The New 'illness'

[DeadBurgerKing (10)]

Precisely!

You can change who you are and what you do. Being abusive isn't an 'illness'. You don't have a choice over if you're sick or not. Abuse is an act of which someone can choose wither or not to lash out.

[sinmantyx]

But, this raises the question: "What is considered 'normal'?" Which is a completly opinion oreintated answer.

Not to justify child abusers, far from it, but what if they don't realize what they are doing is 'wrong'? Being as they were more than likely raised by abusive parents, they may view it as 'normal' parenting. Which is horrible to think about.

I think an 'illness' is something that's physically wrong with ones body. Such as certain chemicals aren't getting to your brain which may lead to depression. (Not sure if that's correct, but I'm using it as an example.)Depression can be considered an 'illness'.

Versus

Being raised by abusive parents and brought up to think that beating your children is the 'right' way to raise them. Under those circumstance you are TAUGHT that abuse is what needs to be done to be a proper parent. Thus not being an 'illness', but a 'trait' or 'behavior pattern'.

The definition of "normal" actually takes care of this question. If you group up in a culture in which you are socialized to act on particular "norms", than your behavior would not be due to personal issues. (I'm not a bit cultural relativist as far as ethics, but for the purpose of defining "illness" this applies.) There was a time when it was *normal* to beat wives and children if they "misbehaved". In some cultures, it was considered EXPECTED to kill your wife and the child if your wife had a child with another man.

Right here, right now, it is not socially acceptible to punish a child in such a way that it would physically harm them. Mild physical punishments, such as spanking on the butt with an open hand, is accepted by some groups and tolerated by most. Since causing real physical harm to your children, is not "normal" it passes one of my criteria.

The larger question that your raising is part of the third criteria I mentioned. It must be something that you either cannot control or have difficulting controlling. If someone truly believes (with consideration) that doing physical harm to children is a good form of parenting, and acts on that belief. They are certainly not ill...they are just mistaken. However, if someone routinely "flies off the handle" because they cannot control their anger or completely lacks empathy and is unable to understand the results of their actions; they are certainly ill. This doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions, it just means that correcting the problem or dealing with the situation is different. Even if I consider someone "ill" doesn't mean I'm going to have a problem putting them in jail or institutionalizing them forever and a day if their particular pathologic psychology causes them to harm people. I do not believe in punishment for punishments sake, however.

[Steven]

However, if someone routinely "flies off the handle" because they cannot control their anger or completely lacks empathy and is unable to understand the results of their actions; they are certainly ill. This doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions, it just means that correcting the problem or dealing with the situation is different. Even if I consider someone "ill" doesn't mean I'm going to have a problem putting them in jail or institutionalizing them forever and a day if their particular pathologic psychology causes them to harm people. I do not believe in punishment for punishments sake, however.

I disagree here, with a nod of respect.

some people, like dear old Dad, simply cannot (will not) bear the weight of their own transgressions in a public light.

so they just dont. Its protection of self, and therefore selfish at its core, once more a choice. I cant swallow that as an illness. I also do not belevie that many (many) predators have an illness. What they have is a form of lust that needs to be fed. they also choose self above all else.

[Msterbeau]

But, couldn't 'behavior patterns' be qualified as 'traits'?

For example, in stressful situations I usually remain calm and say something funny to break the tension. I could say that's a trait I have gained through my years of living and/or a behavior pattern...

Does that make sense? Probably not...oh well...It's PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!! :peanutbutterjellytime

I tend to think of traits as something built in. Maybe trait isn't the right word. But behaviors that we pick up from our parents, family and friends as we grow aren't generally traits that can't be changed. They're learned behaviors that can be unlearned. I guess if they've been passed on for so many generations they can seem like something genetic. Also... I'm quite certain that genetics can play a role in the kinds of behaviors we may be susceptible to.

[Msterbeau]

I disagree here, with a nod of respect.

some people, like dear old Dad, simply cannot (will not) bear the weight of their own transgressions in a public light.

so they just dont. Its protection of self, and therefore selfish at its core, once more a choice. I cant swallow that as an illness. I also do not belevie that many (many) predators have an illness. What they have is a form of lust that needs to be fed. they also choose self above all else.

I'm going to agree with the lady on this one.

You've had dependencies right? Addiction is a strong foe. Too strong for many. I think you know I have them too. They suck. I hate to call it an illness because it seems like an excuse for unhealthy behavior, but the fact is, I've been aware of them for a number of years now and I still struggle mightily to overcome them. Often I don't. I imagine there are other psychological conditions that are equally debilitating. Some are based on chemical imbalances or other physical deficiencies. Others I'm fairly certain are strictly of the mind. Regardless, many people never see through the cloud in their head to see that they have a choice. That lust that you speak of is a dependency like many others. Who needs external drugs to be addicted to? The ones in our head do a damn fine job of hooking us on certain behaviors that trigger them. That, to me, is illness. Even if it has a basis in external stimuli.

