Addiction or illness- choice or no choice

alcoholics
bullimic
thief
peodophile

all different in my opinion.

They cant be lumped together.

I think some people have an addictive personality, not necessarily to drink or drugs but also shopping or an acquisitive drive to have the latest whatever or the best of everything and no stop button or rationale behind the behaviours.

This certainly applied to BIL along with the incessant bragging about the latest buy (which really rankled when they knew we were struggling big time but never an offer to help) and they spent enormous sums of money at a time such as his & hers big flash cars with special order paintwork and interiors, completely changing carpets throughout their house every two years because they fancied a change of colour

I think SIL and BIL both enjoyed a drink and for him it cost him his very lucrative job and a spiral downwards into alcoholism. SIL says she no longer drinks.

Perhaps addictive behaviour could apply to all four?
All very different but facets of the same underlying trait?

Alcoholism is not a disease and by calling it one we do not do the person any favours. The only way the alcoholic can move forward is by accepting that they have a problem. By calling it a disease we are absolving them from taking responsibility.

A columnist in one of the papers yesterday commented that we talk of alcoholism as a disease, but we never describe heroin addiction as a disease and our attitude to alcoholics is far kinder than to drug addicts.

Personally, I am never comfortable with the description of alcoholism as a disease. It is an addiction, and while I do accept that some people seem to have addictive personalities, so many ex-drug addicts and alcoholics become heavy smokers, I am with granjura when she says that it is not helpful to label it as a disease.

I tend to think that addiction is a sign that the person has psychological or social problems and uses their addiction to escape them.

I noticed that Alastair Campbell, who overcame an addiction to alcohol and was a close friend of Charles Kennedy and did all he could to help him, commented that CK would never agree to go into rehab, although he did have, as I understand, much counselling. I find this interesting because it suggests to me somebody who was truly terrified of going cold turkey and then having to face up to and admit his deep psychological insecurities, whatever they may have been

My policy in all of this would be to look beyond; to really see and understand the individual, and not the label called addiction, whatever that addiction might be.

I've already said what I want to say on the subject of alcoholism on another thread. I agree with Soon that it is not relevant, or helpful, to lump thieves and paedophiles with people with addictions.

As far as genetics goes, I like this quote from Dean Ornish:
"Our genes, and our telomeres, are a predisposition, but they are not necessarily our fate"

I have not at all lumped them together - all I am doing is asking if there is really a difference? I do not know the answer ... just thinking aloud and asking for others to comment and discuss.

So is there a major difference between alcohol, or shopping, or gambling?
And is fatalism helpful or indeed harmful? Some peodophiles are probably genetically damaged, but others perhaps not?

BTW, in the Mail on Sunday today, an article about a wonderful family, and a little boy in my GS's class with Duchenne's Distrophy- and the reason I mentioned this. The child has NO choice, and neither has his family. Wonderful people.

GJ you said in your OP
'To say to people that they were genetically marked to becoming (insert alcoholics, bulimia, thief, paedophile)......is just the way it is'

That certainly looked as though you were lumping them together.

OK I see. I am lumping together, in a question not a statement. All I am doing is asking (myself... and researching/reading too).

About 20% of peodophile seem to have a brain that seems wired a little differently. Most peodophiles are not- and most peodophiles, eg people who are sexually attracted to younger people/children, do NOT act upon their fantasies. Possible like some people who seem genetically predisposed to excess drinking or other addictive behaviour, can keep it under check.

Thinking about my FIL- having served in the medical corps during the war, and revellion against a teatotal family- seem to have been more determining in his alcoholism than genetics, for instance. But I still maintain he did have a choice- to seek help, instead of destroying himself and his family.

Anyone ever attended an AA meeting? Very sad, very uplifting, very strange. But those are the ones who admit to a problem and try to find a way back.

Too many don't accept they are alcoholic..

So true- one argument heard all the time from successful, functioning alcoholics is ' but all our friends drink as much as we do- therefore it is normal- so therefore it is not a problem'.

I've never really completely understood why alcoholism is classified as a disease while other dependencies, such as drugs or nicotine, are not. I used to be a smoker and was increasingly vilified for it as the anti-smoking culture grew. No-one ever made excuses for me nor offered sympathy and understanding - I was just looked on as having a disgusting habit and no self-control. I don't entirely disagree with that view, but if smokers have to accept that view of themselves, then why not alcoholics and drug users?

The reference to 20% having different rewiring is sloppy journalism reporting partial research. Different 'wiring' of the brain is not necessarily the cause of paedophilia - it could be the result of it, or simply a correlation that is not significant. Studies have not been replicated sufficiently to give consistent results. Sex offenders against children get lumped together as paedophiles, but there are different types. Some sex offenders who abuse children elevate them to the status of adult to permit themselves to abuse, so their cognitions about children differ. To simply look at brain patterns and activity before, during and after arousal does not sufficiently explain the thinking, planning, fantasising, learning and positive reinforcement or guilt about sexual abuse experienced in individual sex offenders' minds. They would like to claim it's an illness or not of their making, but they can still exercise control.

