| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 739.1 | The Labyrinth of Addiction | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:01 | 93 |
|
Helen, Paul, Alison and David are caught in the labyrinth, blindly running
from the mad monster alcohol who holds them hostage. If they pause, it
hears their breathing; if they move, it hears their footsteps; if they look
to the east, it comes from the west. Faster and faster, they must keep
running down the convoluted corridors of rage, shame and insanity.
The snorting monster at the very center of the labyrinth of alcohol demands
human sacrifice, and greedily takes its toll from young and old, from male
and female, from rich and poor. And the world laughs, and points in
judgment at those trapped inside, as if those inside freely chose to be
there.
Helen and her family did not choose life in the labyrinth. They were all
bound and chained by the unalterable nature of the alcohol's addiction,
over which she has no control. They are all locked into a disease; a
chronic, progressive, fatal disease caused by the workings of the body
chemistry Helen has inherited.
Addictive behavior has been defined in an article by Stephanie Abbott
Leary as "consuming, repetitive, predictable, and with a sameness of
internal sensation that blocks out external reality."
Over and over, Helen is locked into a pattern of behavior that consumes
her mind with the thought of alcohol, possesses her body with the demand
for alcohol, and subjects her will to it's overpowering claim. Her mind and
body and will, once free, are programmed in a repetitive predictable chain
of events over which neither she nor her family may exercise any control.
While various psychological factor's may contribute to heavy drinking, they
do not make one physically dependent upon alcohol. Without physical
dependence, Jellinek's disease* can not exist.
*Physical dependence is the essence of Jellinek's disease, the disease of
alcoholism.*
A disease is simply anything that interferes with the health of the body
and with it's ability to function normally. Jellinek's disease destroys
the body and its ability to function within a normal range. This diseased
state has not been sought out by the victim, and as such, is an involuntary
illness.
Helen's disease is caused by her unusual body chemistry. She is an
alcoholic and the body chemistry of alcoholics is different from others.
From earliest infancy, probably even from the moment of conception,
alcoholics would react differently to alcohol if they were so exposed.
As one ravaged by cancer or leprosy did not try to get the disease, so one
destroyed by Jellinek's disease did not seek his illness.
The majority who drink are genetically immune: They have no inherited
weakness toward developing alcoholism. However, there is a large
minority of people who are genetically programmed for alcoholism. They have
simply inherited an alcoholics biochemistry.
*Those with Jellinek's disease have inherited a body chemistry that, in
the presence of alcohol, produces the addiction, the disease.*
Unlike flu or the measles, Jellinek's disease is chronic and will only
cease to exist with the afflicted draws his last breath. No one outgrows
it, nor does it simply run its course. Therefore, once Jellinek's disease
has been contracted, the individual will always have it, either in an
active state if he continues to drink, or in a latent if he ceases to
drink. For this reason the alcoholic who no longer drinks calls himself
"a recovering alcoholic," rather than "a recovered alcoholic." Jellinek's
disease is never over.
Unlike a chronic slipped disc, or a chronic allergy to ragweed, whose
symptoms remain more or less the same without treatment, Jellinek's disease
progresses from a less destructive state to a point of insanity of death.
Again the analogy of cancer is particularly apt; Beginning with the
deviation of a single cell into a cluster of deviant cells, a microscopic
tumor appears, grows, spreads, metastasized, and finally kills its host.
However, with Jellinek's disease, there is never a remission, never a cure.
Like cancer, the early stage of Jellinek's disease is hidden. It's earliest
manifestation - a greater physical tolerance than most for alcohol - is an
ironic, almost infallible sign of the onset of an irreversible le process that
will end in the total loss of tolerance that signals the latter stage of
Jellinek's disease.
_____________
* Jellinek's disease, a fatal, progressive, chronic disease characterized
by an inability to control one's drinking, named after Dr. E. M. Jellinek
(1890-1963) who first described and charted it's progression; alcoholism.
_____________________
Reprinted without permission from: Alcoholism, The genetic
Inheritance - 1988
Kathleen W. Fitzgerald, Ph.D
|
| 739.2 | The Biochemistry of Alcoholism | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:02 | 64 |
|
While medical science cannot at this time assert that a particular gene, a
particular enzyme, or a particular neurotransmitter actually causes
alcoholism, there is much known about the biochemistry of alcohol
addiction.
We know that the alcoholic dies not metabolize alcohol in the same manner
that the rest of us who drink alcohol do. We know that his liver functions
differently from the time of that very first drink. We know that certain
unique developments occur in the alcoholic's brain - changes to the cells,
between the cells, within the cells - that do not occur in the rest of us.
We know that the chemistry and biology within the body of an alcoholic
responds abnormally to alcohol. His body reacts by first adjusting to
alcohol's impact, then accommodating its presence, and finally becoming
addicted. What is not normal for others becomes normal for him. His body
becomes so adjusted to alcohol that he *cannot* exist without it, much as
a fish cannot absorb oxygen out of water.
Scientists are presently looking for biological "markers", those genes or
enzymes or brain waves that may designate future alcoholics. This search
has exciting implications in the areas of education and prevention.
The entire area of alcoholism research hold great promise of unwrapping the
secrets of the liver, of the brain, of the cell that may one day reveal to
us why and how seventeen million Americans have contracted Jellinek's
disease and which of their children are marked for alcoholism.
What distinguishes Jellinek's disease from simple heavy drinking is
physical dependence, not psychological dependence. The psychological
symptoms are secondary to the physical dependence and have no bearing on
one developing Jellinek's disease. The critical and essential Component of
Jellinek's disease is physical dependence.
This physical dependence is cause by an irregular body chemistry that at
first allows greater tolerance, but, at the same time, kicks off the
poisonous, intensely additive substances that play havoc with body and
brain cells, rendering the will impotent.
The metabolism of the alcoholic differs from that of normal persons in three
major ways:
1) *The levels of substance called acetaldehyde that is found in the
bloodstream* Although acetaldehyde is a normal by-product of alcohol
metabolism, alcoholics product much higher levels that nonalcoholics.
