|
I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
This seems to deal with some of the physical components of addiction, but the temptation seems to be to advertise a miracle cure, without looking at the issue holistically. This is quite profitable for corporations manufacturing these cures, but not necessarily in the best interest of patients or the public when coupled with claims such as it 'cures' alcoholism.
It also encourages people to view alcoholism as a simple physical issue, which is again negative for the patients and for society in general.
|
On July 16 2011 10:26 SentinelSC2 wrote:
As long as you're depending on something else, can't really call it a cure.
Well, there are many levels of "cure". Many people have to take medicines regularly to not die from some acute condition.
Alcohol is a toxin, and it causes acute impairment of judgment. It's also addictive. If you can replace it with something that is non-toxic and doesn't cause impairment of judgment, then at least you've gotten rid of the major problems that come from alcohol abuse.
Even if it does only replace one addition with another, at least the patient isn't addicted to something that kills them over long periods of time and turns them into assholes frequently. That's close enough to a "cure" that I'm willing to call it a win.
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
|
On July 17 2011 04:36 Lucidity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:
There are stuff like delirium tremens which actually means that no, an alcoholic can't by sheer willpower stop drinking. It isn't all alcoholics who get so severe withdrawal symptoms, but then again it isn't all urinary tract infections or pneumonias that needs antibiotics to be cured. Yet I hope you won't go as far as to claim that a pneumonia isn't a disease?
I really think you should post your definition of disease because I'm getting the notion that yours is way to narrow to be reasonable... Withdrawal symptoms may require medical attention. This does not make alcoholism a disease. The choice to stop drinking needs to be made first. After any withdrawal symptoms subside you need to make the choice not to drink again. There is no physiological dependency left. After that it's all about willpower. Many alcoholics will relapse. This is NOT because of delirium tremens -.- Pneumonia is quite obviously a disease. It cannot be overcome by willpower. I guess if you believe addiction is a disease, then so be it.
I don't believe craving is a disease, I think it is a symptom of a disease where the disease is alcoholism - I didn't even mention addiction in the post you have quoted :S It seems to me like we've been discussing 2 different things.
On July 17 2011 04:40 caradoc wrote:
I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
This seems to deal with some of the physical components of addiction, but the temptation seems to be to advertise a miracle cure, without looking at the issue holistically. This is quite profitable for corporations manufacturing these cures, but not necessarily in the best interest of patients or the public when coupled with claims such as it 'cures' alcoholism.
It also encourages people to view alcoholism as a simple physical issue, which is again negative for the patients and for society in general.
This is one of the best posts in this thread and I can't stress how correct especially the first paragraph is.
|
|
|
On July 17 2011 04:36 gtrsrs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 04:01 Lucidity wrote:
While cravings might never disappear fully, they should become less and ultimately, if you can overcome the craving I can't accept it as being a disease. Think about how you're defining a disease. "A craving for something".
let's oversimplify some more please MIT is just a school the president of the USA is just a job hitler was just a bad guy who wasn't fond of jews to narrow down alcoholism to just "a craving" is just so ignorant. do you remember when you were a kid (probably not that hard since i doubt you're much older than 16) and you wanted that <bike, super nintendo, bb gun, train set> so badly that it's all you could think about? and as christmas got nearer and nearer it just consumed your mind? you always wanted to know where the present was hidden, wanted to open it early to see if you got it, couldn't wait to take it out and play with it? alcoholics feel the same "craving" day in and day out. it's always something present in the back of their mind. even if they're having sex, busy at work, exhausted from working out, or playing starcraft, somewhere in their mind there is a little buzz going "boy a drink would sure feel great right now." having to fight that day in and day out is too much for people that feeling is HARDWIRED into their brains. it's not something that goes away like "hey i really need to pee" and once you pee you don't need to pee any more. once you have that first drink your mind goes "well hey that wasn't so bad was it? let's drink another!" and no matter what you do, that will always be your mindset. i know plenty of people who have quit drinking for years and still feel that insatiable desire now, imagine AFTER you finally got your hands on that christmas present, it wasn't enough. the next day you wanted another bike. the all-encompassing desire filled your brain again. every day you felt the anxiety of wanting to open another gift and get another bike. that is a DISEASE. you can try to stop thinking about the bike but in the back of your head you always want to ride it. so if there is a pill that can actually suppress the desire to drink, i'm all for it. even for "recovered alcoholics" this would be a life-saving pill
What you are describing might be considered a disease. If you are truly thinking about alcohol every minute of every day, you clearly have a psychological disorder. If you are uncontrollably fantasizing about alcohol to such a degree that you cannot have sex, work, eat, sleep or do ANYTHING because you're thinking about it every single minute, then sure. None of the recovered addicts that I know are like that though. (Granted these are mostly non-alcoholic. Including heroin. Somehow I think that would be harder to kick, but hey?) They get cravings, sure. But these only last a certain amount of time. And the longer they stayed sober, the less frequent the cravings became. They would usually be triggered by events which they associated with the drug.
