Hi, Ed-- I'm aware of this. But while the medical profession talks professionally about cancers (knowing that it refers to a broad category of diseases with many varied causes), when they're trying to raise money they simplify it and talk about a 'war against cancer'. Talking about it as A disease makes it easier to sell. There's a difference between the medical literature and 'medicalization'. which is a PR/guild battle. Same thing with addiction.
On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Pollak, Edward (Retired) wrote: Brandon, Paul K wrote, How could one say that the differences DON'T matter? Personally, I have always thought that the concept of 'addiction' as a monolithic entity was a consequence of its medicalization; that there is such a thing as a 'disease' called 'addiction'. If instead we look at addiction as a behavior pattern, we should apply the basic principle that the same effect can have different causes." There's nothing in "medicalization" that would make one see a disease (or problematic behavior) as a "monolithic entity." Many (most?) medical diseases have multiple causes..... genetic, environmental, developmental, traumatic, etc, And there could easily be a common link among all addictions (e.g., DA transport molecules) and still have dramatically different characteristics of other facets of the disease(s). e.g., Diabetes mellitus has a common feature of high blood glucose & (real or functional) lack of adequate insulin but the causes & clinical pictures of type I & type II diabetes are quite different. And have we, for many years, recognized that depression may be viewed as a "final common path" resulting from any number of factors or combinations of factors. Ed --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=13566 or send a blank email to leave-13566-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