2) *The presence in the brain of a highly addictive, heroinlike substance
called TIQ (tetrahydroisoquinoline)* which many feel is the root cause of
alcoholic addiction. It is found in high levels in the brains of
alcoholics.
3) *The thickening of the brain cell membranes*. These membranes are
abnormally thickened in the brains of alcoholics and require constant
supplies of alcohol to function normally". If alcohol is withheld, the
membranes work badly and the body experiences intense discomfit or
withdrawal. The membranes do not feel "normal" until alcohol is ingested
again.
____________________________
Reprinted without permission from: Alcoholism, The genetic
Inheritance - 1988
Kathleen W. Fitzgerald, Ph.D
|
| 739.3 | Acetaldehyde | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:03 | 82 |
| Once alcohol enters the body, it is carried to the liver to be processed
and eliminated. The liver's way of handling alcohol is to change its
destructive chemical nature so that it can easily be disposed of.
It does this by a chain reaction process that first turns alcohol into a
substance called acetaldehyde, which in turn is converted to acetate that
is broken down into carbon dioxide an water for easy elimination from the
body through urine, breath, and sweat. Acetaldehyde is a poison which
cause the nausea, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, mental confusion and hangover
associated with drinking.
The normal liver can efficiently process one-half ounce of alcohol per
hour. If he ingests alcohol faster than the liver can change the
acetaldehyde into acetate, the excess acetaldehyde enters the bloodstream
and eventually reaches the brain. This poisonous substance does radical
harm throughout the body, especially to the liver.
There are two major enzymes in the liver that are responsible for the
metabolism or chemical breakdown of alcohol: ADH (alcohol dehydrogenase)
which turns alcohol into acetaldehyde, and ALDH (acetaldehyde
dehydrogenase) which processes the acetaldehyde into acetate.
Those afflicted with Jellinek's disease have inherited liver enzyme
abnormalities that inhibit this normal metabolic process. Their liver
enzymes vary in small but import ways, different in just a few of the
critical amino acid constituents that speed up or slow down the metabolism
of alcohol.
In 1980, research at the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse
Intramural Laboratory discovered two significant liver metabolites
(byproducts of the chemical breakdown process) that are present *only in
alcoholics*.
These metabolites are 2,3-butanediol and 1,2-propanediol. In blood samples
drawn from intoxicated male alcoholics, these metabolites were present;
they were not present in blood samples of intoxicated nonalcolics.
These studies were replicated at the Center for Disease Control and at
the Harvard School of Public Health, all with the same results.
It is a fairly common occurrence in individuals of oriental heritage to
experience painful facial flushing when they drink alcohol. This condition
has been attributed to lower ALDH enzyme functioning which results in
higher acetaldehyde levels. Medical researchers had reasoned that these
high acetaldehyde levels may play a part in the development of the
metabolites 2,3-butanediol and 1,2-propanediol, since alcoholics likewise
have higher acetaldehyde levers.
]However, when a group of Japanese medial students who had been give
alcohol and showed signs of facial flushing were examined, none of the
suspected metabolites were found. Since there is an extremely low rate of
alcoholism in oriental populations, evidence is becoming clearer that these
two liver metabolites are unique to the alcoholic.
Continued research is focusing on these metabolites to determine their exact
function in the addiction process. As of now we know that these
metabolites are present only in alcoholics; how and why they are there has
yet to be answered. In some subtle way, have 2,3-butanediol and
1,2-propanediol caused the addictive process? Will they someday serve as
the biological marker for Jellinek's disease?
As we know, those with Jellinek's disease have inherited enzyme
abnormalities that inhibit the ability of the liver to process alcohol
normally. In addition to producing the unique liver metabolites, the liver
reacts by producing an alternate system to metabolize alcohol;, this is
known as MEOS "microsomal ethanol oxidating system."
Through this system, enzymes which oxidize alcohol are increased and new
liver cells are made. The alcoholic now converts alcohol into
acetaldehyde faster and more efficiently.
This proves to be the alcoholic's undoing.
While the MEOS provides a greater ability to tolerate and process alcohol
into acetaldehyde, it does not enable him to eliminate it with the same
efficiency that it is produced. Thus, toxic acetaldehyde levels increase.
_________________________-
Reprinted without permission from: Alcoholism, The genetic
Inheritance - 1988
Kathleen W. Fitzgerald, Ph.D
|
| 739.4 | TIQ | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:04 | 61 |
| Inside the brain is what can be thought of as a wall that protects the
precious nerve cells from toxins and drugs in the bloodstream. This is
called the blood-brain barrier. Unfortunately, acetaldehyde easily passes
through this barrier and affects the brain.
The brain is made up of thirteen billion neurons, or nerve cells. These
neurons carry message which regulate all human functions from breathing and
heartbeat to behavior, memory, thought, judgment.
These cells do not touch each other but communicate through chemical
messages that are sent across the gaps, or synapses, that separate one cell
from the other. These chemical message-carriers are called
neurotransmitters, literally the senders across the nerves.
When acetaldehyde penetrates the blood-brain barrier and invades the
nerve cells, it bonds to dopamine and norepinephrone, two of the many
chemicals that constitute the basic families or systems of
neurotransmission.
The resulting substance is the neurotransmitter known as TIQ which mimics
the morphine (opiate) transmitter by attaching itself to the opiate
receptor. In other words, the brain feels as if it had received heroin.
It feels good, nothing hurts. It wants more.
TIQ is not manufactured in any sizable amount in the brains of normal
social drinkers, nor in the brains of those=who drink heavily. However, it
is found in measurable amounts in the brains of alcoholics.
During the Second World War TIQ was duplicated synthetically to be used as
a painkiller. Despite its effectiveness it was rejected when it was found
to be more addictive than morphine. TIQ may well be the prime substance
responsible for the alcohol addiction, immobilizing the will, rendering it
impotent.
The discovery of the relationship between TIQ and alcohol addiction was
made in 1970 when Dr. Virginia Davis of the Veteran's Administration was
examining the brains of recent cadavers from the Skid Row area of Houston.
She found a substance in their brains usually found only inn heroin users
and she associated these men with drug addiction.
