Disease?

[Ahso!]

If a person is being poisoned slowly or poisoning themselves with say arsenic slowly, would we call that a disease or say that the internal organs that the poison is affecting are diseased?

Or might we say that, since the skin is now recognized as an organ, that a skin burn is a disease?

If the answer to either or both of those question is no, why then do we say that drugs or alcohol or smoking is the cause of organ disease or the behavior is itself a disease?

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1520403 wrote: If a person is being poisoned slowly or poisoning themselves with say arsenic slowly, would we call that a disease or say that the internal organs that the poison is affecting are diseased?

Or might we say that, since the skin is now recognized as an organ, that a skin burn is a disease?

If the answer to either or both of those question is no, why then do we say that drugs or alcohol or smoking is the cause of organ disease or the behavior is itself a disease?


Definition - according to Webster - of disease excludes a result of an injury. So it does get a bit fuzzy.

If disease includes then mental aspect, then the drive for a person to do something that harms their own body, should count as a disease. Yes?



More simply, When I smoked Cigarettes, the addiction that convinced me I needed the things could qualify as a disease, but the Bronchitis and other organ failures could be considered the result of injury.

Of course, the whole addiction thing was a result of purposeful behavior, and the ingestion of addictive substances.

There are philosophical entities who believe that all diseases are a result of a lack of mental well-being, which then suggests that the real disease is completely a psychological one, making nearly all illnesses a result of self-inflicted injury.

Wait. I need coffee to work through all of this.

[Bruv]

LarsMac;1520413 wrote: Wait. I need coffee to work through all of this.


Not a whisky and a cigarette ?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1520413 wrote: Definition - according to Webster - of disease excludes a result of an injury. So it does get a bit fuzzy.

If disease includes then mental aspect, then the drive for a person to do something that harms their own body, should count as a disease. Yes?Perhaps the only way to avoid putting the body in danger would be to never have a body, or, never be born. Everything about existence is potentially harmful. That makes suicide seem rational.



LarsMac;1520413 wrote: More simply, When I smoked Cigarettes, the addiction that convinced me I needed the things could qualify as a disease, but the Bronchitis and other organ failures could be considered the result of injury.I don't know about addiction either.

LarsMac;1520413 wrote: Of course, the whole addiction thing was a result of purposeful behavior, and the ingestion of addictive substances.This is where the 'choice' vs 'disease' argument comes in. That argument seems to be a false dilemma to me.

LarsMac;1520413 wrote: There are philosophical entities who believe that all diseases are a result of a lack of mental well-being, which then suggests that the real disease is completely a psychological one, making nearly all illnesses a result of self-inflicted injury.

Wait. I need coffee to work through all of this.Really gets murky.

What about a different approach to the conditions we label as 'disease' or 'addiction'?

Using smoking as an example; at first, smoking is uncomfortable, it's even downright hostile to the senses but we fight through that until the body learns to adapt to what is its new environment...or ceases to function. Natural Selection? Environmental Selection?

Some people can smoke their entire life and survive while others will experience organ failure rather early on.

Once the body does adapt to this new environment it does so to the point that it learns to crave the environment because the affected organs have changed themselves to a condition that allows for survival. We call this addiction, however, when viewed this way, is merely survival mode, or adaptation. When a person smokes the lungs begin to change their appearance and mode of function. They become calloused as they begin to adapt. If the organ is successful in adapting the person shows little outward effect of the smoking if any effect at all.

Every organ is made up of cells and cells want to do one thing, and that is to survive in order to thrive. Adapting to their current environment on the fly is what I'd expect to happen.

[Ahso!]

I have a difficult time buying into mental illness because I don't believe there is a perfect example to aspire to (perhaps this is what drives us to want to create artificial intelligence). That is a religious concept that I call the Jesus dilemma that the medical community perhaps hasn't grown out of yet. We're variants of a species. Not only are no two fingerprints exactly the same, but no two like organs are exactly the same. It seems that when the distance between what we view as normal goes too far (however far that is) we begin to label those people as ill and we've come to a point where we can usurp Natural Selection. Nobody dies on our watch. Survival to the extreme. But then what should we expect?

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1520420 wrote: I have a difficult time buying into mental illness because I don't believe there is a perfect example to aspire to (perhaps this is what drives us to want to create artificial intelligence). That is a religious concept that I call the Jesus dilemma that the medical community perhaps hasn't grown out of yet. We're variants of a species. Not only are no two fingerprints exactly the same, but no two like organs are exactly the same. It seems that when the distance between what we view as normal goes too far (however far that is) we begin to label those people as ill and we've come to a point where we can usurp Natural Selection. Nobody dies on our watch. Survival to the extreme. But then what should we expect?


