FROM:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44147493/ns/health-addictions/?ocid=ansmsnbc...
Addiction now defined as brain disorder, not behavior issue
Decades of research convinced American Society of Addiction Medicine to change definition
- Font:
Addiction is a chronic brain disorder and not simply a behavior problem involving alcohol, drugs, gambling or sex, experts contend in a new definition of addiction, one that is not solely related to problematic substance abuse.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) just released this new definition of addiction after a four-year process involving more than 80 experts.
"At its core, addiction isn't just a social problem or a moral problem or a criminal problem. It's a brain
problem whose behaviors manifest in all these other areas," said Dr. Michael Miller, past president of ASAM who oversaw the development of the new definition. "Many behaviors driven by addiction are real problems and sometimes criminal acts. But the disease is about brains, not drugs. It's about underlying neurology, not outward actions."
The new definition also describes addiction as a primary disease, meaning that it's not the result of other causes, such as emotional or psychiatric problems. And like cardiovascular disease and diabetes, addiction is recognized as a chronic disease; so it must be treated, managed and monitored over a person's lifetime, the researchers say.
Two decades of advancements in neuroscience convinced ASAM officials that addiction should be redefined by what's going on in the brain. For instance, research has shown that addiction affects the brain's reward circuitry, such that memories of previous experiences with food, sex, alcohol and other drugs trigger cravings and more addictive behaviors. Brain circuitry that governs impulse control and judgment is also altered in the brains of addicts, resulting in the nonsensical pursuit of "rewards," such as alcohol and other drugs.
A long-standing debate has roiled over whether addicts have a choice over their behaviors, said Dr. Raju Hajela, former president of the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine and chair of the ASAM committee on addiction's new definition.
"The disease creates distortions in thinking, feelings and perceptions, which drive people to behave in ways that are not understandable to others around them," Hajela said in a statement. "Simply put, addiction is not a choice. Addictive behaviors are a manifestation of the disease, not a cause."
Even so, Hajela pointed out, choice does play a role in getting help.
"Because there is no pill which alone can cure addiction, choosing recovery over unhealthy behaviors is necessary," Hajela said.
This "choosing recovery" is akin to people with heart disease who may not choose the underlying genetic causes of their heart problems but do need to choose to eat healthier or begin exercising, in addition to medical or surgical interventions, the researchers said.
"So, we have to stop moralizing, blaming, controlling or smirking at the person with the disease of addiction, and start creating opportunities for individuals and families to get help and providing assistance in choosing proper treatment," Miller said.
I do a kind of brain training known as Brain State Technology (http://www.BrainStateTech.com) In the last 8 years we've worked with over 35,000 people world-wide. When people have addictions, there are significant brain-wave imbalances and when their brains come into a more balanced state, (usually 3 or 4 days) craving disappears!
Someone should tell Dr. Drew about Brain Balancing! http://www.vh1.com/shows/celebrity_rehab_with_dr_drew/season_1/series.jhtml
I'm not sure I agree with Hajela. Hajela said in a statement. "Simply put, addiction is not a choice. Addictive behaviors are a manifestation of the disease, not a cause."
My father was a life-long alcoholic. My brother had a similar tendency. When I was 18 years old, I discovered that I did, too. At the time, I was frequenting a chic garden-style bar with my friends on a nightly basis. It occurred to me that I might be turning into an alcoholic, so I tried to lay off the tropical drinks for a week. The first time I tried, I failed. The second time, was the charm. I made the choice to use alcohol in moderation or not at all. I believe my choice was instrumental in preventing my potential alcoholism.
When I was in radio,i was subjected to a lot of alcohol at promotional events. I had never even liked drinking, but started to develop a taste for it, and after the first year around it, I looked forward to it. It took me a couple of tries too, once I acknowledged it, and I never looked back....
I also disagree with this article. Labeling something a disease, to me, is like the genetic excuse, it places blame somewhere else. They mention the "Neurological wiring" in this article, but don't address the more recent evidence that proves we can "rewire". It takes time to rewire a neuro network effectively. Starting something new is a good way to stimulate change. I believe it was DR. Candice Pert and her husband who proved all this . Her director's cut interview in "What the Bleep" was fascinating, but obviously has been disregarded by many. They showed that, as cells regenerate, the new cells have more "receptors" for the addiction, whether it is physical or emotional, and less receptors for nutrients and other things we need . This creates the neuro network that tells the brain we need more of whatever it is. Sooooo, to break any addiction,of any kind, takes at least as long as it would to regenerate all the cells involved, maybe several times, and of course, the brain cells don't regenerate nearly as quickly as other parts of the body. I believe it is more like 7 years for brain cells. I find that interesting in relation to the "7 year cycles" of life. And of course, the "replacement" for the addiction should be a healthy one, so the regeneration of the cells generates more "receptors" for a good habit. No wonder so many people give up when trying to change. Even if you quit something "cold turkey" , it is just the beginning of a long process......
I am interested in your link John, thanks, I am going to go check it out !
TScout & Noa, I believe things (including addictions) are a little more complex and multi-variant than any article such as this one reveals. (i.e. genetics, relational context, karmic propensities, cultural, financial, class & racial influences, etc.) Never the less, blaming someone, or ourselves, because they/we found a substance that temporarily compensates for an imbalance in the brain and, temporarily, alleviates the inherent discomfort of that imbalance probably won't help them move toward a place in them selves where they can make and stick with a choice. As far as I am concerned, we can just as easily say that when the internal and external conditions are right, good choices, such as your each mentioned, happen and when these factors are not so alligned, other choices happen.
In my opinion and my experience, when we can show someone the kinds of imbalances in their brain which correlate with the addictive pattern, the ADD, depression, anxiety, etc. that they have been told and telling themselves to just "straighten up", "focus," "use some will" or "let it go," they experience a change in perspective. When we understand that there is an imbalance and we have neuroplasticity and we can do dertain things and learn to focus in particular ways that will permanently shift that imbalance and allow us to optimize our lives, it is a moment of great relief, inspired with possiblity and infused with optimism.
I work with a few therapists who send me some of their most difficult, most stuck clients because we have discovered that once these clients' brains are balanced, they can finally, do the work and make progress in their therapy. Truly, it is a blessing that we are developing more skillful ways to help people move through formely rather intractable conditions, reclaim their lives, their talents and capacities and live in ways they could only dream about previously.
What I am suggesting is not a negation of personal responsibility. Rather it is a more nuanced understanding of causality and more skillful ways of helping one another become ever more personally responsible.
Does this make sense to you?
John
I just came to that realization by watching , and imagining the theory I mentioned before. I went and checked out the video John, it looks really interesting. Showing someone the imbalance brings their attention to it, and sets off the chain of events that can bring it back into balance. I had the same experience with healing injuries, physical injuries. In the right frame of mind, all I need is to touch the spot that is injured, and it brings my body's,,or mind's attention to the location, and the results are a quick, and efficient healing of it,in a couple of cases,within minutes....
What I meant by "blame" before of course refers to people who think they are doomed to a condition because of their genetic makeup, or having their condition be labeled as a disease. if they can't find the proper state of mind to put it into perspective, they give up. For me, what has helped most has been the realization that my body ,or mind, created the condition, and is likely the only one who can correct it. Then I have taken responsibility for my health, or lack there of, and can work towards a solution...
Acknowledging the scientific side of it, the cells and receptors, helps me to visualize the process, and helps keep me on the path I want to follow. so,whatever it takes,ha !