However, when she discussed this with the Houston police, they pointed out
that the men were "winos" who could never have afforded heroin. Upon
further investigation, Dr. Davis discovered that alcohol had combined with
dopamine to produce the addictive substance TIQ, whose effects within the
brain were almost identical to those of heroin.
Subsequent studies of live alcoholics confirm these findings. TIQ has been
found in the urine of alcoholics, but not in the urine of the control group
of nonalcoholics.
The addictiveness of TIQ has been shown repeatedly, as has its relationship
with alcohol. Experiments on rats have shown that when given TIQ, they
choose to take alcohol in preference to water; with the increase of TIQ,
they increase the amount of alcohol ingestion.
_________________
Reprinted without permission from: Alcoholism, The genetic
Inheritance - 1988
Kathleen W. Fitzgerald, Ph.D
|
| 739.5 | Cell Membrane | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:05 | 45 |
| A brain cell stays healthy when its membrane (wall) has a specific
dimension and permeability. This controls the proper flow of potassium,
sodium, and chloride in and out of the cell.
In the brain cells of alcoholics, the proper dimension of the cell membrane
is in a constant state of flux. Alcohol at first renders the cell wall
weak and permeable, disrupting the delicate chemical flow in and out of the
cell. In order to maintain a state of equilibrium, the walls thicken
themselves in an attempt to reestablish the correct chemical balance within.
Alone with dopamine and norepinephrine, GABA (gamma-amino butyric acid) is
another family of neurotrasmitters affected by alcohol. When alcohol
attaches to the GABA receptor, it alters the chloride ion channel coupled
to that receptor, increasing the flow of chloride into the brain cell.
The result is that the person feels a reduction of tension, anxiety, and
has less inhibitions - the reason why most people drink in the first place.
However, with the increase of chloride into the cell, the cell membranes
become disordered. The vital transmission of signals between cells, which
is dependent upon the smooth functioning of the releasers and receptors is
disrupted.
These releasers and receptors are all proteins which are embedded in the
wall of the cell. This wall or membrane is made of lipids, fats; these
lipids are important biochemical elements in maintaining the structural
integrity of the membrane. When the membrane becomes weak and unstable
from the impact of alcohol and the subsequent ruse of chloride, it then
tries to strengthen and stabilize itself by toughening up. With time the
cells walls grow thick to withstand the next onslaught of alcohol.
However, once the alcohol is no longer present, these membranes are too
thick to function properly and the balance is again destroyed. Truly, his
cells *need* alcohol to work in a manner which is quickly becoming normal for
him.
This is the essence o the disease process: What is abnormal for the
nonalcoholic is normal for the alcoholic.
_______________________
Reprinted without permission from: Alcoholism, The genetic
Inheritance - 1988
Kathleen W. Fitzgerald, Ph.D
|
| 739.6 | The Cycle of Addiction | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:06 | 66 |
| As we have seen, the person with Jellinek's disease produces more
acetaldehyde than the normal person. This acetaldehyde combines with
dopamine and norepinephrine to produce TIQ which attaches to the opiate
receptors in the brain. Because TIQ is nearly identical, chemically, with
heroin, the cells of the brain feel they are being sedated by more and more
"heroin"; they cannot do without it.
In addition, the acetaldehyde combines with another neurotransmitter, GABA,
and fills the cells of the brain with chloride, creating a further
sedative-like effect.
The critical balance of the lipids within the walls of the cell are in a
constant state of flux, depending on the presence or absence of alcohol.
The chaos within the cell membrane is soon taken to be a normal condition,
much like living at the foot of a rumbling volcano.
The cell begins to need more and more alcohol at a constant rate to
maintain any level of comfort. The cells actually thirst for alcohol. This
is called *addiction.*
The delicate, harmonious way in which our brain cells were designed to
sustain life, to think, to remember, to react to danger, to pray, to enjoy a
spring morning is profoundly disrupted. Everything is out of whack.
The person is caught in a ever-tightening spiral. The nerve cells cry out
for more alcohol to feel normal; the person drinks to avoid withdrawal;
the liver metabolizes what it can but is becoming cirrhotic from overwork;
the nerve cells cry out for more; the person drinks more; the liver tries
to keep up with the intake; the nerve cells need more. And all the time,
the cell membrane is growing thicker and TIQ levels are mounting.
To understand the skewed, abnormal chemical routing of alcohol and its
subsequent production of the addictive, controlling TIQ is to begin to
understand how Helen and her family became trapped in the alcoholic
labyrinth in the first place.
On some level, perhaps without realizing or know just why, Helen found
herself losing control of her drinking. As acetaldehyde was gathering
within her body, as TIQ was collecting within her brain and the cell
membranes were growing tough, her will was becoming less and less effective.
Taste grew into desire, desire into craving, craving into obsession,
obsession into compulsion, compulsion into an addiction that consumed her.
*Choice had ceased to exist.*
Helen was left with nothing but frustration, rage, and guilt as she daily
struggled for control over her drinking. Who could comprehend the utter
shame she felt as, again and again, she promised herself and vowed to her
family that she would not take another drink, only to find herself throwing
a drink down her throat to quiet the screaming cells that were demanding
more and more.
The illusion of peace that came so softly, so sweetly with that first drink
overcame her best intentions. She was hooked. That sweet first rush that
quieted her nerves was dashed as she was forced to reach for another then
another then another.
This is the meaning of alcoholism, of Jellinek's disease.
______________________
Reprinted without permission from: Alcoholism, The genetic
Inheritance - 1988
Kathleen W. Fitzgerald, Ph.D
|
| 739.7 | Forward by George E. Wendell, M.D. | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Fri Apr 14 1989 19:09 | 78 |
| This is the forward to "Alcoholism: the Genetic Inheritance - Kathleen
W. Fitzgerald, PH.D." written by George E. Wendel, M.D. Medical
Director, Chemical Dependency Unit, Highland Park Hospital.
Reprinted here without permission.
In 1956 the American Medical Associate acknowledged alcoholism as a
disease. In 1960 Dr. E. M. Jellinek wrote of the etiology of the disease
according to what was known at the time. In more recent times, study after
study has documented the physical nature of this illness.
