ShareThis Page
Vince Mercuri: Understanding is needed to free nation from addiction |
Featured Commentary

Vince Mercuri: Understanding is needed to free nation from addiction

| Tuesday, December 11, 2018 7:03 p.m

In 1784, Dr. Benjamin Rush published a pamphlet titled “An Enquiry into the Effects of Spirituous Liquors Upon the Human Body and Their Influence Upon Happiness of Society.”

Rush, who was a member of the Continental Congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a physician of the Continental Army, has often been called the father of American psychiatry and is the first American authority on alcohol and alcoholism. His writings proclaimed that “spirituous liquors,” meaning hard liquor, hurt people, especially their health and work productivity. His claim was that a nation corrupted by alcohol can never be free.

His writings stand as the first proclaiming the disease concept of addiction by an American. However, his claims were met with resistance and ridicule, being described as ludicrous and impractical.

Throughout history there have been many diverse concepts, opinions, movements, theories and reasons given for addiction. Many are steeped in misconceptions, stigma, stereotypes and the belief that individuals who are addicted are weak-willed or morally adrift.

The denial, resistance and lack of acceptance of the disease model of addiction is prevalent throughout our culture. Intolerance and misunderstanding have their roots in lack of information and awareness.

Since 1956, the American Medical Association has established and accepted the disease concept, recognizing that addicted, as an illness, means several things:

• The illness can be described. The condition is defined by specific, unique symptoms that can be diagnosed by medical professionals.

• The course of the illness is predictable and progressive. It will get worse, resulting in deterioration physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

• The disease is primary. It is not just a symptom of some other underlying disorder.

• The disease is permanent — you have it even if you are in recovery or abstinent.

• The disease is terminal. If left untreated, its progressive nature will result in premature death.

The most common rebuttal and response to the disease concept is that an individual chooses to use chemicals, and therefore it was his or her choice to become a person with a substance use disorder.

This stigma is not informed on the progressive nature of the illness. No one sets out to be addicted. There is a predictable pattern with chemical dependency that begins with the experimental stage, where an individual learns about the mood swings resulting from use, and progresses over time to the addictive stage, when the drug becomes the most important thing in the user’s life and disrupts family, work, school and health, even leading to illegal activities.

Having this disease does not mean people are not accountable and/or responsible for their actions. It does mean they have the knowledge of their past behaviors and choices that can be a springboard to change. The cornerstone of recovery/wellness is acceptance, surrender, commitment and a hope that a new sober lifestyle is possible.

It has been 234 years since Rush published his works on the disease of addiction. Much has been gained to confront the stigma associated with this illness, but more understanding and acceptance is needed for our nation to be truly freed from its grip.

Vince Mercuri, executive director of the Open Door Alcohol/Drug Treatment Center and Crisis Intervention Program in Indiana, Pa., is a member of the Valley News Dispatch Editorial Board.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.