If an alcoholic (or a smoker, or a drug user) is "successful and functioning", what's the problem?

Are you really asking this? Do you think that the lungs of a successful smoker don't get damaged by the smoke, or their arteries (as many or more people lose their legs to smoking than to diabetes)- or the liver of a successful alcoholic does not get damaged because the person is 'succesful' in their profession? Or that the families of successful drinkers suffer any less, from their mood swigns, lashing out of one kind or another?

I actually know many very successful cocaine taker (they will all say they are NOT addicted btw). Do you think that because they have vast salaries they are not being damaged by this?

I think it depends on if the addicted person's conduct adversely affects others in and around the family. I have little sympathy for those who claim to be addicted because of my experiences.
For 60 years I ate food, any food I liked. I have been various weights during my life time. After some blood tests I received a letter giving the results of these tests. I had been found to have very suddenly become a Ceoliac, probably as a result of great stress. I had to stop eating normal food immediately. If I had not done that I would be lucky to be alive today. Food is essential in life, drugs, drink and cigarettes are not. I am no paragon of viceless life. I used to have the odd drink when out but when I got pregnant I stopped drinking and have never taken any alcohol since. I smoked from the age of 14 or 15 until I was 58 and I went to a "stop smoking" seminar and stopped smoking instantly. I have never had a cigarette since despite the death of two significant persons in my life shortly after stopping. I have never taken drugs and as a result of what I have seen I hate drugs all the more. There is a drug taker around the family but not included. I have watched the manipulation of people this person has done and it is only because a person has pleaded with me not to, that I have not dealt severely with that blighter.
My life and well being depended on me stopping eating immediately and I did that. So my view of addictions is that the people do not care about those around them and will continue with their selfish, greedy and manipulative ways. I look after my own food needs and do not expect anything from anyone and I will sit and watch people eat but not touch a morsel.

well said Granjura ...........as I remember 2 "successful " people who were very hard to live with

There is a lot out there re functioning alcoholics. Here is just one article:

Denial and Disease

One of the main characteristics of a functioning alcoholic is denial. Functioning alcoholics are often in denial. They do not see a problem with their drinking habits because they have not experienced extremely negative consequences or hit bottom. While close friends and family members may notice a functioning alcoholic’s worrisome drinking patterns, often times they’re also in denial because they too fail to see the problem if the alcoholic has a successful life.

However, there is a problem. Functioning alcoholics are drinking alcoholically, which means they’re doing serious damage to their bodies. A functioning alcoholic usually has a very high tolerance level for alcohol, and they may be regularly drinking unsafe, even potentially deadly, levels of alcohol.

Long-term, severe alcoholism can lead to many negative health consequences, including liver disease, heart disease, respiratory disease, cancer, and a mental health disorder like depression. Without alcohol, functioning alcoholics will also experience severe withdrawal symptoms that can be fatal if they don’t seek professional help, which is why their denial can be so dangerous.

Functioning alcoholics are also putting others at risk when they drive with high levels of alcohol in their systems. If you or someone you know may be a functioning alcoholic, getting treatment is essential in order to live a life that’s long, healthy, and safe for everyone.

I've also known functioning alcoholics who were surgeons- I hope you can see the problem there.

But the above seems to be referring solely to alcoholics who regularly drink unsafe amounts of alcohol, possible throughout the day - otherwise why would they suffer extreme withdrawal symptoms if they suddenly stop?

Isn't anyone who drinks because they feel they need to (maybe only in the evening, maybe only at weekends) just as likely to be an alcoholic? I'm sure I've read that this is the case.

I think my query may have been misunderstood. My father was a smoker, addicted to nicotine. He tried several times to give up but various stresses in his life made it too difficult for him. He was a good man, a brilliant teacher and lecturer, a great dad, fun to be with, etc, etc. He was successful and functioning in a perfectly acceptable way. Yes, he was damaging his lungs and eventually died of lung cancer but he wasn't damaging anyone else (he never smoked in my house, always went outside to smoke). Quite the reverse actually as he was very good at persuading other people that taking up smoking was a bad idea.

Don't you think that people should be free to choose their own poison so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life? I thought that's what you meant by successful and functioning. If an alcoholic is abusing his family as a result of his addiction I wouldn't call that successful and functioning.

I guess I interpreted "functioning" in a positive way. Obviously one could function in a negative way, but that could hardly be spoken of in the same breath as "successful".