I would say that the best definition of mental illness is a mental condition of state of mind that inhibits a person from functioning within his/her environment comfortably.

For example. My father drank regularly. sometimes, he drank to the point of losing self control, and became hung up on some rather insignificant situation that had recently occurred. He would obsess over whatever it was, and it would keep him awake and drinking for the whole night.

Other nights, he had a glass or two, and would drift off to sleep some time around midnight, get up in the morning and go to work.

Mom wanted him to talk about his alcoholism. He denied having a problem.

When something extremely important took place, he would forgo his glass of Whiskey until the situation resolved.

There were times he did without, but they were few.

Was he addicted? did it actually interfere with his dealing with his environment?

My Psych professor told me that Dad was an alcoholic. But then he said anyone who ever drank themselves into a stupor was an alcoholic, and had a mental illness.

I fell into that category. I remember a few times waking up and having little memory of some period of the night before, which involved some rather heavy, un-managed consumption. But when I realized I had been overindulging, and that it was problematic, I quit drinking completely for a while. Now I allow myself an occasional beer, or wine, or even a Bourbon or Cognac, with the understanding that if I ever get out of hand, again, I can never have any more.

That policy has served me well for nearly 30 years.

I do know many people who cannot control the stuff. one sip, and they are off on an adventure. I never will drink with them, or around them.

they have an addiction, or some mental condition which causes them to fail to function normally.

I would call that a mental illness.

I don't think my father, or I suffered that mental illness.

[Ahso!]

If I accept a job that I enjoy doing but pays less than another job that I'd been offered and can perform well and thus causes more financial pressure or hardship to me and my loved ones, would that qualify as mental illness?

I get and agree that alcohol or drug consumption or even smoking is self-indulgent and can be seen in that regard as reckless - self-indulgence being an immature behavior, but accepting that immaturity as a mental illness?

One might have the capacity to function and behave a certain way, but I don't see it being a mental illness when they don't. Though as I'm typing this it occurs to me that societal pressure to cause favorable behavior within the community thus labeling the illicit behavior as mental illness could favor the community, but the question then becomes a moral one of inclusion to the tribe.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1520434 wrote: If I accept a job that I enjoy doing but pays less than another job that I'd been offered and can perform well and thus causes more financial pressure or hardship to me and my loved ones, would that qualify as mental illness?


I kind of miss the relevance of that. Doing the work you enjoy more, even for less pay is simple a personal preference, and you have to figure out the money part on your own.

Ahso!;1520434 wrote:

I get and agree that alcohol or drug consumption or even smoking is self-indulgent and can be seen in that regard as reckless - self-indulgence being an immature behavior, but accepting that immaturity as a mental illness?


Some people have either a physical, or psychologic dependence on such things, and haven't the capacity to deal with the dependence, and fight their way out of it.

That is when it becomes a mental illness.

Humans have a knack for justifying their behavior to protect their failings. THAT can be part of the illness. The disease.

Smoking Tobacco, for example, has physiological addiction process, as well as the mental/Psychological one. And of course there are some significant behavioral aspects to the thing. It is really quite complex. And one of the most difficult of the common substance addictions to get away from. I've known a number of Junkies who quit Heroin, yet can't find it in themselves to get away from Cigarettes.

When I quit ciggies, I was a bastard for months. Almost psychopathic, at times, getting the stuff out of my system, and mentally, it was years before I could hang around other smokers without feeling a craving. Even now, near forty years on, I feel a crave, now and again.

Addiction may be a result of bad choices, but it becomes a disease. And people find themselves unable to get on with their lives without the thing. That qualifies as "mental Illness, I believe.

I've seen similar problems with people who became addicted to Opiates. The addiction takes over your reasoning. People go batsht crazy, and will do anything to feed the craving.

It is no longer the person you knew doing those things.

Human mind is pretty bizarre.



Ahso!;1520434 wrote:

One might have the capacity to function and behave a certain way, but I don't see it being a mental illness when they don't. Though as I'm typing this it occurs to me that societal pressure to cause favorable behavior within the community thus labeling the illicit behavior as mental illness could favor the community, but the question then becomes a moral one of inclusion to the tribe.




