Why Must Everything Be a Medical Condition? (no guns or fracking)

[billvon 2,395]

>The healthy are those who will pay for the sick.

Sort of the definition of insurance.

[chemist 0]

lawrocket

[Reply]Just because we have experience does not mean that experience is caused by physical disease.

Of course. What plenty of people think is "crazy" is actually sociopathy. It's not a medical condition that can be medically treated. Some people are just assholes. Too many of them find their ways into state hospitals. Too many actually sick people find their way into prisons.

Take an ADHD kid and give her an EEG. Sleeping and waking. And tell me what you find. Why do stimulants help calm an ADHD kid but wire a non-ADHD kid? I've heard the suggestion that ADHD can be ruled in by giving a kid a stimulant and see what happens. Thus, it's an indication that there is a biochemical reason for it.

Ask anyone who has ever spent time with someone who is ADHD and ask whether that person can observe it. In the words of Austin Milbarge from Spies Like Us, "We mock what we do not understand."

[chemist 0]

quade

What if, and I believe there is, evidence to suggest certain people do have exceptional and genetic sensitivity to weight gain or the effects of alcohol?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199508103330605
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901103734.htm

There is no gene that codes for alcoholism.

[chemist 0]

billvon

So can alcoholism, but that is apparently not a disease in your book.

You are misinterpreting what is meant by defining. Alcoholism cannot be defined by a gene or characteristic. No matter what gene or characteristic you define to mean alcoholic there will always be those who do not meet the criteria who will be deemed alcoholics and there will always be those who do meet the criteria but are not deemed to be alcoholics.


Whereas it's very easy to define a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. There will never be an instance where a ham sandwich is deemed a PB&J, because a PB&J can be defined.

[quade 3]

chemist

***
What if, and I believe there is, evidence to suggest certain people do have exceptional and genetic sensitivity to weight gain or the effects of alcohol?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199508103330605
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901103734.htm

There is no gene that codes for alcoholism.

And there is no gene that codes for skin cancer either, but to deny people of a certain gene type, red heads for instance, are more suceptible to it is silly.

Does it mean all red heads will get skin cancer? No. But to say there is not something medical that makes it more likely is, as I said, silly.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,395]

>There was a time if you believed the earth was round you were deemed crazy. The
>physician who discovered germs was also deemed crazy and actually was put into a
>mental institution.

Ah, the Galileo gambit.

>Alcoholism cannot be defined by a gene or characteristic.

From WebMD:
===============
Researchers Identify Alcoholism Gene
Alcohol Addiction, High Anxiety Linked to Same Gene

WebMD Health News

May 26, 2004 -- A new study links a gene to alcohol addiction -- backing up a long-recognized pattern showing that alcoholism runs in families.

The finding also provides evidence that an inborn high level of anxiety is part of this picture. The study appears in this week's issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.

Research has shown that alcohol addiction is a complex disease, with both genetics and a tendency toward anxiety playing "crucial roles," writes researcher Subhash C. Pandey, PhD, a psychiatrist with the University of Illinois at Chicago.
================

The characteristic is pretty straightforward; a tendency towards medically hazardous uncontrollable overconsumption of alcohol.

>This is because no matter what gene or characteristic you define to mean alcoholic
>there will always be those who do not meet the criteria who will be deemed
>alcoholics and there will always be those who do meet the criteria but are not
>deemed to be alcoholics.

Sure, just as no matter how you define cancer there will be diseases called cancer that do not meet those definitions, and there will be diseases that are not called cancer that do. (High grade PIN for example; even now there is a lively debate within the medical community as to whether to call this cancer or not.)

Quote

Whereas it's very easy to define a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

If you roll up peanut butter and jelly in a tortilla, is it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

But none of that really matters. It doesn't really matter what you call it as long as whatever you call it is clear and results in people being able to communicate on the topic. It doesn't matter if the above example is a sandwich, a roll, a wrap or a PBJ burrito, as long as you know what's in it.

[chemist 0]

^lots of people with that gene will not be alcoholics.

[chemist 0]

billvon

If you roll up peanut butter and jelly in a tortilla, is it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

no because the operational definition of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is peanut butter and jelly on two pieces of bread. NOT peanut butter and jelly wrapped in a tortilla

[chemist 0]

quade

And there is no gene that codes for skin cancer either, but to deny people of a certain gene type, red heads for instance, are more suceptible to it is silly.

Does it mean all red heads will get skin cancer? No. But to say there is not something medical that makes it more likely is, as I said, silly.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

but skin cancer can be observed. I cannot observe a person's 'desire' to drink alcohol because that is a subjective experience. Whereas I can observe skin cancer under a microscope.

[billvon 2,395]

>no because the operational definition of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is peanut
>butter and jelly on two pieces of bread.

So if you use two pieces of tortilla is it a PB+J sandwich?

[billvon 2,395]

>lots of people with that gene will not be alcoholics.

Of course. And lots of people with high grade PIN won't develop full blown prostate cancer. Still, we call it cancer now.

