Some diseases are a lie.

[big314mp]

SkepticLance did quite an excellent job of summarizing that point.

 

I get the impression that this thread is very hypothetical in nature, as it is generally accepted that there are certain traits of the some peoples' brains that hamper their day to day activities. It is accepted that there are treatments that can modify these traits so that the person can resume functioning at their original level. Therefore, whether these traits are defined as a disease or not is merely semantics.

[YT2095]

maybe not a strict definition but from the actual word itself, Dis Ease, would suggest the term is at best a very loose one from the start.

[pioneer]

The term diseases shift the burden of a condition away from the person to a third party cause. If you call someone lazy, we work under the assumption it is subject to willpower and they lack the will to fix it. If we call it a disease, it is not their fault or responsibility any longer. Now the burden in on the medical community to come up with scientific explanations and provide pills.

 

But this can go too far. Say we defined being a Republican or Democrat a disease. The state can move it and force medicate to get rid of this condition before it spreads. This won't happen but it was only presented to show how social policy can restrict chose using the disease naming approach.

 

Gay is interesting in that it was declassified as being a disease. The original classification was like I said above, to restrict choice and classify that choice as third party to socially induce treatment. That is one way to look at it. The other way is, if it was a disease, even of we declassified it, is is still a disease. What this leads to is the possible risk of the disease spreading. Or it can mean allowing other to life with a condition that can be treated. It is all how you look at it.

 

Classifying alcoholism as a disease may have been for social engineering, sort of like the gay disease. The problem it creates can be seen with an analogy. If we did a blood test on someone with the flu, who had no symptoms, they would still be classified with the flu. So now, even if you like a few beers, you might be seen as having a mild case of the drunk disease. This is where creative social engineering can step in and decide maybe you need some other form of pre-treatment to prevent it from getting worse.

[CharonY]

I would just like to point out again that we are discussing semantics on an somewhat ill defined word.

 

The best I could find was something like this:

 

disease (n.) A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

 

One of the main problems here is, of course again that words are used that are only somewhat loosely defined. Like e.g. "genetic defect" (everybody knows what is meant, but it assumes a certain "normality" of genes, which does not really exist).

But if we use this one, alcoholism or any addiction might fall into it (environmental stress resulting in identifiable symptoms).

[Phi for All]

I saw blike on line looking at this thread last night and I was hoping he'd post a med student's POV. Maybe he can crack loose some time before the weekend is out.

[Sayonara]

I would have thought the title alone would have put him off.

[Zebbygoss]

Heh, calling alcoholism, drug abuse, etc a disease is just an excuse to be an alcoholic or druggy. By saying "Its not my fault Ive been doing these things.. its my parents" ... It is not a disease nor genetic, its a choice. It is just humanly retarded to even classify it as a disease.. I've asked 1 professor, 2 of my family members(scientists) and some everyday people with opinions what they thought. And they agree that it shouldnt be considered a disease.. Its no different than any other addiction... is cigarette addiction a disease???????!!! pshh.. morons with moronic beliefs.. *get with reality people*

[Dak]

It is not a disease nor genetic, its a choice.

 

This dispite the evidence (given to you above by iNow) that there are, in actual fact, genetic underpinnings to alcoholism?

 

shh.. morons with moronic beliefs.. *get with reality people*

 

lol @ irony.

 

it certainly has some genetic factors. y'know, as proven by science. which, last I checked, was probably our best method for obtaining facts about reality.

 

moron.

[pioneer]

It is doubtful one gene has enough data storage to control an entire behavior. It can only produce a single protein which can contribute to the behavior. It is like saying a single line of computer code is enough to make a robot walk and talk. For this empirical connection to be valid, science would also need to show how this protein stores enough memory, such as the visual representation of alcoholic drinks, so one is not using the protein compulsion to drink diet soda or other socially acceptable addictions.

 

The way I see it, maybe the gene makes a protein that gives a type of addictive compulsion that is linear and nebulous since it is only a single gene with limited data storage capability. After that we need to show whether this linear compulsion can be tagged to anything through learned behavior. Or if the one gene can do this, how is memory stored in a single gene, like one line of code, to create the affect of an entire computer program that normally takes thousands of line of code. I can see the gene as the first line of code with the rest filled in by learning. Maybe pulling out one line is enough to put a bug into the program. But it is doubtful the entire program is that one line.

[iNow]

Interesting speculation, pioneer, but I believe you are wrong. Try looking up alcohol dehydrogenase instead. Perhaps also how people genetically predisposed to compulsive tendencies exhibit greater addiction rates relative to the rest of the populace.

 

Also, I'd like to remind you AGAIN that the human body and human mind cannot be adequately explained using computer metaphors and analogies.