These events have opened the door to treatment for many, but for some
baffling and frustrating reason, our culture has refused to believe them.
Shame and ignorance about the true nature of this disease is at the heart
of this needless waste of life and destruction of families.
In the 18 years since first began to treat alcoholics and in the 5 years
since I became Director of Treatment in the Chemical Dependency Unit of
Highland Park Hospital, I have encountered hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
alcoholics and their families, and have witnessed as many as 80 percent go
on to a happy joyful recovery.
And still I know that so many others never can bring themselves or their
loved ones to approach AA or ask for treatment. Until 1935, when AA was
founded, the chances for anyone with alcoholism to survive was nil. In the
years that followed, a growing number of people found recovery through AA
and as many as 1.5 million are now members today.
Yet even today, despite the work of AA, the prognosis is bad. Only about 3
percent of our millions of alcoholics go into long term recovery, even
though the disease is extremely amenable to treatment. And those who
continue to drink will die. *Alcoholism unstopped is fatal in every single
case.* Our hospitals and morgues are filled with their innocent victims.
The damage is measure not only in deaths but in the maimed lives of those
who loved them. And the shame persists and ignorance still condemns
millions to suffer and die needlessly.
For many years as a practicing physician, I have hoped for some way to put
to rest this dual tyranny. In "Alcoholism: the Genetic Inheritance"
Kathleen Fitzgerald confronts it head on.
Ignorance is met by accurate presentation of medical/biochemical
information, based on the latest research. Up to now, this information has
been mainly in the possession of scientists, researchers, medical personnel
and counselors in the field of alcoholism. it now belongs to the public.
This book nullifies the tyranny of shame by providing us with a dignifying
nomenclature, Jellinek's Disease. Hopefully, no longer will we have to
whisper the stigmatizing work "alcoholism", but we will be able to address
the illness with a name that reflects the magnitude of its pathology.
"Alcoholism: the Genetic Inheritance" " is the book we have been waiting
for. It provides us with a simple understanding of how deeply and broadly
alcoholism, or Jellinek's Disease, effects our lives - biochemically,
neurologically, socially, politically. The issues involved in dual or
poly-addiction are those we in the medical profession confront every day.
The family issues of destroyed marriages, broken children, premature
deaths are well and accurately elucidated in this book,
The chapters on intervention and treatment explain well how to get someone
into treatment and what a good treatment center is about. The straight,
orthodox AA approach is consistent with most, if not all, treatment centers.
"Alcoholism: the Genetic Inheritance" ushers in a new order of
understanding the essential biochemical nature of the disease of
alcoholism. It heralds a new age of hope and recovery for the Jellinek's
diseased and their families.
I wholeheartedly feel that any person whose professional commitment and
responsibility bring them into caring for alcoholics and their families
ought to read this book and recommend it to their patients and clients. I
recommend this book to anyone whose life has been touched by this disease.
__________________________
Reprinted without permission from: Alcoholism, The genetic
Inheritance - 1988
Kathleen W. Fitzgerald, Ph.D
|
| 739.9 | | HPSTEK::XIA | | Sat Apr 15 1989 12:37 | 4 |
| Well, you might want to try hssws1::prose
Eugene
|
| 739.10 | | CREDIT::BNELSON | I'll jog when I see joggers smile! | Sat Apr 15 1989 17:32 | 33 |
|
Frankly, I'd say the point is: "You can lead a horse to water, but
you can't make him drink". Some people believe only what they want to
believe and will not listen to others opinions or facts. I for one do
not believe in deriding others for their viewpoints, because you never
*know* what may be "right" or "wrong". Science has a history of
discovering something today which directly contradicts yesterday, and
who's to say what tomorrow may bring?
It must be nice to *know* something, anything, so completely...
This says it pretty well:
"Truth is after all a moving target
Hairs to split
And pieces that don't fit
How can anybody be enlightened?
Truth is after all so poorly lit"
(From "Turn the Page", by Rush)
I guess my point is, we all have our opinions on things; I'm
interested in reading about those opinions, and whatever facts people
have. I wonder if we can stick to that?
Brian
|
| 739.12 | | ZONULE::WEBB | | Sun Apr 16 1989 01:19 | 10 |
| ...here we go again
Well said, Brian, even if it didn't register.
R.
|
| 739.13 | A Job For DYNAMO! | NYEM1::HUNZEKER | | Mon Apr 17 1989 15:38 | 14 |
| Interesting and enlightening description of the dynamics of the
disease.
The system modeller who can convert the interrelationships described
and convert them to a simulation model (e.g., in DYNAMO) could
extend the theory and perhaps determine the highest leverage point
in the interacting loops to effect a cure. Anyone know on which
VAX our DYNAMO compiler resides?
Thanks A. for taking the time to transcribe and share this with
us. Good to hear from you again!
Regards, Bill
|
| 739.14 | Why Resist? | ANT::MPCMAIL | | Tue Apr 18 1989 13:21 | 16 |
| Mike Z.,
I guess I would have to question you. Why after allthat's been
stated and replied to. Why do you contest this issue to the extent
you do? where you stand with the diease concept. Why do you fight
it so much? Why do you find yourself constantly banging heads with
printed scientific articles? Do you enjoy this? Please I am not
trying to be rude but from all your replies on this subject and
on the note earlier in this conference, I am led to believe that
on this subject that you refuse to belive anything unless it agrees
with what you want to hear. And from waht I can determine is that
what you want to hear is it is a moral problem, that people with
this diease do not have a diease but are morally weak.
I can only hope that someday maybe in your lifetime that issue
will be resolved to put your mind at ease.
me
|
| 739.16 | merely because it's true... | AHOUSE::ACKLEY | Still the King of Nothing | Tue Apr 18 1989 14:19 | 31 |
| RE: 14,
I know you addressed that to Mike Z. but I'd like to answer.
Many other people (like me!) may agree with Mike Z's opinion
that the 'disease' label is being misused. The general trend
is to absolve people of all personal responsibility, slowly
transforming many of us into wards of the state, adult children
to be coddled and ordered around. Doctors have too much
incentive to define new diseases, because it increases their
income and gives them more power over more people. The defining
of addiction as a disease is politics, not science.