[DeadBurgerKing (10)]

I'm going to agree with the lady on this one.

You've had dependencies right? Addiction is a strong foe. Too strong for many. I think you know I have them too. They suck. I hate to call it an illness because it seems like an excuse for unhealthy behavior, but the fact is, I've been aware of them for a number of years now and I still struggle mightily to overcome them. Often I don't. I imagine there are other psychological conditions that are equally debilitating. Some are based on chemical imbalances or other physical deficiencies. Others I'm fairly certain are strictly of the mind. Regardless, many people never see through the cloud in their head to see that they have a choice. That lust that you speak of is a dependency like many others. Who needs external drugs to be addicted to? The ones in our head do a damn fine job of hooking us on certain behaviors that trigger them. That, to me, is illness. Even if it has a basis in external stimuli.

I can see how child abuse could be a form of addiction. This is true. But I don't see addictions as an illness either. Trust me Mster, I know ALOT about addictions. (I had to quit methdone cold turkey after being on it for 3 years.) You have a choice to start the addiction and a choice to end it. Even if it's a simple thing like chewing your finger nails to doing black tar heroine. It had a begining and, if you choose, an end. Your body eventually gets used to whatever your addiction is, thus your body needs it. You can treat it like an illness, get medicines to help your body quit the addiction. But I don't think that treatment means it qualifies as an illness.

[Msterbeau]

I can see how child abuse could be a form of addiction. This is true. But I don't see addictions as an illness either. Trust me Mster, I know ALOT about addictions. (I had to quit methdone cold turkey after being on it for 3 years.) You have a choice to start the addiction and a choice to end it. Even if it's a simple thing like chewing your finger nails to doing black tar heroine. It had a begining and, if you choose, an end. Your body eventually gets used to whatever your addiction is, thus your body needs it. You can treat it like an illness, get medicines to help your body quit the addiction. But I don't think that treatment means it qualifies as an illness.

I'm not calling the abuse an addiction. But when you experience that kind of behavior very young, that does a lot of damage. That damage often leads to addiction as a coping mechanism. In that state of mind... I'm not sure you can really say there was a choice.

Odd thing about me. Most addicts come from abuse and broken homes. I don't. I still puzzle over why that is. Sure... I'm emotionally very sensitive, but enough to have gotten as messed up and fearful as I became? I personally don't get it. I never thought I was an addict until my therapist named it for me and gave me a book to read about what I'd become. It was like a veil had been lifted. It hasn't made it all that much easier but at least I know my enemy now.

I think one of the issues in this discussion is the word "illness". Our minds are conditioned to think of illness as a physical affliction. Maybe we just need to expand our idea of what illness can be?

From the dictionary:

#illness

1. Poor health resulting from disease of body or mind; sickness.

2. A disease.

Serious anger problems... addiction... They are diseases of the mind.

[DeadBurgerKing (10)]

I dunno. 'Disease of the mind', in my opinion, means; a mental disability. I don't see abuse fitting under that description...

[sinmantyx]

I dunno. 'Disease of the mind', in my opinion, means; a mental disability. I don't see abuse fitting under that description...

All functions of the body (psychological or otherwise) are inherently physical. Counseling is very similiar to physical rehabilitation to me. To say that addiction is not an illness because there was some sort of choice involved doesn't work in my definition. That would be like saying that MONO isn't a disease because you decided to kiss someone.

Not everyone exposed to a substance (or an experience) becomes addicted. Susceptibility to addiction is sometimes VERY linked to physical traits- such with alcohol dependency. "For centuries, societies have labeled alcoholics as self-indulgent people who lack willpower. Although the decision to drink in the first place does rest with each individual, traits inherent in a person's brain cells can strongly influence the slippery slope into addiction. Furthermore, once a person is addicted, simple willpower may be insufficient to break the grip; drugs that can reverse the brain's alcohol-altered chemistry may be necessary." (Full article here.)

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to see how other habitual behavior may be influenced by genetics, brain chemistry, and conditioning. I would almost hazard a guess (getting all arm-chair psychology) that ALL behavior is influenced by these three things. The trouble happens when those behaviors are inherently damaging or disallows someone to function. The only difference between an "illness" and a "character flaw" is that we have an idea of what causes an illness. So, at some point, we have to realize that knowing the cause (either the result of nature or nurture) doesn't mean we accept the behavior or fail to act.

[Msterbeau]

All functions of the body (psychological or otherwise) are inherently physical. Counseling is very similiar to physical rehabilitation to me. To say that addiction is not an illness because there was some sort of choice involved doesn't work in my definition. That would be like saying that MONO isn't a disease because you decided to kiss someone.

