
|

Untitled
The word DISEASE and the phrase DISEASE CONCEPT:
Definitions and A Perspective
Disease - A disease
is any perturbation in any physiological system of an organism
which changes the function of that system and leads to negative
consequences for the organism when compared to a healthy, normal,
standard. Implied in this definition is that the cause of this
change is outside the control of the organism; it happens to the
organism. Thus, when we speak of a disease there is no blame,
no recrimination, no guilt, and no stigma. Also, a behavior such as an addiction can't be a disease. It can only be a symptom of a disease. Symptoms are inherently outward manifestations of a disease or disease process located within the body. (read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thirdmilleniumn4aconferencekeynoteaddressonhypoism/ on this web site) Diseases are necessarily anchored in a bodily organ or organs through a pathophysiology such as genetic, traumatic, infectious, immune, malignant, toxic, degenerative, or others affecting parts of the body. Lay people, especially, but frequently physicians as well, confuse the distinction between a disease and a symptom. This distinction has caused harmful confusion in the field of addictionology from the time "alcoholism" was first mislabeled a disease by Bill Wilson and then by Dr. Jellinek.
I want to further discuss the
critical principle of the DISEASE CONCEPT
of medicine right here. Disease is the
first word mentioned in the book and the understanding of the
disease concept (as I understand and use it) is so important for
perspective into my argument in favor of the disease of Hypoism, or any argument about whether something is a disease or not and the implications of that word.
For millennia, humans attributed illness to complicated, mysterious,
and superstitious forces of the universe-gods, devils, humors,
animals, spirits, etc. Treatments were based on these causes and
were equally complicated and ritualized. When science began to
understand the realities of the workings of the human body and
its interactions with natural external realities such as bacteria,
poisons, parasites, and viruses, as well as internal realities
such as arteriosclerosis and immune disorders, as causes of disease,
as opposed to humors and spirits, the theory of the disease concept
of medical disease was born. Scientists who studied human diseases
found that each disease was based on a simple
pathological principle, ran a predictable
course, had predictable complications, and had a reasonably predictable
outcome based on physiological (based on the science of the body-
biology) intervention. As biology continued to improve its understanding
of the body and nature, more and more diseases were removed from
the status of superstitious and the supernatural category and
placed within the category of the disease concept. Diseases with
complicated and tortuous etiologies, courses, and treatments became
amenable to simple disease concepts and simple treatments based
on scientifically understood principles. If you read a medical
textbook from 1900 and compare it to one written in 1999, you
will see how many times this has occurred. As new physiologies
are understood, previously complicated diseases have become commonplace
and simple. The biologically simplest organs are understood easily
as are their diseases. The biologically more complicated organs
are understood last. The biology of the brain is a quantum leap
or two more complicated than any other system in the body. We
are still in the dark ages in our understanding of the physiology
of the brain, and, consequently, our understanding of physiologically
based diseases of the brain is meager. That doesn't mean that
the same disease concepts don't hold true for them-they do. Addictive
disease, when the physiology is understood, will have the same
simple scientific and medical description as pneumococcal pneumonia
does today. One disease -- One physiology. This is the context
in which I see Hypoism today. One disease (HYPOISM) -- One Physiology
(the physiology of limbic diversity). My concept of Hypoism simplifies
the morass of complicated and multifactorial causes of addictions
and is predictable. Future science will determine this. (In fact, since writing the book from which this discussion is taken, several predictions of the hypothesis have already been substantiated, thus confirming Hypoism.) For these
reasons, I find the medical disease concept of Hypoism so appealing and compelling.
Let's discuss, from a societal perspective,
the implications of the medical disease concept vs. the psychological
concept of disease. In common terms, the medical disease concept
says the particular malady from which you are suffering happens
to you and thus you are not held
personally responsible for having caused it. The accepted treatments
are presented to you by the experts in the field, and you are
allowed to choose the treatment which suits your own needs, hopefully
(but not necessarily) guided by scientific studies comparing the
benefits, or lack thereof, for each particular treatment. How
you deal with it is up to you, guided by your friends, family,
and experts. As an adult, you have the right to choose your treatment,
as long as your disease has no proven negative effect on anyone
else (society). If your disease is proven or thought to have effects
on other people (such as being contagious and deadly), your treatment
may well be dictated by society. Even if that is the case, it
is your body that is
sick, not your self, not your
soul, not your spirit, not your person.