I have a friend who was an alcoholic. He quit on his own,
and is now rebuilding his life just fine. The Al-Anon people
tell him he can *never* drink again, but this is clearly bull****.
He has a beer now and then with no appreciable harm, and he now
knows better than to get back into the massive quantities of
Scotch he was previously into. Some people in his circle are
Al-Anon members, and they pressure him to join and believe, just
as if their dogma was a religion. When his very existence
proved their dogma is not 100% correct, he was asked to leave
an Al-Anon meeting, excluded because the group was unwilling
to consider reality, since they *need* their dogma.
Now there are people who are helped by believing irrational
ideas, and if that's what it takes, more power to them. But for
me and many others, we would prefer to face the truth that problems
like alcoholism derive from personal behavior and social pressures,
*not* from a disease.
Alan.
|
| 739.18 | Not attacking just questioning. | ANT::MPCMAIL | | Tue Apr 18 1989 14:53 | 4 |
| .16 and .17 I did say I was not attacking and didn't mean to attack.
I was just questioning. The only dumb questionis the one that doesn't
get answered.
|
| 739.19 | We may all be right | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | the best is yet to be | Tue Apr 18 1989 15:01 | 30 |
| I personally feel that many of us abuse alcohol at some point in
our lives and it can have a dramatic effect on our relationships.
These people get control of their drinking in a variety of ways.
But I also know that some people have an allergy to alcohol and
their bodies respond to the chemical differently and in ways that
make it difficult to change their behavior.
I like, the author of .16 find some disagreement with the methods
used by AA. In some respects the group is almost to sure of itself.
It helps many people but by taking over their lives. It is alcohol in
another form because the members can't function without the meeting
and the support.
It would seem any form of therapy should work towards independence.
I have a friend who is in an alcohol rehab program at the very moment.
She may not be able to resolve her problem because of the AA approach.
They are trying to mold her into an Alcoholic when in reality she
has just abused alcohol.
And the discussions that have been going on in this conference indicate
how difficult it is either for either side to agree. Couldn't it
be because their are two different situations...and we have 'proof'
of both!
|
| 739.20 | | PMROAD::WEBB | | Tue Apr 18 1989 15:11 | 12 |
| The disease concept is not used by people I know to escape
responsibility for their situation... far from it. It frees them
from shame and guilt so that they are better enabled to deal
constructively with their problems.
I frankly don't care what the words mean in any absolute sense --
if there is a path that is helpful to you in dealing with something,
then who am I to question it. What I do question is the rigid
imposition of one person's views on others in the mode of "I'm right,
you are obviously wrong." Mike's "what's your point?" was
unnecessarily supercilious.
|
| 739.21 | shame & guilt are necessary? | YODA::BARANSKI | Incorrugatible! | Tue Apr 18 1989 16:47 | 16 |
| "The disease concept is not used by people I know to escape responsibility for
their situation... far from it. It frees them from shame and guilt so that they
are better enabled to deal constructively with their problems."
I've heard this reasoning for the disease model a number of times. I must
confess that I don't understand it... Surely to "deal constructively with their
problems" in and of itself should "free them from shame and guilt", and if they
don't deal constructively then they still need that shame and guilt to motivate
them to get moving.
On the other hand I can certainly understand the addict's need to know that
their condition is changable, but the AA rule of 'you will always be an
alcholic' seems to deny that.
Jim.
|
| 739.22 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Apr 18 1989 17:51 | 20 |
| Re: .21
>if they don't deal constructively then they still need that shame
>and guilt to motivate them to get moving.
Only if they find shame and guilt motivating forces. Many people
find shame and guilt to be a morass they sink into. If you believe
that you are inherently bad, worthless, weak or whatever, there's
no point in trying to change because that's how you *are*. Shame
and guilt do a wonderful job of dragging down the self-image and
they leave little room for hope.
>On the other hand I can certainly understand the addict's need to
>know that their condition is changable, but the AA rule of 'you
>will always be an alcholic' seems to deny that.
Controllable rather than changeable, I think. The key is that the
alcoholic does not have to be a passive victim, the alcoholic does
have some power in the situation. Despairing emotions like shame
and guilt tend to sap the sense of personal power and control.
|
| 739.23 | well, personally speaking | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Tue Apr 18 1989 18:41 | 39 |
|
> Let me explain. When I asked "What is your point?", I was
> wondering why someone would enter 8 notes which are xerox copies
> of a book, and start a new topic for it.
My point - which I am entitled to - is: I believe that alcoholism
is a disease and here is material to peruse to understand why
I believe that. You obviously are of another opinion. And guess,
what - that's ok. However, I don't have to believe what you
believe nor you believe what I believe. We have different opinions
and mine is just as *right* just as valid as yours.
I wanted other people to understand why I believe it is a disease
and I am not eloquent enough in my explainations to do so, so
I chose to present the material as I did; drawing on an expert
in the field. Why do you have a problem with that?
Mike - I have a very personal stake in this opinion - I am a
recovering addict/alcoholic so I speak from personal experience.
For years I was awash in the shame, guilt and total embarassment
of the term alcoholic - and thought I was insane - really believed
it. And had that reinforced by members of society who think
alcoholics have no will, are morally corrupt and pieces of shit.
No way was I ever gonna admit that I was one of *them*. Only
when I understood that I have an illness, did it become manageable.
Only when I understood that, could I begin to admit that I had
a problem, and only then could I understand how to get well.
I have found out that I was a very sick person trying to get well,
not a bad person trying to get good. It is a difference like night
and day in regards to how I feel about myself.
Personally, you can believe what you like about it, but until you
personally live it - I don't believe that you can *really*
understand this disease.
In recovery,
Angeline
|
| 739.25 | | HPTS::JOVAN | pa$$ion | Tue Apr 18 1989 19:21 | 16 |
|
> Then why write a novel of semi-science when a few paragraphs
> of facts will do?
Because I chose to do it that way.
> And why open a new note for it?
I felt the other note was not an appropriate place for this
discussion - it had already been closed once because the
discussion was not on the base note.
Any other questions?