[Mr Skeptic]

It is doubtful one gene has enough data storage to control an entire behavior.

 

Which is why people were quite surprised with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. It is caused by a mutation in the gene for hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase. Even a single base pair changed in the wrong place on this gene can cause the disorder. Lesch-Nyhan syndrome causes people to compulsively try to hurt themselves, frequently biting off their lips, fingertips, and sometimes even entire fingers.

[CharonY]

There are far more examples than that. A gene does not control the behaviour per se, but a limited number of proteins (including genes involved in metabolisation of neurotransmitters, receptors, channels, etc.) working in concert are necessary for any behaviour. It is easy to imagine that even minor changes in one of these (e.g. a GABA receptor) can result in distinct behavioural changes.

[Ladeira]

I think drugs addictions are not diseases. What is a disease, IMO, is what is caused by the drugs. I also think that having more susceptibility to addiction is nothing more than having white skin and being more susceptibility to skin cancer because of the sun radiation.

 

BTW, I liked this discussion.

[Glider]

I don't think of alcoholism as a disease, I consider it a condition. It has an hereditory component which appears to be necessary, but not sufficient in and of itself to cause alcoholism. Rather, it results only in a predisposition to alcoholism. Environmental factors also play a significant role. There are observable neurological differences in the brains of alcoholics and these can be seen in the brains of non-alcoholic sons of alcolholics.

 

In this, it has a lot in common with schizophrenia, which also has an hereditory component that is necessary, but aetiologically insufficient. Again, environmental factors play a significant part and are necessary.

 

I wonder if there is a PC element, where the term 'disease' is used to try to overcome peoples' inherent fear of mental illness, where people do not have such a fear of physical disease. To call a thing a 'disease' allows people to blame an external agent, whereas in mental illness, the tendency is to blame the individual.

[Dak]

I wonder if there is a PC element, where the term 'disease' is used to try to overcome peoples' inherent fear of mental illness, where people do not have such a fear of physical disease. To call a thing a 'disease' allows people to blame an external agent, whereas in mental illness, the tendency is to blame the individual.

 

otoh, STDs were changed to STIs, and I allways got the impression that it was done for the sake of the 'infected', so that they didn't have to live with the stigma of being 'diseased'.

 

imo, if you dont want to be called diseased, you shouldn't get herpies, but there you go...

[YT2095]

 

imo, if you dont want to be called diseased, you shouldn't get herpies, but there you go...

 

you can get genital herpes simply by having a BJ from a chick with a cold sore!

herpes isn`t the best example to use

[Phi for All]

I don't think of alcoholism as a disease, I consider it a condition. It has an hereditory component which appears to be necessary, but not sufficient in and of itself to cause alcoholism. Rather, it results only in a predisposition to alcoholism.

I agree wholeheartedly. Many diseases are hereditary but I can't get rid of them by simply giving them up.

 

If I'm allergic to peanut butter but love it so much I'm willing to live with some abdominal pain, diarrhea and facial swelling, do I have a disease?

[SkepticLance]

A person with all the genetic predisposition to alcoholism might be raised in a society where alcohol is absent (like the pre-European Maori in my country), and thus never shows the symptoms. Is he an alcoholic? Obviously not, in spite of having all the characteristics that would have made him an alcoholic in our society.

[Sayonara]

A person with all the genetic predisposition to alcoholism might be raised in a society where alcohol is absent (like the pre-European Maori in my country), and thus never shows the symptoms. Is he an alcoholic? Obviously not, in spite of having all the characteristics that would have made him an alcoholic in our society.

Medically, an alcoholic is not somebody who "drinks a lot". Alcoholics are people whose bodies have become so dependent on alcohol that they will literally shut down and die without it.

 

So in that scenario someone who was an "alcohic" could not exit, using the medical terminology, but someone predisposed to alcoholism possibly could. It would be interesting to see how such a person would fare in an alcohol-free environment. Would they always feel there was 'something missing', or would they be no different to the rest of us?

[Glider]

The non-alcoholic sons of alcoholics (i.e. those males who showed the same neurological differences as their alcoholic fathers), were the same as everyone else. Some drank, but no more or less than those around them (i.e. occasionally and in a controlled way), which was probably due to the social group they drank with (and the social pressures therein) and the circumstances under which they drank. Others didn't drink and didn't show any indication that they felt they were 'missing' something.

 

As well as the genetic propensity, it requires the right social setting or group, e.g. to drink with a social group who tend to get bladdered every friday and saturday night. Under those circumstances, the genetically predisposed would be much more likely to find themselves trapped by the excessive drinking cycle than other members of that group.

