 |
|
Gull |
Posted on 07/29/2005 5:37:23 AM PDT by RobFromGa
|
During a sentencing Thursday in Allen Superior Court involving a drunken driving fatal crash, Judge Fran Gull said alcoholism is not a disease – a comment that contradicts the beliefs of much of the medical field.
Gull later defended her statement, saying she was referring specifically to the case at hand.
Gull, who is one of three criminal judges for the court, also oversees drug court – a program that began in 1997 aims to rehabilitate non-violent offenders with drug and alcohol addictions through 12 to 18 months of intensive supervision and treatment. Participants must take other steps to improve their lives, and if they remain substance free, their criminal charges are dismissed.
Before Gull sentenced Todd Anthony Bebout, defense attorney Mitch Hicks asked Gull to consider Bebout’s disease, referring to his addictions to alcohol and drugs.
“He had opportunities to rehabilitate himself, but it’s a disease. It’s not only a matter of wanting to quit,” Hicks argued. “Well, you are the drug court director, you know.”
Minutes later, while reviewing what she would consider in sentencing, Gull said Bebout didn’t have a disease.
“It’s not a disease,” she said. “People say that time and again, but it’s not.”
Gull continued by explaining that the man had a choice, and his choices led to the death of a woman. She also emphasized the man’s failed attempts at rehabilitation through the criminal justice system over the years, which included counseling, probation and intensive treatment.
Alcoholism is recognized as a disease by both the American Medical Association and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which is responsible for 90 percent of the nation’s research on alcohol addiction, spokeswoman Ann Bradley said.
It’s a disease that involves compulsive use that cannot be controlled until the alcohol or addictive substance is removed, Bradley said.
The symptoms of the disease, according to the institute’s Web site, include craving alcohol, loss of control, physical dependence and tolerance. Those afflicted by the chronic disease can experience withdrawal symptoms, such as anxiety, sweating, shaking or nausea.
Bradley said alcoholism is considered a brain disease and that there are medications available to help alcoholics. The difference between the addiction being a disease and a bad choice is the loss of control over how much one drinks.
When questioned about the comment later in the day, Gull defended her statements made in court. She said her comment was referring specifically to that case only. She said the attorney who brought up Bebout’s addictions invited her to comment about the situation.
“He invited me to consider it as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing,” Gull said. “But there was no evidence to show that it was a disease.”
Gull said she would have considered it had Hicks presented a medical diagnosis to establish his client’s disease. Although she did not ask for such evidence during the hearing or even mention that it was lacking, Gull later noted in a sentencing order that the argument was not supported.
Addiction doesn’t necessarily mean disease, she said, and part of the problem is the lack of consistent information, saying that the topic is still debated among various professional fields.
There are times when Gull has received medical information supporting that an offender has an addiction that has been diagnosed as a disease, she said. In those situations, which do arise in drug court, she orders the offender to follow doctor’s orders and makes that a requirement of participation in the program.
“I very specifically considered what I had in front of me,” she said. “There wasn’t anything that supported it.”
For anyone battling with alcohol or drugs, there is help available. When you are really ready to stop, it is possible.
The Judge is pointing out that the defendant is the one responsible for his actions.
That's because it's hereditary.
Yes, and I think the judge is right. Alcohol and drugs are not an excuse for criminal behavior under any circumstances in my opinion.
From my experience with alcoholism I would have to say that it isn't a disease, but that's just me. In my case I managed to quit without treatement and all at once.
On the other hand I know plenty of people who just don't seem able to quit even with treatment programs. It's just totally out of their control.
It's not a disease, it's a lifestyle choice and response to
other psychological problems. Most alchoholics really don't like themselves.
Gull continued by explaining that the man had a choice, and his choices led to the death of a woman. She also emphasized the man’s failed attempts at rehabilitation through the criminal justice system over the years, which included counseling, probation and intensive treatment.