Angeline
|
| 739.26 | | HPSTEK::XIA | | Tue Apr 18 1989 20:02 | 7 |
| re .10
> Frankly, I'd say the point is: "You can lead a horse to water, but
> you can't make him drink".
I think Mike might agree with you on that :-) :-).
Eugene
|
| 739.27 | might we be counting angels on pinheads... | ZONULE::WEBB | | Wed Apr 19 1989 00:18 | 51 |
| re .21
Jim, there have been a couple of good articulate answers to you
that I can't add much to... except to say (joke) that only mothers
perpetuate the myth that guilt is motivating.
in general...
This discussion has focused on the issue relative to individuals,
and that's fine... but the "disease" (sorry, Mike) is more than
just something that afflicts individuals... it is systemic in the
society. I suppose that this might just create more flak, but it
can be useful, in order to deal with a real problem, to consider
the society as an organism that can get out of balance, be damaged,
become infected... even "diseased." One dictionary definition quoted
earlier said as much.
This could be the ground for some agreement if we were willing to
try and make it be. The behavior that some prefer to address is
one that is heavily reinforced in the culture -- ads, social pressures
to drink, etc.,... the tendency to ignore the consequences of
inappropriate use of alcohol until the highway death rates and the
social damages get too high to ignore... these things suggest a
problem that is bigger than individuals.
While I have seen examples of what have been cited against the disease
concept -- AA junkies who substitute AA for a less healthy addiction,
people who use the idea as an excuse to avoid responsibility --
a large number of people have benefited and continue to benefit
from this approach. It has been an improvement over moral suasion.
For those whom another approach works, fine. This is certainly
a big enough problem that we ought to support anything that helps
to make a difference.
Unlike Angeline, I am not an alcoholic or addict... I just grew
up with one. I know the damage that can be done. I have dealt
with its own impact in my life. I have seen the damage done to
others. I respect those who make an honest fight with their problems,
whatever they may believe. I am aware of Mike's own personal stake
in the issue in dealing with the problems faced by a brother.
The original note was raised to question whether using the idea
of disease to describe addiction might be a cop out and irresponsible.
For some it might be... but for many, it is quite the reverse, and
a few here have been able to say that pretty eloquently. I say
use what works for you and for those who you may know who are affected.
In the face of the costs of the behavior or affliction, whichever
it might be, this debate is a mere quibble.
R.
|
| 739.28 | Just a 100+ yr old attitude... | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | We're part of the fire that is burning! | Wed Apr 19 1989 09:08 | 46 |
|
An open letter to believers in "human weakness"...
One of my favorite things is a "Notice to Employees" posted
outside a collegue's office. It's from a set of work rules imposed
in 1852, from a "Burnley cotton mill office". Consider for a moment
what society was like in 1852: Slavery. Child labor. Women had no
voting rights. Pre-FDA control era (Coke had real Cocaine in it, etc).
I quote:
"6. The craving of tobacco, wine and spirits is a human weakness
and, as such, is forbidden to all members of the staff."
Do I hear that the "human weakness" claim is still alive, some
137 years later? Perhaps it's time for a little more up_to_date
thinking on this idea!!!
Unless, of course, you'll (whomever believes in the "human weakness"
theory) also admit to similar beliefs of that era;
1. Tell me you believe Women should have no rights.
2. Tell me you believe children should be put to work as soon
as they are able.
3. Tell me you believe in slavery and "ownership".
4. Tell me you believe the Labor force should have no rights.
5. Tell me you go to the *barbershop* to get a tooth pulled!
Tell me these things, and perhaps I'll begin to understand
just where your backward, way out of date thinking on *this* idea
has come from. You're over 100 years behind the times; understanding
has come much further _since then_, and in my humble opinion, you
might as well be supporting *all* the other MISconceptions of
100+ years ago if you're going to tout and defend *that one* with
such vigor!
I understand that the motivation for doing so may be personal,
and may have nothing to do with the actual credibility of the idea.
You'll believe what you want to believe.
Joe Jas
|
| 739.29 | WARNING...WARNING | SUPER::REGNELL | Smile!--Payback is a MOTHER! | Wed Apr 19 1989 11:27 | 44 |
| You all may want to hit "next unseen" 'cause I am *P*****!
---
RE:.24
Then why write a novel of semi-science when a few paragraphs
of facts will do?
Pardon me, but...I find this question offensive in the extreme. How dare
you infer such critical judgement to someone's feelings on such
a personal and emotionally packed topic? Your insensitivity regarding
the courage and self-respect it took to enter this information merely
exemplifies your *apparant* unwillingness to "hear" what others are saying.
Noone is asking you to believe, Mike. They are asking you to listen
without malice and judgement. Period. And you are failing miserably.
Bare *facts* are a poor man's excuse for lack of finesse....there are no
*facts* in a world of living breathing thinking people that are not
swayed by those peoples' perceptions. To present *facts* about such
a socially impacting phenomena as alcoholism without the "human factor"
included is akin to describing childbirth as "popping babies".
Why not ask:
Why are the social implications regarding the husband
and child important in your view of alcoholism...
instead of the judgement laden qustion you presented?
At least people could respond to a question of that sort. The one
you choose to present engenders frustration and anger in the people
who disagree with you...is your purpose to *discuss* or to *irk*?
---
My apologies to the members of this conference, but I have quite
frankly *had it* with replies that infer moral depravity and mental
incompetence on the part of the writer of *any* note or reply.
---
Melinda
|
| 739.33 | | MEMV02::MACDONALD | Steve MacDonald | Wed Apr 19 1989 12:30 | 33 |
|
re: Mike
I guess you're just too quick. I hadn't read further than .11 before
replying and wished that I had. So I deleted it to make just one
statement on this. With the tone and attitude of your notes, you just
aren't worth taking seriously. Good luck, because one of these days
you are going to need it.
Steve
Original .31 for the record:
Re: .11
It's really been quite some time since I've "gotten into it" with
someone in a notes file, and that's been quite serene all in all,
but you are becoming quite tiresome, even odious. So please, either
get to YOUR point with your myopic squalking on this subject or
move on. I sense that this all "troubles" you for some reason,
and suggest that you try looking at why rather than trying to debunk
the whole thing might show you more for your time.