That strikes me as almost a whole different conversation.

What society considers sane is very different. Have you read the stories of what was done to woman in the Suffrage movement in the early 20th Century US?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1520433 wrote: I would say that the best definition of mental illness is a mental condition of state of mind that inhibits a person from functioning within his/her environment comfortably.ahso! wrote: If I accept a job that I enjoy doing but pays less than another job that I'd been offered and can perform well and thus causes more financial pressure or hardship to me and my loved ones, would that qualify as mental illness?LM wrote: I kind of miss the relevance of that. Doing the work you enjoy more, even for less pay is simply a personal preference, and you have to figure out the money part on your own.Why not apply the same logic to consumption of drugs or alcohol?

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1520436 wrote: Why not apply the same logic to consumption of drugs or alcohol?


We are back to the difference between consuming drugs or alcohol vs being consumed by the addiction.

Having a few beers with friends is a far cry from straining Sterno through a T-shirt.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1520437 wrote: We are back to the difference between consuming drugs or alcohol vs being consumed by the addiction.

Having a few beers with friends is a far cry from straining Sterno through a T-shirt.I see your point. Do you see mine that that might be highly indicative that it is dependant on the genetic makeup of the individual more than a blanket mental illness or addiction labeling?

All I'm saying is that the way "addiction" is treated needs to be rethought perhaps. First, however, the mindset (addiction?) of how it is viewed needs to be challenged.

The general ignorance of our evolutionary history and therefore the perspective of this, as well as many other subjects, might have us on a course of failing to understand the issue which might be, in large measure, why the failure rate is so high.

I have found on a personal level that the more I learned the less I enjoyed altered states of mind. That is a change of environment as much as living in a new city is.

[Bruv]

Bruv;1520415 wrote: Not a whisky and a cigarette ?


You must know my sense of humour by now Lars, my apologies if my joke offended you.

[gmc]

Ahso!;1520403 wrote: If a person is being poisoned slowly or poisoning themselves with say arsenic slowly, would we call that a disease or say that the internal organs that the poison is affecting are diseased?

Or might we say that, since the skin is now recognized as an organ, that a skin burn is a disease?

If the answer to either or both of those question is no, why then do we say that drugs or alcohol or smoking is the cause of organ disease or the behavior is itself a disease?


disease

dɪˈziːz/

noun

noun: disease; plural noun: diseases; noun: dis-ease; plural noun: dis-eases

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

"bacterial meningitis is quite a rare disease"

synonyms: illness, sickness, ill health; More

infection, ailment, malady, disorder, complaint, affliction, condition, indisposition, upset, problem, trouble, infirmity, disability, defect, abnormality;

pestilence, plague, cancer, canker, blight;

informalbug, virus;

informallurgy;

informal***;

datedcontagion

antonyms: health

a particular quality or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.

"we are suffering from the British disease of self-deprecation"

Sorry for some reason I can't get the quote box or font changes to work.

The addiction itself is arguably a disease drug and certainly, alcohol abuse is also a cultural thing that is quite hard to stand against if you are in that environment where drunkenness is the norm and almost part of being a real "man". I know plenty of people who cannot conceive how you can have a good time unless you are drinking and it's always been quite hard to refuse to fall in line - well actually no it hasn't I decided a long time ago the friend trying to get me to get drunk along with them or take drugs with them was not actually my friend.

I find it hard to have much sympathy for junkies and alcoholics.

[Clodhopper]

I think one of the problems that we have here is that we are talking at least in part about the consequences of personality disorders, certainly where alcohol and other drugs are concerned. Alcohol dependency is a classic symptom of an underlying issue. After a time the dependency can become physical as well as emotional.

So while after a time alcohol dependency can become a physical disease with a recognisable and distinguishable set of symptoms it doesn't start like that and the same is true of many drugs and their effects. But the underlying issues that lead to dependency are not physical, they are emotional, behavioural and psychological and don't work quite like physical diseases and I don't think it helps to consider them as physical diseases.



It hasn't helped that in an effort to get the public in general to consider mental health as no more scary than, say, bad 'flu and deserving of the same sort of consideration as anyone else with a medical condition they've tried to get people to consider them as being the same as physical illnesses when there are important differences in terms of causes and treatments.



And the understanding of these issues is still in its infancy, or toddling at best.

edit: And there are complications to this picture: The exposure to it of a culture unused to alcohol can have devastating results as it did with native Americans. I am not sure to what extent that has turned out to be genetic in some way and to what extent a cultural vulnerability - their culture had no mechanisms to cope with something they'd never met before. Opium in China is another example.



