from dopamine, a neurotransmitter implicated in the reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse, including those of alcohol. Alcohol was perceived as more stimulating and more reinforcing than Ativan, as assessed by self-reports of 'stimulated,' 'high' and 'drug liking.'

"We know that alcohol's effects on the brain go beyond its effects on GABA receptors," said Wang. "Alcohol is a 'dirty drug' in that it acts on many brain systems, including dopamine. The larger changes in the basal ganglia caused by alcohol than by Ativan could reflect the effects of alcohol on dopamine, which in turn could account for it being perceived as more reinforcing and stimulating than Ativan."

"This study looks at a basic science question," said de Wit, " how does alcohol act on the brain? Alcohol seems to have different effects, both sedative-like and stimulant-like, on the brain. Healthy volunteers who experience the sedative-like effects usually don't really like the drug; they tend to not be so much associated with drug seeking. People who experience the stimulant effects of alcohol like it more."

"However, there are certain individuals who are vulnerable to the sedative effects of alcohol as well as that of benzodiazepines," added Volkow. "These individuals may be abusing alcohol or benzodiazepines as a means to automedicate an anxiety disorder. In addition, one could speculate that chronic alcohol administration could result in decreases in brain GABA activity that could make an individual vulnerable to the sedative effects of alcohol."

A helpful screening exam is at

http://www.alcoholscreening.org/index.asp

My intent is not to point blame or criticize, simply to show facts. I have dealt with a family member and their alcoholism. I have post graduate training in addiction medicine and have interviewed numerous recovered alcoholics/drug addicts.

Edited September 29, 2006 by walkon

[Neeranam]

I have post graduate training in addiction medicine and have interviewed numerous recovered alcoholics/drug addicts.

So in your 'expert' opinion, what is the definition of an alcoholic?

***Neeranam, the following two questions would be better placed in the Alcohol Disorders: Treatment Approaches thread. Also the use of the terms 'alcoholic' and 'real alcoholic' in both questions point back to the first question, which I doubt anyone can satisfactorily answer in a way that everyone will agree upon.***

*Can an alcoholic recover completely?

*What, in your experience, is the most successful means by which a 'real' alcoholic can recover?

[sabaijai]

The abundant data about the brain chemistry of people under the influence of alcohol, or diagnosed as being alcohol-dependent, raises some interesting questions. Is the difference genetic or something that comes about as a result of the use of alcohol?

If the latter, as it appears to be, then there is no such thing as a born alcoholic, rather a person establishes a behaviour pattern that results in alcohol abuse, which for some people then leads to alcohol dependence. That dependence may to some lesser or greater degree be exacerbated by changes in brain chemistry due to the abuse of alchol. There seems to be evidence that it plays a role, but I don't think we understand very well yet just how significant these changes are.

[sbk]

The abundant data about the brain chemistry of people under the influence of alcohol, or diagnosed as being alcohol-dependent, raises some interesting questions. Is the difference genetic or something that comes about as a result of the use of alcohol?

If the latter, as it appears to be, then there is no such thing as a born alcoholic, rather a person establishes a behaviour pattern that results in alcohol abuse, which for some people then leads to alcohol dependence. That dependence may to some lesser or greater degree be exacerbated by changes in brain chemistry due to the abuse of alchol. There seems to be evidence that it plays a role, but I don't think we understand very well yet just how significant these changes are.

But it is interesting how important a role coming from an alcoholic home plays in producing an alcoholic. Not that I think its genetic either but that perhaps the dysfunction of an alcoholic home leads some people to follow the same path. But my personal experiences have been that it isn't usually every child of an alcoholic becomes an alcoholic but those children who share similar personality traits with the alcoholic parent.

And yes, Sabaijai, that is anecdotal evidence

Edited October 14, 2006 by sabaijai

[sabaijai]

The abundant data about the brain chemistry of people under the influence of alcohol, or diagnosed as being alcohol-dependent, raises some interesting questions. Is the difference genetic or something that comes about as a result of the use of alcohol?

If the latter, as it appears to be, then there is no such thing as a born alcoholic, rather a person establishes a behaviour pattern that results in alcohol abuse, which for some people then leads to alcohol dependence. That dependence may to some lesser or greater degree be exacerbated by changes in brain chemistry due to the abuse of alchol. There seems to be evidence that it plays a role, but I don't think we understand very well yet just how significant these changes are.

But it is interesting how important a role coming from an alcoholic home plays in producing an alcoholic. Not that I think its genetic either but that perhaps the dysfunction of an alcoholic home leads some people to follow the same path. But my personal experiences have been that it isn't usually every child of an alcoholic becomes an alcoholic but those children who share similar personality traits with the alcoholic parent.

And yes, Sabaijai, that is anecdotal evidence

Nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence as long as you don't claim it's typical! Besides being inherently interesting (to some people), case studies are useful for creating hypotheses which can then be empirically tested to find out whether observations from the case study can be generalised or not.

On the other hand I think you'll find plenty of studies that do support the notion that one's family/social background plays a significant role in the development of alcohol disorders. As in many other disorders, there's often a combination of 'nature and nurture'.

[Neeranam]

On the other hand I think you'll find plenty of studies that do support the notion that one's family/social background plays a significant role in the development of alcohol disorders. As in many other disorders, there's often a combination of 'nature and nurture'.

All well and good if you're talking about alcohol disorders, whatever they may be.

This test is to help people decide if they suffer from the 'disease' of alcoholism.

[robitusson]

The disease notion has been gone into extensively already. All differing proponents of the disease theory, for and against, agree there's no conclusive test for it.

[sabaijai]

The disease notion has been gone into extensively already. All differing proponents of the disease theory, for and against, agree there's no conclusive test for it.

Precisely. One can also see hazy agendas on both sides of the argument, which is why more modern views tend to prefer the umbrella term 'alcohol use disorder'.

The more discerning tests, as referenced earlier in this thread, make a distinction between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, while avoiding any use of the words 'alcoholic' or 'alcoholism'. The AMA's screening test (part of an excellent 31-page document on assessing for alcohol use disorders, follow-up and treatment), which is also used by the NIAAH, makes no use of either term for example. Curiously the NIAAH uses the terms 'alcoholic' and 'alcoholism' elsewhere, despite the non-use in their widely published screening test, but they seem to use these terms out of tradition rather than for any medical reason.

Definitions belong under another thread however. We've been over this ground before, eg see my post #71 in this thread where I pointed out that the terms 'illness' and 'disease' are very imprecise and have many definitions. 'Disorder' is a bit clearer as it references a condition that is abnormal, and has psychological components (not necessarily exclusively) but doesn't involve viruses, organ failures, infections, etc, commonly associated with the term 'disease' (though of course many diseases of this sort are associated with alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence).

So why don't we just agree that some people call the condition a 'disease', others a 'disorder', and get back to the thread topic, diagnostics?