Thanks, Angeline, perhaps some of the more open-minded among us
will be interested.
Steve
|
| 739.34 | Denial | SALEM::ATWELL_B | | Wed Apr 19 1989 13:34 | 13 |
| Mike,
You know, there is an aspect of this disease that runs rampant
in both the affected one and in the ones that they love. It is
not a pretty sight to watch someone you love wasting away, and knowing
you are totally powerless over the whole situation. They have given
this aspect a name, it is called *denial*.(no Mike, it's not a river
in Egypt!!). Sometimes the pain of all this is overwhelming and
extreemly difficult to accept, but if one is willing to admit it
to ones-self, it can be dealt with. I'm not trying to take your
inventory Mike, but perhaps you're having some problems dealing
with the feelings about your brother. Maybe not, just an observation.
Bruce
|
| 739.35 | A plea from the moderator... | QUARK::LIONEL | The dream is alive | Wed Apr 19 1989 13:38 | 9 |
| I've tried to work behind the scenes to keep this discussion from
deteriorating, but it doesn't seem to be helping. Please, folks, let's
not try to analyze other people's motives for writing what they do, and
do try to keep the discussion on an objective basis, without personal
criticisms.
I hope this request will be all that is necessary. Thanks.
Steve
|
| 739.36 | humans are human | YODA::BARANSKI | Incorrugatible! | Wed Apr 19 1989 13:46 | 53 |
| "Only if they find shame and guilt motivating forces. Many people find shame
and guilt to be a morass they sink into. If you believe that you are inherently
bad, worthless, weak or whatever, there's no point in trying to change because
that's how you *are*. Shame and guilt do a wonderful job of dragging down the
self-image and they leave little room for hope."
Why is it, do you suppose, that some guilt motivates some people to make at
least cosmetic changes, and other people to just throw in the towel? Perhaps
here is the root difference?
"We have different opinions and mine is just as *right* just as valid as yours."
Whether your opinion is just as "right" is debatable. Whether you have just as
much right to believe that you are just as right is not debatable.
"Only when I understood that I have an illness, did it become manageable."
Why did defining it as an illness make it possible for you to act constructively
about it?
"I have found out that I was a very sick person trying to get well, not a bad
person trying to get good."
Perhaps this is an important point. To me, guilt is a motivating factor; to you
it is not. To me, ther are no such things as "a bad person", only bad
actions/motives. Hate the sin, Love the sinner. To you, you were "a bad
person", and you couldn't change that.
"except to say (joke) that only mothers perpetuate the myth that guilt is
motivating."
You are incorrect, since I am not a mother. :-|
'society is diseased'
I can easily agree with that!
Angeline, whatever helps you, I am glad. I personally don't care if anyone
considers alcholism a disease or not. But it *really* *does* bother me that AA
teaches that 'once an alcholic always an alcholic' because it is not true of all
people who abuse alchol.
'human weakness'
In order to say that humans are weak, you must be comparing humans to something
else. In relation to God, or a 400 lb pot roast, or a steam shovel, humans
*are* weak. So what. That's just the way humans are, and there is nothing good
or bad about that. What is bad is when you try to make humans into something
that they are not. Humans are not perfect; don't expect them to be. They
can work on themselves and improve themselves, or let themselves slide downhill
or be pushed of a cliff... but they are still human.
Jim.
|
| 739.37 | | ANT::MPCMAIL | | Wed Apr 19 1989 14:36 | 43 |
| TAKEN FROM PAGE 20 OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS REPRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION
Then we hard a certain type of hard drinker. He may have the habit
badly enough to gradually impair him physically and mentally. It
may cause him to die a few years earlier before his time. If
suffciently strong reasons - ill health, falling in love, change
of enviroment, or the warning of a doctor- becomes operative, this
man can also stop or moderate, although he may find it diffuclt
and troublesome and may even need medical atention.
But what about the real acholic? He may start off as a moderate
drinker; he may or may not become a continous hard drinker; but
at some point he begins to loose all control of his liqour consumption,
once he starts to drink.
If houndredsof expierences have showen him that one drink means
anotherdebacle with all it attendant suffering and humilation, why
is it he takes that one drink? Why can't he stay on the wagon? What
has become of the common sense and will power that he still stil
sometimes displayes with resspect towards others?
Perhaps there will never be a full answer to these questions. Opinions
vary considerably as to why the alcohilc reacts differently from
normal people. We are not sure why, once a certain point is reached,
little can be done for him. We cannot answer the riddle.
We know that while the alocholic keeps away from drink,as he may
do for months and years, he reacts like much like other men. We
are equally postive that once he takes any alcohol whatever into
his system, something happens, both in the bodily and the mental
sense, which makes it vitually impossaible for him to stop.
the expeirence of any alcoholic will aboudntly confirm this.
Like noters before me, hey if it works don't fix it. You belive
what you belive and I'll belive what I'll belive and as long as
no-one gets hurt in the process, whos to say your right and I'm
wrong or vice versa. The fact we are of two different opinions is
very apparent. and its opinions that don't agree that make it a
colorful and free world when we can express them without hurting
anyone.
Lisa
|
| 739.38 | | MEMV02::MACDONALD | Steve MacDonald | Wed Apr 19 1989 14:43 | 57 |
|
> But it *really* *does* bother me that AA teaches that 'once
> an alcholic always an alcholic' because it is not true of all
> people who abuse alchol.
This is precisely why it would be helpful to persons who have had their
lives made a living hell by the disease of alcoholism if people who
choose to form opinions about alcoholism would take the time find out
as much as they can about it before using a wide-reaching forum (and
this is such a forum) to spread their views.
AA does not teach. period. AA "suggests" things to alcoholics that
have helped other alcoholics to find the road to recovery. Yes, it is
frequently heard that AA maintains the position that 'once an alcoholic
always an alcoholic'. This does not mean that AA is stating that
everyone who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic, because that is not true.
While it is not true that all alcohol abusers are alcoholics, it IS
true that all alcoholics went through a stage in the progession of
their disease that could be classified as not yet drinking
alcoholically but being an alcohol abuser. Drinking alcoholically is
characterized by compulsion, not willful misconduct.