I think what you are describing is a great minority of alcoholics. To group all alcoholics under the same umbrella and call it a disease would be wrong. Alcohol dependency is not a disease. What you described is a mental disorder which can only be treated with medicine. There's no way anyone can stay sober if they're craving a substance literally every minute. Somehow I think you are (or the person you're talking about is) exaggerating though.
|
On July 17 2011 04:45 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not. I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
|
On July 17 2011 04:40 caradoc wrote:
I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not
Personally I find the theory of psychological disease to be unconvincing. I think that a physically unhealthy person will be unable to maintain its mental health. Medicine and science are just not advanced enough to truly understand human physiology, so we resort to finding "alternate explanations" for things we can't explain. These alternate explanations are always entirely subjective though - they can't be proven nor disproven.
|
On July 17 2011 04:56 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 04:40 caradoc wrote:
I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not Personally I find the theory of psychological disease to be unconvincing. I think that a physically unhealthy person will be unable to maintain its mental health. Medicine and science are just not advanced enough to truly understand human physiology, so we resort to finding "alternate explanations" for things we can't explain. These alternate explanations are always entirely subjective though - they can't be proven nor disproven.
well you should actually read some medical literature because its the consensus viewpoint. Its not an 'alternative explanation'. Your position is also muddled and imprecise to the point of being meaningless. Do you have a point, or are you simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
|
On July 17 2011 04:56 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 04:45 NicolBolas wrote:Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not. I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used. I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain. Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease.
Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
|
[B]
well you should actually read some medical literature because its the consensus viewpoint. Its not an 'alternative explanation'. Your position is also muddled and imprecise to the point of being meaningless. Do you have a point, or are you simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
Having suffered from chronic illness for 10 years, I'm quite familiar with how most doctors think. About 9 out of 10 said my problems were psychological and suggested the usual treatments for this type of diagnosis. I wasted a lot of time and money following this bad advice.
I eventually found a doctor who figured out what the problem was (gluten intolerance). My psychological symptoms have disappeared since following this doctor's advice (unless I accidental eat gluten which creates celiac disease like symptoms, despite my anti-gluten antibodies being well within the norm). He isn't a genius or something, he was just willing to experiment rather than settling for a comfortable explanation to explain things away.
|
On July 17 2011 05:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 04:56 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 04:45 NicolBolas wrote:Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not. I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used. I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain. Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots. Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease. Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable.
Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd.
Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world.
I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic.
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
|
On July 17 2011 04:09 Jonas  wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote:Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too. To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant. Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will.
You are wrong, there was a point in my addiction where I was thoroughly convinced that using was my only option, my will power was directed AT using. It's like being in a thick psychosis. Do not talk about things that you do not understand.
|
On July 17 2011 05:18 Ryan307 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 04:09 Jonas wrote:On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote:Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too. To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant. Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will. You are wrong, there was a point in my addiction where I was thoroughly convinced that using was my only option, my will power was directed AT using. It's like being in a thick psychosis. Do not talk about things that you do not understand.