At what point does a quirk of personality become a disorder?

edit edit: Chuckle. I do wonder if 500? 1000? years in the future all these disorders that cause so much misery will be successfully and acceptably "cured". And would living in a society of completely well adjusted people be unbearably dull? Would it kill art, for example? Would a potential Van Gogh of the 22nd century never happen because he is a happy and well adjusted sunflower farmer?

[Ahso!]

There appear to be two different reasons for applying the 'disease' label.

1) a person is diseased as evidenced by having an addictive personality. This seems to be where "disease" has replaced "sin" in medical terminology. We can find imperfection in any personality provided we have the perfect model. In the Christian religion that model is Jesus, and in medicine, it is a definition of each body organ operating at optimum performance. Neither can be realistically achieved.

2) the substance itself, whether it be drugs or alcohol or what have you, is the parasite, sort of speak, which is the cause of the malfunction to the associated organ within the body. With drugs and often alcohol, this organ is the brain. Today, it is common for even religiously based treatment centers to talk about brain function and how the substance "hijacks" the brain and causes it to reward itself for the "wrong" reasons thus causing cravings and triggers. Whenever I see words like "right" or "wrong" it sends up a red flag because then the explanation begins to take on an eerily moralistic tone if coming from a religious source and possible unrealistic tone coming from medical people (see #1 above).

[LarsMac]

Clodhopper;1520473 wrote: I think one of the problems that we have here is that we are talking at least in part about the consequences of personality disorders, certainly where alcohol and other drugs are concerned. Alcohol dependency is a classic symptom of an underlying issue. After a time the dependency can become physical as well as emotional.

So while after a time alcohol dependency can become a physical disease with a recognisable and distinguishable set of symptoms it doesn't start like that and the same is true of many drugs and their effects. But the underlying issues that lead to dependency are not physical, they are emotional, behavioural and psychological and don't work quite like physical diseases and I don't think it helps to consider them as physical diseases.



It hasn't helped that in an effort to get the public in general to consider mental health as no more scary than, say, bad 'flu and deserving of the same sort of consideration as anyone else with a medical condition they've tried to get people to consider them as being the same as physical illnesses when there are important differences in terms of causes and treatments.



And the understanding of these issues is still in its infancy, or toddling at best.

edit: And there are complications to this picture: The exposure to it of a culture unused to alcohol can have devastating results as it did with native Americans. I am not sure to what extent that has turned out to be genetic in some way and to what extent a cultural vulnerability - their culture had no mechanisms to cope with something they'd never met before. Opium in China is another example.



At what point does a quirk of personality become a disorder?

edit edit: Chuckle. I do wonder if 500? 1000? years in the future all these disorders that cause so much misery will be successfully and acceptably "cured". And would living in a society of completely well adjusted people be unbearably dull? Would it kill art, for example? Would a potential Van Gogh of the 22nd century never happen because he is a happy and well adjusted sunflower farmer?


There is definitely a genetic aspect to addiction. Alcohol, for example, there is a genetic "feature" in some strains of human that allows the body to quickly metabolize the alcohol, and dispense with the the residual matter.

American Indigenous people did not have this marker.

When it is missing, the Alcohol remains in the system for a very long time, and wreaks havoc on the system.

The marker probably evolved among some European strains where Alcohol became a regular part of the culture.

It would be interesting to learn whether the same gene markers have other affects, such as the tendency toward addiction.

There are some studies on the behavioral vs. Physiological aspects of addiction.

As I understand it, the "disease" label is generally reserved for the Physiological aspects of substance abuse and such.

So, if I have a physiological need for Caffeine, and cannot properly function until after a cup or two of Coffee, Am I diseased?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1520521 wrote: So, if I have a physiological need for Caffeine, and cannot properly function until after a cup or two of Coffee, Am I diseased?I say no. Your body has adapted to an environment where caffeine is a regular part of it so it drives you to seek more of it out. The body does not know or understand what's happening, it's only function is to survive, first as an individual, then as a species and lastly as an organism in order to preserve life in general.