The reason AA maintains that 'once an alcoholic always an alcoholic' is
because among alcoholics is that well known 'invisible line'. It is
when that line is crossed that one is a true alcoholic, and alcoholics
know it well. Crossing this line is not a wilfull, conscious decision.
It is a stage in the disease that all alcoholics will cross if they
keep drinking, because to quote Step one of AA: We admitted we were
powerless over alcohol and that our lives had become unmanageable.
Now there are persons who have decided to call themselves alcoholics
who thankfully saw the early warning signs of alcoholism in themselves
and have decided to call it (drinking) quits without tempting fate
to see if their warning signs will develop into full blown alcoholism.
They have decided that leaving the booze alone is a small price
to pay so that they don't have to go the full way to find out the
answer.
What AA is saying in all this is that if you cross that line, or
think your warning signs show that you are about to, that you can
not safely return to drinking and know securely and with certainty
that you can live a normal life drinking in moderation. Literally
millions of people around the world have decided that the way of
life suggested by AA is more than enough compensation for giving
up alcohol and the trouble it has brought to them.
I would encourage anyone who is genuinely interested in finding out the
difference between fact and fiction about AA, to attend a few AA
meetings. Some are open to the public and by calling the AA number in
the white pages they'll tell you where there is an open one in your
area. If not, please, at least try to keep uninformed opinions to
yourselves. Those millions of people who are struggling to keep their
lives in healthy order will be grateful.
Steve
|
| 739.39 | some AA even Preach | YODA::BARANSKI | Incorrugatible! | Wed Apr 19 1989 15:46 | 10 |
| I've been to AA meetings... and Al-anon meetings... and ACOA meetings...
and they are all wonderfull things on the whole. But AA does more then suggest.
Depending on what meeting you go to, AA does Teach and even Preach that 'once an
alcholic always an alcholic' and make AA/ACOA/Al a substitute addiction for the
person and create a ghetto of AA/ACOA people.
That's the wrong thing to do IMO.
Jim.
|
| 739.41 | | ANT::MPCMAIL | | Wed Apr 19 1989 16:23 | 18 |
| Again to each to their own opinion and that is the last I am going
to say on this topic. This is a free world and I can believe what
I want and yo can belive what you want and in America, it's okay
and not against the law unless you break laws doing it. I am *NOT*
saying what you belive in is wrong. What I *AM* saying it is a free
country-God Love America for this reason- and we can both believe
and not see eye and not be afraid of the consquences.
As an adult I was raised with the wisdom to know enough when what
I've said is enough and if when I'm done and others still disagree
then its their right as an American. But who's to judge and to say
I'm right and you're wrong. I have made lots of mistakes in my past,
and have tried to righten them. I try not to judge because I know
wwhat's it's like to be judged, I just try to say if it works for
you then go for it.
BTW Who am I? I was not left in charge to change the world.
Lisa
|
| 739.42 | | MEMV02::MACDONALD | Steve MacDonald | Wed Apr 19 1989 17:23 | 11 |
| AA does NOT do more than suggest, and I also have been to all three
types of meetings that you mention. Did you listen at the closing
when it was said the statements made by anyone at the meeting are
the opinion of the speaker? You may find individuals in each of
those programs who through their zeal do more than suggest, but
that is not the view of the program itself.
I also will have no more to say on this subject.
Steve
|
| 739.43 | Part of how it works | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | We're part of the fire that is burning! | Thu Apr 20 1989 11:27 | 31 |
|
re .39
The "substitute" addiction may be part of the process; I call
it the "lateral shift" of addictive need. The theory holds that
one cannot work on their addictive needs, until they have succeeded
in eliminating the abuse of their "substance of choice". By doing
a "lateral shift" from an addiction to a substance to an addiction
to the meeting - if you will - they *have* technically eliminated the
substance abuse.
This also means that they are still an addict, the only thing
that has changed is the object of their addiction. Clearly, a meeting
is hardly the same as physically ingesting poisons, though some
may debate that meetings are "mentally poisoning" :'). Still, in
obtaining an elimination of the substance abuse, a first step has been
made toward recovery.
The addictive person can now work on the addiction in a far more
objective manner, within the context of a meeting, than he could within
the context of his/her 'being high' via some drug or alcohol.
Many, many people do the "lateral shift", from one "drug" to
another (remember how they say; "Love is a drug") and while they
are no longer perhaps "breaking the law" from abusing substances,
or "poisoning their temple", they are *still* an addict. In other words,
the "symptom" of the disease has merely changed form; the disease
still exists and is alive, as *it* has not been adressed specifically,
in an objective manner.
Joe Jas
|
| 739.44 | Onward and Upward | AQUA::WALKER | | Wed May 03 1989 14:39 | 35 |
| I find the prospect of a solution to certain deleterious human conditions
to be optimistic.
I use the term *human condition* as opposed to the term disease
because as I see it there are other human conditions that cause
people to deteriorate but are not caused solely by an organism.
Perhaps that clarification could also be applied to heart disease.
Technically this may not be so much a disease as a human condition
brought about by stress and diet. At the same time the person is
bringing on the condition, which in some people can be fatal in
the form of a heart attack, and if knowledgeable can make changes
that might possibly avoid the condition.
Some chemical imbalances in some people cause them to have conditions
that are harmful to them (electrolyte imbalances can cause blackouts)
The person may not know what the problem is until it is too late.
Yet at the same time if the person is knowledgeable adjustments
can be made and that person can be well. There was a time when
people who were dizzy were said to be weak. They were blamed for
the symptom but that blame did nothing to cure the condition.
Hurray for increased knowledge of the different interactions within
the human body. Now people can be treated for so many conditions
that were not so long ago thought to be their weakness of will.
Perhaps the research into why victims of alzheimer's *disease* have
high levels of aluminum in their brains will yield a treatment for
those people that have previously be labeled and blamed for being
crazy, old, lazy etc.
Not everything that is harmful to human beings is caused solely
by one germ or virus or organism. Human beings are multifaceted
and to investigate and treat the various human conditions with
that in mind could make life better for many many people.
|