What were you addicted to, and for how long? And how did you end up stopping your abuse (assuming that you did stop)?
|
Now all we need is a cure for porn addiction
|
On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 05:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 17 2011 04:56 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 04:45 NicolBolas wrote:Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not. I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used. I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain. Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots. Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease. Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not. This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable. Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd. Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world. I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic. Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits.
Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior, which frequently cause the comorbid symptoms of anxiety, tension, etc.
Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior.
|
[B]On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote:
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
I agree that it is good to treat patients holistically. I'm aware that an addiction can destroy a person's life to such an extent that psychological support becomes important.
I just disagree with the common sentiment that the cause (and thus the solution) of conditions with psychological symptoms must lie in the psyche.
|
On July 17 2011 05:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 05:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 17 2011 04:56 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 04:45 NicolBolas wrote:Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not. I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used. I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain. Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots. Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease. Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not. This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable. Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd. Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world. I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic. Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help. The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits. Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior. Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior.
Individual patients aren't the ones with the agency to create or propagate these news stories. That would be the media/research organization/pharmaceutical establishment. In any population there will be a wide range of opinions on a specific issue-- saying 'the patients are saying X' and leaving it at that is an obfuscation. One could also say 'the patients are saying not X', and it would be just as true. Really, we are reading a news story, not talking to patients. Presenting patients with a particular homogenous viewpoint certainly helps to legitimize the drug in question, but to be honest we have no clue what patients are saying unless we talk to all of them, and even then we need to question whether the progress is not overstated-- did the 'things that patients say' come before a relapse? The news article doesn't know or care.
You said that 'the body of research which is accomplishing more than any other' -- would you care to quantify that statement? How do you define 'more', how do you back it up? How do you make a comparison with 'other' bodies of research? Why are these 'bodies' or research competitive to each others' aims in your mind? It sounds like you're simply just re-stating your previous point but with a off-the-cuff reference to GABA receptor agonists. Clearly this is not irrelevant at all-- none dispute that there is a physical component to most addictions, but I don't see how reducing an addiction to a single physical correlate is helpful to any but the people doing research on that precise topic (i.e. more prestige) and the establishment that profits from selling classes of drugs which target that specific site.
I'm not sure what you're saying in your final paragraph.
On July 17 2011 05:41 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +[B]On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote:
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
I agree that it is good to treat patients holistically. I'm aware that an addiction can destroy a person's life to such an extent that psychological support becomes important. I just disagree with the common sentiment that the cause (and thus the solution) of conditions with psychological symptoms must lie in the psyche.
I don't think you've understood the point. Addiction is a set of behaviours, and the accompanying psychological and social environment or context that the behaviour occurs in. Accompanying virtually any addiction are self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues that need to be dealt with in order to deal with the addiction itself. The fact is a lot of people drink a lot, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic-- this is not what you would expect if alcoholism was purely physiological.
|
On July 17 2011 05:42 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 05:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 05:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 17 2011 04:56 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 04:45 NicolBolas wrote:Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not. I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used. I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain. Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots. Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease. Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not. This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable. Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd. Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world. I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic. Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help. The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits. Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior. Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior. Individual patients aren't the ones with the agency to create or propagate these news stories. That would be the media/research organization/pharmaceutical establishment. In any population there will be a wide range of opinions on a specific issue-- saying 'the patients are saying X' and leaving it at that is an obfuscation. One could also say 'the patients are saying not X', and it would be just as true. Really, we are reading a news story, not talking to patients. Presenting patients with a particular homogenous viewpoint certainly helps to legitimize the drug in question, but to be honest we have no clue what patients are saying unless we talk to all of them, and even then we need to question whether the progress is not overstated-- did the 'things that patients say' come before a relapse? The news article doesn't know or care.
I'm not sure where you are getting the information that this is being propagated by news stories and the pharmaceutical establishment. I've never heard baclofen treatment mentioned a single time on either television or in the news, until I did an actual search for baclofen. The information I am getting comes specifically from the medical studies which are being published, and the online communities where patients are treating themselves with balofen.