[FourPart]

Being bi-polar I, on occasion, have very severe downers from time to time. I can go from being on a high to being in total suicidal meltdown in a moment, and have a long record of having been admitted into hospital for suicide attempts since I was 6. When I am in the latter stage I hit the bottle & the tablets. However this, in itself, is not a suicide attempt in itself - quite the opposite. It is an attempt to knock myself out to avoid doing an further harm, with the perpetual hope that I won't have to wake up again in the morning anyway. I have a good stock of various forms of spirits - most of which, I am glad to say, has been in stock for quite a long time. When I do hit the bottle, though, I will get through a bottle in one sitting. That does not, however, make me an alcoholic. Yes, it is using the alcohol as a solution, but by way of facing the reality, rather than hiding from it. Difficult to explain. Probably even more difficult to understand unless you've been there.

[gmc]

FourPart;1520533 wrote: Being bi-polar I, on occasion, have very severe downers from time to time. I can go from being on a high to being in total suicidal meltdown in a moment, and have a long record of having been admitted into hospital for suicide attempts since I was 6. When I am in the latter stage I hit the bottle & the tablets. However this, in itself, is not a suicide attempt in itself - quite the opposite. It is an attempt to knock myself out to avoid doing an further harm, with the perpetual hope that I won't have to wake up again in the morning anyway. I have a good stock of various forms of spirits - most of which, I am glad to say, has been in stock for quite a long time. When I do hit the bottle, though, I will get through a bottle in one sitting. That does not, however, make me an alcoholic. Yes, it is using the alcohol as a solution, but by way of facing the reality, rather than hiding from it. Difficult to explain. Probably even more difficult to understand unless you've been there.


Haven't been there but know people who have. I remember when they started using lithium to control manic depression for me it raised the question if drugs can alter your body chemistry and change your personality then who is really looking back at you from the mirror? Still can't answer that one in any definitive way. I also know plenty of people who become aggressive or maudlin when drunk, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, when sober you can decide not to drink. Drink or drugs as a coping mechanism are a route I turned away from by choice.

You're right it is hard to understand from the outside looking in. Even when you think you see the cause what to do?

[Clodhopper]

Borderline Personality Disorder is my issue, since we're sharing. And I'll agree with 4part on this - when it's bad you do what you have to do to get through it, which seems a common feature of many of these conditions

It's not curable etc but you can learn to live with it a bit - now in my 50's diagnosed at 17 really the main advice I'd give anyone suffering from these sorts of issues is to learn not to beat yourself up over it too much, which sadly isn't quite as easy as it sounds.



Chuckle. Thinking about it I'm not sure it's even called BPD any more. Too offensive a name, implying that the sufferers were almost without personality. As I remember I initially rejected the diagnosis for that reason since lack of personality has never been an issue. This was pre internet and the disorder had only just been recognised. I never got an explanation of what it really was and actually forgot about it. I only remembered it recently after meeting someone who rang bells all over the place which brought the memory back.

What it is actually trying to suggest is a personality on the borderline between neurosis and psychosis. Anyway, I've managed to make a lifestyle where I'm a burden on none and take no money from the state and I have made some positive contributions.

When it all went tits up, well, call centres can be lifesavers, and that's not a statement you'll hear every day.

And it's never dull!

As to what looks back in the mirror, that's me. But a me that is distorted from the ideal me by personality disorder and life and events. It doesn't stop me growing but it makes it more difficult because I'll mess up more of the lessons of life and events because of the disorder. A classic BPD type personality is like Field Marshal Montgomery: Very talented and capable in many ways, but with defects - in his case vanity and conceit - that almost destroy his achievements even as he makes them. (I'm not saying Monty had BPD but that's the sort of effect it can have. What would make it BPD would be if Monty hadn't undermined his own achievement through vanity and conceit, he'd have found another way to undermine them).



I think the thing that makes all these things disease-like is that there is something actively destructive of you going on and it's not a choice. (and no, it's not "possession")

[Clodhopper]

4part: In case it isn't apparent enough in my last post I really do sympathise with your situation. Sharing it has completely overridden any negative feelings I had over other issues.



And yeah, that reaction might be affected by BPD. shrug. I'll take it.

[Ahso!]

The success rate of 12 step programs is an abysmal 5%-8%.

There is a method called Sinclair which includes a prescription for opioid blockers for the brain that has a success rate of between 75%-80%.

Yet the courts and hospitals as well as most individuals still recommend and use 12 step programs. They continue to believe that surrendering to a non-existent God (or other "higher power") is a better remedy for addiction than a scientific one.

For anyone who might be interested in knowing more about the Sinclair method: https://aabeyondbelief.org/2015/11/22/t ... ir-method/