British Columbia MDs Want to Treat Addictions as Disease!
Barry Artiste Op/Ed
The British Columbia Medical Profession is currently trying to get the Government of British Columbia Canada to change addictions to be classified as a Disease.
Wow! It appears some Doctors seem to be so unclear on the concept of the meaning of the term “Disease”! I have so many problems with this Leftard Crap by these Medical Wonks! The term “Disease” is either Infectious or Non Infectious. That is the medical term for Disease and no other.
Nowhere in that understanding is addiction, which is behavioral. MDs trying to change the term Disease to encompass every little ailment will open up a legal can of worms in the courts, resulting in everyone and their dog, pleading in front of a judge that their criminal actions was caused by a disease?
Of course MD’s want lots and lots of taxpayers money to further this new Catchword of the Millennium, guaranteeing lots and lots of Research Grants and Pharmaceutical companies making oodles of money for themselves!
Can you imagine Rapists and Child Molesters pleading they have “Uncontrollable Urges and Addicted to Little Girls and Horny Disease”?
Murderers pleading they have an “Addiction to Blood Lust” disease in that they need to kill people?
Can you imagine Criminals pleading they have “Money Disease” and “We want your Stuff Addictions”?
I say leave disease terminology in it’s present form. Gambling is not a Disease nor is Drug Addiction, it never came naturally or all of a sudden on people. They chose it! They knew the Risks! To think they didn’t know the difference otherwise leads me to believe perhaps they are either Left Tard Liberals, Brain dead or both!
There is mental illness and behavioral issues brought on by accidents, disease or genetics. But when Normal healthy people with even a semblance of intelligence of a insect willingly put poison into their arms or body, or insatiable Greed drives them to gamble, after all Gamblers would not gamble if it were not for Paper Money! I know of no Gamblers who would risk their life savings or kneecaps for a chance to score some Charmin Toilet Paper!
I say screw em, leave Disease as a term in its intention Infectious and Non Infectious, otherwise we open ourselves up to a legal mess of excuses our Nancy Courts and Laws are ill prepared to deal with!
One can be sure if this Disease Excuse was used in courts, Al qaeda’s addiction to Box Cutters and Flying planes into Office towers killing thousands would be an attributed to being driven to have “Sex addiction” and “Martyr Syndrome” in order to get to some of them Virgins in Paradise.
Time to stop all this “World Nancyism” and call a “Spade a Spade”! Do the Crime-Do the Hard Time!
As I do not have time to explain Disease Terminology, here is a link which is close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease
http://www.vancouversun.com/Health/Treat+addiction+disease+tell+Victoria/1428235/story.html
Comments? Leave your intelligent feedback down below or consider following CollegeTimes on Facebook or Twitter to stay updated or to get in touch!
Share This Story:
Please scroll down to leave a comment.
Just a note regarding child molesters, rapists, murderers and drug dealers/manufacturers, I don’t believe that we should imprison them, I believe instead that they should be executed as they are destructive individuals and a drain on society. In regards to addicts, they are the ones who need help and the money we would save from the penal system could be used to help them, and yes I do believe that if they commit crimes they should be incarcerated with help to combat their addiction. You could create or reutilise prisons which are designed to deal with addiction criminals
it doesn’t matter what you call it. if you call a rose by any other name it is still a rose. the truth is that as a society we have put justice above our own needs. if an addict commits a crime in order to supply his or her habit then they should be held accountable. but in the interest of our society instead of funding this war on the suppliers of drugs we need to focus on the recovery of the addict. history has shown that where there is a demand there will be somebody to supply it. so as i see it fight the demand not the supply. if we reduce the demand the supply will diminish on it’s own. the biggest problem here is that we know very little about fighting this thing called addiction. now let me say again if you are an addict and commit a crime to supply your habit then you should be held accountable. but i say that if it is a non violent crime lets focus on rehabilitation so we can make room in our prisons for child molesters, rapist, and murders. after all they are a bigger threat to public safety than a non violent drug offender.
TR,I agree for what it’s worth. The problem with calling it what it is, is the fact that:
1. There is and I’m fairly certain there always will be a stigma attached to the title addict. People of weak will, and little worth. Rightly or wrongly that’s how many people see addictions and if anything it’s actually better now then it has been historical. But there’s still a long way to go I’m afraid.
