Here is a psychologist who is a proponent of the idea that alcoholism is not a disease.
http://www.peele.net/7tools/index.html
I can't tell what his exact argument is. This may be it:
Quote:
|
The dominant contemporary American view of alcoholism is that it is a disease. This position holds that alcoholism is innate and genetic, that its course is progressive and irreversible, that abstinence is the only solution to drinking problems and that Alcoholics Anonymous is the best — perhaps the only — means for an alcoholic to achieve sobriety.
|
http://www.peele.net/lib/vaillant.html
This is the sort of straw man that psychologists of this particular ilk like to throw out.
What I don't particularly care for is the notion that one can generalize from a patient that comes into therapy once a week, to an entire condition or population.
The guy who comes in once a week
1) probably has a car
2) can afford the therapy
3) can afford the car
4) is highly motivated to get better
5) highly amenable to therapists direction/redirection
And then suddenly it becomes "you don't need medication" "you don't need AA" "just follow my therapy program."
Whereas the psychiatrst deals with this person described above, as well as the guy who has been brought in my police, is mad drunk, is screaming and cursing you, and requires medication to not go into a seizure.
In other words, we see people that do not seek treatment, and do not want treatment. and have had a much more severe course.
Why is that psychiatrists will say that Peele's approach of using therapy isn't wrong and will probably work just fine with a subset of patients, but Peele would say that the medical model is completely wrong, and no one should be on medication?
Psychiatry accepts both medical and non-medical models. Whereas guys like Peele are zealots and only accept the non-medical.