She is still competent in her job, don't promote her.
Alcoholism is a disease.
Being drunk is not.
I actually don't believe this either .... in the usual sense. It is "hereditary" in that kids of alcoholics tend to be alcoholics ... but that is mostly through learned behavior - much in the same way that most child abusers were abuses as children. There is no "child abuser" gene that I know of.
We've heard much about the "alcoholism gene", but i've seen offsping of alcoholics have no problem, and the offspring of tee-totalers have polydrug addictions including alcohol.
There is another theory that says that if your kid likes to spin and get dizzy until they fall down, this indicates that they have the "alcohol gene", and should be watched carefully for addictive behavior later in life.
I think most of it is nonsense. Some people enjoy the effects of alcohol more than other. Depressed people enjoy it more than non-depressed people. Anxious people enjoy it more than non-anxious people.
The "alcoholism gene" is usually a different inherited underlying problem such as depression and anxiety (which pre-disposes one to alcohol abuse) ... and is not a seperate gene in and of itself. I don't believe that people are born to crave alcohol, but that alcohol may treat underlying disorders that people are born with.
Then again, some people may say there is no difference. Though technically, there is.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Indeed. Just a question, there is no right or wrong and I'm not arguing ... but of out of curiosity, do you believe there is a "gay gene"?
Whether alcoholism is a "disease" or not is irrelevant to the decision to drive a car while drunk.
Sober by the grace of God for 24 years, one day at a time.
And the Judge has what kind of medical degree?
Nor was I
... but of out of curiosity, do you believe there is a "gay gene"?
No, I do not. However, I also don't believe "gay" is a disease, either.
I don't think you can use one to prove/disprove the other, or to equate the two. That being alcoholism (a disease) & homosexuality (physiology). Mind you, this is just my opinion.
I understand. My point is just that we hear that there is a "gene" for just about everything and this and that is "hereditary".
It would be easy to pick and choose what "genes" we believe in, but in my opinion, people are able make their own decisions. Maybe there is a "crack gene" and a "methamphetamine gene" too. Who knows. But you can either use it or not. A disease implies the lack of a substance would kill or hurt you (like insulin to a diabetic, or thyroxin to a thyroid patient). Drug use just doesn't meet that definition, since not using the drug in and of itself will not hurt you.
People might be prone to alcoholism, but people are prone to other things to: lying, stealing, and cheating. IMHO, a "disease" is something you catch through no fault of your own. One becomes an alcoholic by drinking to much over a long period of time--initially, this is a conscious act rather than a compulsion. Alcoholism can be controlled & fought through the exercise of free will.
That's a valid point
A disease implies the lack of a substance would kill or hurt you
Yes, but there's also mental disease is there not?
Lack of a substance in that case would not kill one because the disease is not for lack of a drug, ie crack, alcohol, etc. However, one could argue that the mental disease is due to a chemical imbalance yet those chemicals are not street drugs or alcohol.
I don't claim to know all the details about this issue, but I do know that the term "disease" is applied to just about everything under the sun these days -- by people who stand to derive a huge financial benefit from it.
Like I told the man, "I can't be an alcoholic, I don't have time for all those d@mned meetings!"
I drank because I liked the care free feeling it gave me, the party atmosphere the most mundane event became and the soothing taste as I swallowed it.
I also thought it picked me up when I was feeling down or alone, when in fact it just magnified the situation by making me angry. Most times I didn't set out to become drunk, just to calm down and/or to have fun. It had the ability to creep up on me because I didn't monitor the quantity I was consuming.
I believe my over drinking was my fault, it was my choice and I now choose not to drink. I didn't like the person I was when I drank and it's like looking in a mirror when I see others who are drunk.
Good -- because you know precious little about it, it seems. Ever been in a detox ward? Ever been in a rehab facility? Most rehab facilities need volunteers. You might consider doing that so you know what you are talking about.