Not everyone exposed to a substance (or an experience) becomes addicted. Susceptibility to addiction is sometimes VERY linked to physical traits- such with alcohol dependency. "For centuries, societies have labeled alcoholics as self-indulgent people who lack willpower. Although the decision to drink in the first place does rest with each individual, traits inherent in a person's brain cells can strongly influence the slippery slope into addiction. Furthermore, once a person is addicted, simple willpower may be insufficient to break the grip; drugs that can reverse the brain's alcohol-altered chemistry may be necessary." (Full article here.)

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to see how other habitual behavior may be influenced by genetics, brain chemistry, and conditioning. I would almost hazard a guess (getting all arm-chair psychology) that ALL behavior is influenced by these three things. The trouble happens when those behaviors are inherently damaging or disallows someone to function. The only difference between an "illness" and a "character flaw" is that we have an idea of what causes an illness. So, at some point, we have to realize that knowing the cause (either the result of nature or nurture) doesn't mean we accept the behavior or fail to act.

Can I borrow your brain for a while? You express everything I want to say in a very logical and clear way. :-)

[sinmantyx]

Can I borrow your brain for a while? You express everything I want to say in a very logical and clear way. :-)

[Steven]

I'm not calling the abuse an addiction. But when you experience that kind of behavior very young, that does a lot of damage. That damage often leads to addiction as a coping mechanism. In that state of mind... I'm not sure you can really say there was a choice.

Odd thing about me. Most addicts come from abuse and broken homes. I don't. I still puzzle over why that is. Sure... I'm emotionally very sensitive, but enough to have gotten as messed up and fearful as I became? I personally don't get it. I never thought I was an addict until my therapist named it for me and gave me a book to read about what I'd become. It was like a veil had been lifted. It hasn't made it all that much easier but at least I know my enemy now.

I think one of the issues in this discussion is the word "illness". Our minds are conditioned to think of illness as a physical affliction. Maybe we just need to expand our idea of what illness can be?

From the dictionary:

#illness

1. Poor health resulting from disease of body or mind; sickness.

2. A disease.

Serious anger problems... addiction... They are diseases of the mind.

I've gotten high with degenerates in the street and with white collar professionals in swank.

yes most of them / us came from abusive backgrounds, but the worst addict I've ever known came from a very secure and affluent social class, with a very balanced homelife and a strong rtelationship with her father. She went from that to sucking dick for tar heroin.

sometimes it just happens.

I tend to agree that we pre condition our minds to accept certain terminologies to apply to our state of being.

I also think it goes both ways.

one of the reasons I quit AA and NA - is because I was supposed to embrace my predisposition (and I come from a family of addicts) and the philosphy that although I was in recovery, I would always be an addict.

I just dont beleive that idea, and I think its a dangerous (for me at least) approach.

I belevie I am something new as God intended. Lots of people think thats ridiculous. But I dont have a sponsor and I dont use and I havent in many years. therefore I am no longer an addict and I am not in any sort of remission. nor do I accept the term "relapse" - its too safe for me. if I used again, its because I made a selfish choice. Its because I was stupid and self serving. I'd rather even call it a "sin" or a good old fashioned fuck up than call it a relapse.

Did I have a mental "illness"?

it could be argued strongly that I did (and that I have a new one now).

what else can we place under illnesses?

Unfaithfullness?

Faith-Less-ness?

Betrayal?

Selfishness?

Jealously?

Fear?

those are jsut a small handful that had everything to do with my lack of identity and my hunger for chemicals. Addressing those things in general aside from dependency - resulted in a different lifestyle that leaves no natural place for addiction. Same concept applies to abusive behaviour. I guess what Im saying is that I did not kick, by trying to kick. I did not change, by trying to change. The only thign I was tryign to do at all, was deal with me.

I think if you really want to - you can clinically approach any subject matter and stack up plenty of fortifying data, because thats what we humans love to do, its a safer approach. But when we do that I think in the end we simply exchange one pair of shoes for another. And for me life is too short for that.

[torn asunder]

what else can we place under illnesses?

Faith-Less-ness?

this, of course, would mean that faith-FUL-ness is also an illness, correct? i certainly hope so...

[Marblez]

I belevie I am something new as God intended. Lots of people think thats ridiculous.

Steven, let's consider the possibility that modern science is actually correct after all that research and that dependency/addiction is an actual lifelong disease with relapses and the need for constant awareness/support. Your specific situation may just be unique. Perhaps through your faith you were literally "cured" of your alcoholism by God. This may be why you do not have the same concerns with relapse that others may. Of course some would think it ridiculous... because they do not believe.

