Talk:Disease theory of alcoholism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Views on disease theory of alcoholism
There is currently no consensus in support of the disease theory, nor has there been one recently as the following documents demonstrate:
- Korhonen, M. Alcohol Problems and Approaches: Theories, Evidence and Northern Practice. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organizations, 2004 [1]
- Nackerud, L. The disease model of alcoholism: a Khunian paradigm. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 2002 [2](Presented above but awaiting response from dritlow)
- Kelly, D. Understanding the Nature of Alcoholism (2001). Discusses the disease controversy. [3]
- Schaler, J. A. Thinking about drinking: the power of self-fulfilling prophecies. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 1996, 7(3), 187-191 [4]
- Doweiko, H. E. Concepts of Chemical dependency. NY: Brooks-Cole, 1996.
- Levy, M.S. The disease controversy and psychotherapy with alcoholics. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 1992, 24(3), 251-256. [5]
- Maltzman, I. Is alcoholism a disease? A critical review of a controversy. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the Pavlovian Society, 1991, 26(3), 200-210 {
[6].
- The above unsigned contribution is completely incorrect. There is very strong consensus that alcoholism is a disease in the scientific and medical community worldwide. This is well-documented in the current version of the article. The only question is to what extent and in what manner the fringe views of those opposed to the concept that alcoholism is a disease should be represented in this article, or whether such views should perhaps be represented in a separate article. I have changed the title of this section of Talk appropriately.AussieBoy (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Changes
I've made quite a few minor changes, removed some of the more bizarre bits, edited down, and a structural change to this little article. I think in needs looking at by an expert in the field.
I've put the bits that don't relate to the debate in a Miscellanea section. I think those three items should probably be removed as they don't add anything to the article really. Mr Miles (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Diseases of the Will: Alcohol and the Dilemmas of Freedom
Very good book on the topic. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Does this book include neurological approaches to the understanding of addiction? Mr Miles (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This article...
...is bizarre. Repeating over and over, especially in the history section, that alcoholics can return to normal/controlled drinking. Then the Current Acceptance section lists a majority of medical associations accepting the disease and abstinence theory.
Either the US establishment has it all wrong or this article was written by someone intent on pushing a POV. Needs a little time spending on it by some kind soul. Mr Miles (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely. I am not part of some "US establishment", but as an Australian medical research scientist, I am well aware of the very strong prevailing view among experts worldwide that alcoholism is a disease. This article makes it appear that this is not the case and that there is genuine continuing debate. Not true. I feel that POV pushing is very much in evidence in the current version. There is a better history of the disease concept in the article on E. Morton Jellinek. As I get time I will try to introduce some of that material and remove more of the POV. I will also try add more material concerning the genetics of alcoholism, insofar as it has relevance. AussieBoy (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome AussieBoy! I completely agree with you. I spent a lot of time on both this article and the Alcoholism article trying to get more representation for the currently accepted medical and scientific view. There tends to be a lot of resistance to change on these articles. The main reason is that there are only a handful of regular editors, and not many have a science/medicine background, so things tend to get deadlocked. As a science student myself, I've pleaded with neuroscientists to help set the record straight on these articles, but most of them have scoffed at the idea of "wasting their time" on wikipedia. I commend you for recognizing the problems with this page, and their importance! --Elplatt (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History section
I have amended the portion of this section concerned with the US Supreme Court decision in 1988. I also corrected the reference so that it goes directly to the full judgement. Previously, portions of the majority opinion appeared to be selected to give the impression that the judgement was concerned with the correctness of the disease theory of alcoholism. As all the opinions now cited make clear, that was not so. In any case, I do not believe that a US Supreme Court judgement is relevant to this article, since the Justices are not experts in this area and can only rely on the opinions of those who are (or in some cases, aren't). Therefore, I suggest deleting this portion of the History section completely on the grounds of irrelevance. What does everyone think? I should also note that there was an earlier Supreme Court judgement relating to this topic, Powell vs Texas 1964. AussieBoy (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