[SkepticLance]

Alcoholism is a multi-factor ailment. A recent study found that the probability of becoming alcoholic increases if the first alcoholic drinks are consumed at an early age. Those who do not start drinking beer or wine till later have a lower risk.

 

However, there is still a genetic factor. There is no gene for alcoholism, but there is definitely a genetic propensity to addictions of all kinds. Studies have found a correlation between widely different addictions such as alcohol and gambling. If you have the genetic propensity to addiction, you are a sucker for all kinds.

[blazarwolf]

To say there is a specific genetic code for alchoholism is a misnomer... The code is all over the place. Such things that would regulate alchoholism would be dopamine reward pathway prevalence, social ability in modern society, ability to tie ones shoes, the prevalence of certin types of GABA (alchohol for argument)receptors, and the location and concintration of such... ext. ext.

 

I think you get my point. This it is genetic to a degree, all drug addiction is, all will have different genetic code influences.

 

Then ofcourse there are enviormental(nurture) factors which are probably less easily explained.

 

I read recently in "Scientific American Mind" that alchoholism tends to effect people with more natural tolerance. This was wierd to me. I often wonderd why Native Americans (and many indiginous) have a higher disposition to alcholism(this is a fact across the geographic board). I always felt it was becuase of lack of genetic history with the substance. Darwin hadnt thined the genes yet. Why should they have more natural tolerance, infact i dont seem to observe this?

 

It did make sense that people that get shitbrains easier are more likely to back off, and do less long term harm to themselfs.

[SkepticLance]

Alcohol is broken down in the human liver. It is a several stage process. Each stage requires specific enzymes, which are produced by the corresponding gene.

 

The first stage of breakdown leads to production of aldehydes. These are definitely not nice, and if remaining after we wake up, following an alcoholic binge, lead to serious nasty feelings called a hangover. We avoid said hangover when the second stage processes clean up the aldehydes. This requires different enzymes, and different genes.

 

Certain people lack the genes making the enzymes for stage two. This means that the 'clean up' is slow. These guys get a hangover every time they drink alcohol, even with a good night's sleep in between. This lack of the important stage two alcohol clean up genes is common among certain Asians, apparently. Such people rarely drink a lot (I wonder why?) and almost never turn into alcoholics.

 

I have seen a reference to this variation referred to as a superior genetic make up due to the apparent resistance to alcoholism.

[whitewolf103]

I agree that most mental diseases are a lie. Most humans do so many evil and corrupt that they themselves lie, and lie to themselves. So if anybody tells you that you're crazy, depressed, or whatever, it seriously is just a lie. Very few, or no people sadly easily see that.

 

The reason why people would say that I am depressed is because I think of suicide and that there is no hope. But the fact is there is no hope. Look at most of our communities, our lives (unless your a rich self centered jerk who can get whatever he wants and can control whatever he wants). People treat us cruelly, our families are broken, not there, etc. The government, the way things are, and other people rob us of our money, our future, any changes, or the simple things that we want in our lives. You see, I want to see new places and other counties, but you know why I'll never be able to do that? Is it because I see there is no way out like most people who would say I have this so called "depression", or is it because I can never find another decent paying job because there are no jobs to be had in this pathetic country because people are a bunch of money grubbing, greedy idiots who hire illegal immigrants for work (oh yeah I'm sure there's a million people here who would say I'm being racists and try to prove to me in some small very little backed up way that I'm wrong). Honestly people, think?! The lie will only get deeper for the idiots and more convenient for the rich and evil government until we realize and do something about this. Make others realize that it is the truth! Hey, if I die, and all the people I love and care for sob and despair then they are just as stupid as anyone else until they finally do something or if they have such simple lives that they don't actually care. I don't want to be apart of this f**ked up world anymore. Go ahead, say that I'm weak! I also don't give a f**k if someone on the other side says "oh, you did the wrong thing", or if I end up being a ghost for crying out loud. I rather do this then deal with a messed up world that's so dam deep within their own lies.

[Phi for All]

whitewolf103, I can understand why young people look at "Life" and despair. You think in very compassionate terms about all of humanity, and that's a very moral, selfless, heroic way to view the world. Ultimately, though, you usually only have the power to affect a small portion of the world and the humanity that surrounds you.

 

Don't think of it in terms of shedding light on the world, think of becoming a beacon yourself. If you become what you want everyone else to be, you will illuminate your immediate area, and make things brighter for those around you, and hopefully they, in their turn, will make things shine brighter for everyone near them.

 

Often, young people look at the big picture only and it is very daunting. Writers don't write whole novels, they start with paragraphs and pages, which become chapters, which ultimately become novels. If you sit down to write a novel, you'll fail because it's just too much to do all at once. Write a paragraph and see how you feel then.