"Faith is not a good reason to believe in any one thing. It's a bad reason to believe in everything. Faith is not synonymous with any one idea; it is synonymous with any strongly held idea, true or not. But one thing faith is not synonymous with is a logically justified idea."
April 10, 2010
The gene does not control the addiction you adopt, but inhibits your addictive potential. In the end, it's your choice to begin an action that inhibits the addictive potential. No one chooses a real disease. No one chooses cancer, even if they do have a genetic predisposition to it.
If everyone who had alcoholism had this gene, then you might be able to say alcoholism is a disease. But not every alcoholic has the gene. It's circumstantial. Some have alcohol addiction due to a bad history, something happened to them. Some of them just were too stupid to stop and began a chemical addiction.
The gene for addictive personalities can be considered a disease, a genetic disease. But alcoholism on it's own cannot. It's simply one of a billion different ways the disease can manifest, and this manifestation is not always synonymous with the disease. If you were to say "Genetic Addictive Personality Disorder is a disease" then you'd be justified in saying so, and believing so. That's where the evidence points. But if you say "Alcoholism is a disease" you're trying to glue a title to your behavior that allows you to drop responsibility. All behavior is a choice. Your choice might be influenced by chemicals, genetics of mental disorders, but in the end it's still a choice. You choose to drink or you choose to not to.
No one ever chooses cancer. To say that your choice of disorder is in line with those who have actual diseases, is to dishonor them and their cause. Saying a man who chooses to drink himself to death is the same as a child who was diagnosed with leukemia is not the same, the comparison is not justified.
"AA is not a professional medical organization, and as a consequence, they don't study themselves. They don't modify their treatment to according to their results. They don't do any of the things we expect from a professional treatment for an important problem."
-Dr. Lance M. Dodes, MD PhD Psychologist/Psychiatrist at Harvard School of Medicine
"About half those coming to AA for the first time remain less than three months. And the average success rate after a full year continues to stand at only 5%. The rate for people quitting their alcohol addiction for at least one year without organized treatment, simply on their own, is also 5%... Unfortunately, there seems to be no reason for which their departure can be determined."
-AA Success Results Research circa 1989
Naltrexone was approved by the FDA in 1994. Studies in 1998 proved that for most of those who took Naltrexone, not only was their need to drink silenced, but if they did drink it eliminated their buzz. Most local AA spokes people say that "Naltrexone simply puts a band-aid over the problem." Their reasoning for this is that they've been taught their issue is spiritual and not medical. Sure, some local AA supporters might be more "reality minded" but this is the problem with AA not saying anything. They need to have a voice. If there's a drug that works, it shouldn't be just the hospitals that support its use. If the drug was adopted throughout all of AA then their success results would be much better. Spiritualism doesn't help a chemical issue. Spiritualism does not help a mental disorder. Spiritualism does not help a genetic predisposition. Spiritualism doesn't help shit.
Author: SgtHaile at 10:19 PM