You can visit those public forums whenever you want and read what the actual patients are saying about their own treatment. I'm not making it up, and it isn't some advertising campaign or something. You assume this information is coming from news articles, and it is not.
Try browsing sites like "mywayout.org" sometime, instead of whatever news articles you are reading, if you want to hear patient experience first hand.
|
On July 17 2011 03:16 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 03:08 Dariusz wrote:It is non-addictive Stopped reading there. As an addict and person passionate about psychology and neurology i can tell there is no such thing unless we are talking about physical addiction, like with heroine. Addictiveness of a drug depends on its peak plasma and half-life. The faster it reaches its maximum level in the plasma and the shorter the half-life, the more addictive it is and the more likely you will be to suffer from withdrawal symptoms. Instead of "stopping to read" when something contradicts your opinion, you should carefully examine it. Being interested in psychology for a hobby does not qualify you to make judgements about whether it is addictive or not.
It depends on how do you define "addictive". For me, it means something that can make you addicted to it. And just about anything can, because it's up to your brain, not the substance. Unless we are talking about physical dependance, which i also mentioned in my prevorious post.
|
On July 17 2011 05:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 05:42 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 05:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 05:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 17 2011 04:56 caradoc wrote:On July 17 2011 04:45 NicolBolas wrote:Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not. I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used. I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain. Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots. Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease. Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not. This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable. Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd. Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world. I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic. Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help. The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits. Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior. Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior. Individual patients aren't the ones with the agency to create or propagate these news stories. That would be the media/research organization/pharmaceutical establishment. In any population there will be a wide range of opinions on a specific issue-- saying 'the patients are saying X' and leaving it at that is an obfuscation. One could also say 'the patients are saying not X', and it would be just as true. Really, we are reading a news story, not talking to patients. Presenting patients with a particular homogenous viewpoint certainly helps to legitimize the drug in question, but to be honest we have no clue what patients are saying unless we talk to all of them, and even then we need to question whether the progress is not overstated-- did the 'things that patients say' come before a relapse? The news article doesn't know or care. I'm not sure where you are getting the information that this is being propagated by news stories and the pharmaceutical establishment. I've never heard baclofen treatment mentioned a single time on either television or in the news. The information I am getting comes specifically from the medical studies which are being published, and the online communities where patients are treating themselves with balofen. You can visit those public forums whenever you want and read what the actual patients are saying about their own treatment. I'm not making it up, and it isn't some advertising campaign or something. You assume this information is coming from news articles, and it is not. Try browsing sites like "mywayout.org" sometime, instead of whatever news articles you are reading, if you want to hear patient experience first hand.
Time magazine is linked in the OP. Companies with patents on specific drugs or infrastructure to produce them regularly fund research on other uses of such drugs, and such research tends to get disproportionately more exposure. But yes, it is off patent, so there is less incentive than a patented drug would be, but not none.
Again, as I've said numerous times above, I'm not attacking the drug itself-- if its useful in dealing with some physiological components to the addiction, that is a great advance, and should be incorporated into a comprehensive treatment program. My issue, again, is that terms like 'cure' (in the OP) or equating treatment with a pill (Time magazine linked in OP) do inadvertent harm.
The fact that you continually misconstrue and simplify my intent in my posts as well as the fact that your last paragraph suggests that you aren't actually reading what I'm typing, since you seem to believe that I'm against medical treatment of physiological components of addictions is not helping this discussion. I won't be replying to straw man arguments in the future.
Though it should be said, I found this phrase fairly disturbing: "for the treatment of addiction, it appears that baclofen must be taken indefinitely, since cravings return once the drug is stopped."
Indefinitely? As in, forever? What other effects are there? If you need to take a drug permanently that interferes with your body's dopamine release, it will have more effects than simply on addiction. To say nothing about how expensive (and conversely profitable for those concerned) this would be in the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