2. And this is the more important point. It’s a question of legality and responsibility. Addicts are one of the many “marginalized” peoples in modern society, and a major problem for those that are is getting help. If addiction is seen as it seems to be by most people as a weakness, very little resources will be allocated to help people over come their addiction. If fact the money spent to help addicts, is a pittance compared to what is spent combating the supply problem. It’s also been shown that many, non-professional convicted criminals are in fact addicts (most often alcohol) and committed their crimes while intoxicated (if violent) or to supply their addiction (if a property crime). Again the money spent to convict and incarcerate is considerable compared to the monies spent trying to help them when they are released, let alone addicts as a whole.
As nice as the concept of educating those that don’t understand addiction is, it’s a massive task. One that I can’t see happing for a long time I’m afraid.
Taking the problem of addiction and making it one of a medical nature, no matter the term, will bring help to those who need it now.
So if the term addict and addiction could and would be seen as medical, great!
Just try selling being an addict to your medical insurance company, or boss, when you try to get help. Of course this is if you haven’t already reached the point where you don’t exist as a person instead of a label as many addicts currently do.
To DA, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with calling it an addiction, for at the end of the day that is what it is, I feel that the problem rather lies in peoples understanding of the word and also the press in that they use it (wrongly)as a form of insult. People need to be educated to understand just what the word addict really means
I see your point, and for the most part agree with you. But I’ve had personal experience with addiction, both being one at one time, and dealing with other addicts, and would like to shed some light on the concept of “Addictions as Disease” if I may.
As far as I know it was first applied to alcoholics, and the aim was to both remove the stigma, social and legal, and open up avenues of treatment. The main concept was that a true alcoholic as apposed to a problem drinker, has absolutely no control over their drinking, and will drink themselves to death if given the chance (which is totally true). Labeling it as a “disease” meant that it was no longer considered a failing on alcoholic’s part, but more a uncontrollable impulse. Another aim was to make it so an employer could not simply fire an alcoholic, but had to allow an employee a chance for recovery first. As well treatment options could be covered by health insurance or provided by the government, making receiving treatment easier.
I guess it could be seen as a noble effort to protect people from themselves. The problem is, as is often the case, it doesn’t really protect them all that much. In fact it can draw the progression of the “disease” out over a much longer period with often the same end result either way.
I mean let’s face it, the human animal is addictive by nature. We like to repeat anything the gives us pleasure, and will quickly make a vice into a habit. This isn’t always a “bad” thing, the runners “high” is something quite addictive, but running on it’s own is a “healthy” addiction. Some addictions help, some hurt, and some can go from one state to the other. This is often the case with alcoholics, what starts as social drinking to relax, spirals into binge, and then constant drinking till death for some people.
So I think the aim of the changing it so all addictions are considered a disease is an attempt to change from punishing/judging addicts to helping/curing them. But as I mentioned earlier, it really hasn’t reduced any of the problems created by alcohol. In fact in some ways it’s made things worse, prolonging the period prior to hitting “rock bottom” where some finally do face and deal with the problem.
I prefer the medical term condition, over disease, for a couple of reasons. The term would no longer absolve the addict of any and all responsibility for current and past actions, but instead looks at the addiction from a “holistic” view point. How much is genetic, environmental, or personally choice, and what coarse of action is needed to make the addict healthy again. As well the term reflects the fact that there is or may be parts of the addiction that can’t be controlled, but does not absolve the person of any guilt for their actions or consequences that arise. In the same sense that a person with a heart condition, can be held libel if they take a job where the condition could put people at risk and they do not disclose the condition to the employer. But as well they can not be stigmatized or marginalized because they have a condition.
Yeah I know they’re just two different words, but how we label things, and people, will and do have far reaching affects, so they need to be chosen with care.
Thanks Reader much appreciated
Barry
I agree with what you are saying, I believe that the they that they will most likely try to get the drug, alcohol, tobacco addiction classified as a disease by using things such as rabies for example, where rabies causes you to have a phobic response re water, this then justifies the inclusion of D, A,& T, addictions under the same heading as in the fact that it causes chemical and neurological changes within the brain. I apologise if this is imprecise as I am not in a medical field, I am just going by my limited knowledge of those fields, anyway as I say I agree that these should not be reclassified as they need to be dealt with as a separate biological problem, to clump them in with diseases I believe would detract from the issue of them being what they are.
As regards things such as Rapists and Child Molesters pleading they have “Uncontrollable Urges and Addicted to Little Girls and Horny Disease”, then I would have to claim that I suffer from the “killing rapist, pedophile and drug dealers disease”!!!=)
I enjoy your writings, please keep it up,
yours,
The Reader