[Msterbeau]

Steven, let's consider the possibility that modern science is actually correct after all that research and that dependency/addiction is an actual lifelong disease with relapses and the need for constant awareness/support. Your specific situation may just be unique. Perhaps through your faith you were literally "cured" of your alcoholism by God. This may be why you do not have the same concerns with relapse that others may. Of course some would think it ridiculous... because they do not believe.

Steven could well fall under the exception to the rule clause of life. I'm sure their are others. I think for some, it's a life long struggle... for others, they find a way to kick it completely out of their life.

[BrassFusion]

this, of course, would mean that faith-FUL-ness is also an illness, correct? i certainly hope so...

...get outta my head...

[sinmantyx]

those are jsut a small handful that had everything to do with my lack of identity and my hunger for chemicals. Addressing those things in general aside from dependency - resulted in a different lifestyle that leaves no natural place for addiction.

So, you found the true source of the problem and you dealt with it. How is that unique? That's how you deal with illness, you find the source of the problem and resolve it. If it's not possible or practical to completely eliminate the source of the problem (such as with genetic predisposition or something of that nature), dealing with the illness will certainly be an ongoing struggle; and "embracing" that fact, I'm sure, can help tremendously.

I have met many people with addictive tendencies that simply find a slightly healthier way to express those tendencies...either a co-dependent relationship with a person or an unhealthy relationship with a religion or even a cult. They think they have been "cured" but they have just replaced one addiction with another and the underlying problem has just been covered up. (I'm CERTAINLY not accusing anyone here of this, simply because I don't know anyone well enough to even THINK of making such a judgement. I'm just mentioning the possibility in general.)

There are also certainly people without predispositions in the first place, that are simply unfortunate enough to make the wrong choices at the right time for everything to start going to hell for them. You certainly don't need to have a hard life or be abused as a child or have some sort of genetic/chemical screw loose to develop a substance addiction or find yourself in a co-dependent relationship...you just have to be over-confident enough to think you can "handle it" until you can't.

In my own life, there are NO people in my immediate biological family or close extended biological family that have ever had problems with alcohol addiction. Is it because they are somehow genetically immune?...I really doubt it. They just don't drink. It's not socially acceptable. If my mom has a glass of wine once a year I'd be surprised. Recently I found out my great uncle had a horrible time with liquer. As I look back at my not-so-close extended family you either see one of two things: Either they never drank with any frequency or they were dependent on alchohol. (...which probably has a large impact on *why* it became so socially unacceptable.) This isn't the least bit surprising to me.

It seems to me that many people don't want to own up to their own limitations. If they see that *one* person (like my friend Christina) can have a couple cigarettes every once in a while and not develop a hint of a problem...that they should be able to do that too. I had *a* "smokey treat" once at a party and, I kid you not, I had a mild craving for one the next day.

I've never been to AA or NA or any other program (you definitely know more about this than I do); but my intuition tells me that what you are describing is a method of helping people fight their habits by acknowledging that *they* (more than other people that they might encounter: who do Coke recreationally, do Pot and don't develop a habit, drink themselves shit-faced every weekend and don't become dependent, only smoke cigarettes once in a blue moon and feel no cravings, play WOW without neglecting their family and losing their job, go out gambling at the casino without betting away their house, etc) need to make a choice to avoid those pit-falls.

That's just acknowledging that YOU are unique and you need to know your own limitations and act accordingly. Knowing this, deciding to partake is not some sort of fun experiment or interesting evening...it's (as you said) a fuck-up.

[sinmantyx]

...get outta my head...

It was so funny. There was a public access show called "Atheist Chat" in Fargo-Moorhead and (before I was an atheist, mind you) I watched it occassionally. It was just so fun and bizarre to me since these people had ideas SO far outside the "norm" of the area. One particular "chat" was a discussion of whether or not it was psychologically healthy to be a Christian.

"Some of these Christians claim to hear the "voice of God". Isn't there a name for that disorder?"

I'm paraphrasing, but it really struck me funny at the time. What is considered "illness" and "blessing" definitely depends on your society. For example: my friend's waking dreams might make her a great holy woman back home, but up here it just means she has a form of Autism that makes it difficult for her to distinquish between reality and make-believe. In many Native American cultures, being gay was considered a great blessing. It meant you had "two spirits" and were able to have a unique insight; while, until recently, in mainstream U.S. culture it will certainly get you Electroshock Treatment. (Still does in some cases...fucking moron bastards.)

I'm sure there are other examples. I mean "uppity women" were routinely sent away to get labodimized, locked up, or otherwise discarded. The *cause* for a "hysterical" woman was just that "she was a woman" until men started developing "shell shock". (Now we call both these conditions: Post Tramatic Stress)

Just saying, our concept of "illness" certainly changes based on what is socially acceptable.