The psychological concept of disease says
you caused your own disease due to deranged mental processes chosen
by yourself willingly, usually as a conscious or unconscious defense
to some childhood emotional trauma. In other words, it happens
by you. The onus is on you because
you could have chosen some other way of dealing with that trauma,
but you didn't. In that way, you (your self)
are (is) defective. This crucial distinction
incriminates mental illness victims at the very core of their
being. If society judges the illness detrimental to the society
as a whole, it allows for discrimination as well as punishment-usually
in the form of incarceration or some form of interdiction by the
criminal justice system.
Thus, we have three distinguishing classification
characteristics: 1a.) Happens to you (O.K.), 1b.) Happens by you
(not O.K.); 2a.) Defective body (O.K.), 2b.) Defective mind (self)
(not O.K.); 3a.) Causes harm to society (not O.K.), 3b.) Doesn't
cause harm to society (O.K.). The only problem is that mistakes
in this societal classification of patients cause actual harm
to the victims of these mistakes. This is why it is so drastically
important for society, guided by the fields of medicine and science,
not to make mistakes in classification. In the past, witches were
burned at the stake, epileptics and schizophrenics committed to
mental hospitals for life, homosexuals jailed for sodomy. Now,
due to better understanding of these conditions, these people
can walk the streets free from fear of unreasonable incarceration
and discrimination. Only the drug addicts are treated this way
today, and it is the function of this book to help rectify this
torturous situation.
The essence of the mistaken judgments is
the issue of causation and blame by the judging person or people.
In other words, did the people do it to themselves or did it happen
to them and was it out of their control? Take a well known disease
like sickle cell anemia, where a genetic defect in hemoglobin
synthesis leads to deformed red blood cells, which clog up capillaries
and cause blockage of blood flow to affected areas of the body,
pain and dead tissue. Before this disease was understood, victims
of the disease were thought to be liars, malingerers and doing
the damage to themselves, in other words, hysterical. Now, because
we all know about the physiology of this pitiful disease, the
victims are no longer judged and stigmatized, although their own
bodies are hurting them. We do not judge these people as being
self-destructive because we know better. Another disease most
of us know about is Lupus, an autoimmune disease where the immune
system reacts to one's own tissue and hurts itself. Would we call
that self-destructive? Actually, it is the epitome of self-destruction,
but because we understand the biology of this problem, we don't
judge the victims for their symptoms and problems.
But, when the same sort of disease is in
the brain, such as mental illness and addiction, we very readily
judge and blame the victims of these diseases for doing it to
themselves. Mental diseases that lead to unacceptable behavior
are judged severely because they have the appearance
of being willed or consciously caused by the
person with the abnormal behavior. People who don't have these
behaviors can't comprehend how anyone else would do these things
unless by their direct will. "Normal" people only act,
they believe, via their own conscious will, so, therefore, all
people must act via their conscious will. Thus, abnormal behavior
must be willed and, therefore, we feel O.K. about placing blame
on these weirdos.
That's how we all view addicts. They must
be willing their weird behavior-they are self-destructive. This
most abused term, self-destructive, along with its inherent judgment
and stigmatization, should be used for all diseases and all abnormalities,
or none at all. Is the diabetic self-destructive? What about the
stroke victim, the Lupus victim, the sickle cell victim, the hypertensive
victim, and the cancer victim? Non-diseased people always think
that the victims of some diseases are doing it to themselves until
it happens to them, then they don't like the stigmatization. "As
long as it doesn't happen to me, do whatever you want to
them!" We revel in blaming
victims as long as it isn't happening to us. When it happens to
us, then and only then, do we look for understanding of the cause
outside of us. As science advances, less and less of these crazy
diseases are blamed on the victims. Drug addiction and other strange
behaviors still meet these criteria for judgments, stigmatization,
and blame mostly because we don't understand their physiology.
This book hopes to change this circumstance for addictive diseases.
Drug addicts, in the absence of interpersonal
crime, need to be reclassified to the same medical disease category
as diabetics and cancer victims so that they can avoid self-stigmatization
and self-discrimination and, therefore, allow themselves to seek
help freely and without fear. Wouldn't we all rise up and protest
similar handling of leukemics, epileptics, cancer or stroke victims?
Of course, nevertheless we all accept and acquiesce to the abominable
treatment of drug addicts, including boot camps, abusive therapeutic
communities, and long jail sentences. No longer.
|

|