[chemist 0]

billvon

>lots of people with that gene will not be alcoholics.

Of course. And lots of people with high grade PIN won't develop full blown prostate cancer. Still, we call it cancer now.

A gene is not going to change my position on moderate drinking.

[wmw999 2,120]

And what, pray tell, is your position on moderate drinking? And what, exactly, does it have to do with alcoholism (which generally doesn't mean moderate drinking).

Obviously you already know everything. Please make sure your med school knows, so that you don't have to go through all the pesky rest of med school and residency. It'd be a shame to waste all that knowledge.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[chemist 0]

billvon

So if you use two pieces of tortilla is it a PB+J sandwich?

yes, because a tortilla is a bread.

[chemist 0]

wmw999

And what, pray tell, is your position on moderate drinking? And what, exactly, does it have to do with alcoholism (which generally doesn't mean moderate drinking).

Obviously you already know everything. Please make sure your med school knows, so that you don't have to go through all the pesky rest of med school and residency. It'd be a shame to waste all that knowledge.

Wendy P.

Abstinence and moderate drinking is the KEY issue that divides the disease theorists and those who do not believe it is a disease. Those like me who do not believe addiction is a disease believe that moderate drinking can be learned.

There is a lot of data of high success rates and advantages to moderation, some people choose to ignore it and others choose to gain an understanding of it.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>no because the operational definition of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is peanut
>butter and jelly on two pieces of bread.

So if you use two pieces of tortilla is it a PB+J sandwich?

a crouton on the edge of a plate, next to a smear of jelly and a blob of peanut butter shaped like a rose in the center - charge $80 for it and serve with sparkling wine

haute cuisine - deconstructed PB&J

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

a crouton on the edge of a plate, next to a smear of jelly and a blob of peanut butter shaped like a rose in the center - charge $80 for it and serve with sparkling wine

haute cuisine - deconstructed PB&J

Naw, that's the amuse-bouche But at Bubba's Hot Cuizeen, that PB ain't shaped like a rose

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

Those like me who do not believe addiction is a disease believe that moderate drinking can be learned.

Mantra #1 from skydiving instructor's school: If the student failed to learn, it's because the instructor failed to teach

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[chemist 0]

wmw999

Quote

Those like me who do not believe addiction is a disease believe that moderate drinking can be learned.

Mantra #1 from skydiving instructor's school: If the student failed to learn, it's because the instructor failed to teach

Wendy P.

and the ignorant fail to accept facts that conflict with their own agenda. Moderate drinking is healthier than abstinence, study after study show the health benefits of moderate wine consumption.

[wmw999 2,120]

Absolutely true. And sugar is a good source of quick energy if you're hiking too.

Unless, of course, you're diabetic. Then it needs a little more thought and control.

Do you really think that it's just superior discipline that keeps people who are moderate drinkers, or moderate druggies, from being down-and-out alkies/junkies? It contributes, but then one's family contributes (but isn't the sole source) of personality and criminality as well.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[chemist 0]

wmw999

Do you really think that it's just superior discipline that keeps people who are moderate drinkers

Wendy P.

A lot of people do achieve success with moderation. Some people like the 'toughen up approach' it's empowering for them, it works and that's great but it's not for everyone. Why do you want to give autonomy the individual who says ritalin helped their ADD, but you won't give the autonomy to someone who succeeded with moderation? It worked for them so why can't they have self-determination?

[wmw999 2,120]

I'm not disagreeing with giving everyone possible the opportunity to solve their problems using moderation. Works well for me (but then, it's never been a problem).

I'm just saying that there are others for whom it doesn't appear to be just a matter of discipline. Really. Just as there are cases of legitimate ADHD (and not just a busy kid, or one who can treat a slight difficulty with focusing as a challenge, just as others can treat math or handwriting as a challenge).

Saying it's never a disease is just as wrong as saying it's always a disease.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,395]

>yes, because a tortilla is a bread.

So if you put PB+J on two tortillas and roll it up it's a sandwich.
So if you put PB+J on one tortilla and roll it up it's not a sandwich.

OK then.

Back to the discussion:

>Abstinence and moderate drinking is the KEY issue that divides the disease theorists
>and those who do not believe it is a disease. Those like me who do not believe
>addiction is a disease believe that moderate drinking can be learned.

Do you know any alcoholics? I know a few, and they simply cannot drink moderately. It's like telling someone who has restless leg syndrome 'just toughen the fuck up and stop moving your leg' or telling someone with PTSD 'oh stop being such a baby.'

[chemist 0]

wmw999

Saying it's never a disease is just as wrong as saying it's always a disease.

I agree. The problem is dimensional.

[ryoder 1,381]

chemist

and the ignorant fail to accept facts that conflict with their own agenda. Moderate drinking is healthier than abstinence, study after study show the health benefits of moderate wine consumption.

Do some reading on "Alcohol Flush".
It affects a large portion of the people with Chinese/Japanese/Korean ancestry, and for the people who have it, drinking ethanol puts them at a risk of esophageal cancer many times higher than the general population.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.