Congratulations. As the daughter of a woman who suffered from this disease, I salute you.
"When you are really ready to stop, it is possible."
Agreed. :)
huh. I made no money off my mom's alcoholism. BTW, my mother was a patriotic American...she entered nursing school in the 40s, and then joined the WAVES. I speak from first hand knowledge and experience that this IS a disease.
You seem to be confused about the basic premise of this judge's decision, and the discussion about the subject here on this thread. Alcohol-related toxification is not alcoholism, and I don't need a medical license to know that.
I'll ask the same question again: What medical pathology is involved in the "disease" of alcoholism?
What is the medical basis of that statement? If I have a twin brother who is an alcoholic and I am not, is there a tangible difference between our conditions (a virus, bacteria, genetic anomaly or other pathogen) that can be clearly identified and diagnosed by a medical doctor?
As others have noted on this thread, there is often a deliberate blurring of the line between "disease" and "behavioral disorders" on this issue.
Use google to look it up. It's been recognized as a disease since 1956. Now maybe you know something several generations of experts have missed. I'd be interested to read it.
So... as long as they keep using it, they'll keep using it.
Deep! So glad our national soul is in these people's hands, and we've deferred all judgment on everything to them!
< /ads >
The Judge is right.
Alcoholism is recognized as a disease by both the American Medical Association and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which is responsible for 90 percent of the nation’s research on alcohol addiction,
Yep....and with all the research comes all that lovely $ FUNDING $.
The medical and psychiatric professions have a vested interest in classifying certain 'behaviors' as *diseases*.
Medical basis? I lived with it for 18 years. Again, you said you dont' know much about it. Obviously you don't.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00340
I just love it when judgemental people come to FR and spout opinions of which they know nothing. And remember, there but for the grace of god goes I.
I believe alcoholism is a disease, and is passed along in the genes. Good news, it is treatable and can be put into remission, where it poses no problem whatsoever.
The responsibility to treat the illnes rests ENTIRELY with the afficted person.
In no way should the definition of the illness be used as an excuse for illegal behavior.
Yes, that is either cause by neurotransmitters (or the lack thereof) or congeneital brain defects.
Neither of which is a result of alcohol (unless the pregnant mother dranks).
Lack of a substance in that case would not kill one because the disease is not for lack of a drug, ie crack, alcohol, etc. However, one could argue that the mental disease is due to a chemical imbalance yet those chemicals are not street drugs or alcohol.
Okay, but to believe that, we have to believe that people are born with an "alcohol imbalance".
Alcoholism usually involves physical dependence on the drug alcohol, but genetic, psychological and social factors contribute to this addiction.
Alcoholism sounds more like an accute addiction in certain individuals and that they do not really know why it affects thiose particular people the way it does. It does not have the ear marks of most diseases the way that term is normally used and that the term is used for lack of a better.
One thing is clear...there is a condition in certain people (who knows why) that makes alcohol use an accute problem for them...and it doesn't take much use to trigger it. The results of abuse of alcohol, either by alcoholics or not, is a staggering butcher's bill each yoear in our nation.
Amen.
amazing, a judge that actually knows this and isn't letting the client blame his problems on someone else?
that's one of the things i love about AA, they hold that the problem is personal and don't try to blame it on anyone or anything else. if everyone did this, we wouldn't ever hear about things like the coffee and obiesity suits against mcdonalds, and this bill we're trying to pass to protect gun manufacturers would be unneeded.
A lot of folks here probably remember the infamous incident that occurred at a NY Jets football game back in January of 2004. A visibly-intoxicated Joe Namath made a public disgrace of himself during a televised interview on ESPN, answering several questions from reporter Suzy Kolber by saying: "I want to kiss you!"
What people may not have seen, though, is an interview Namath gave to Bryant Gumbel on HBO's Real Sports show late in 2004 after Namath had been through an alcohol rehabilitation program that he had checked into almost immediately after the on-air incident. That was one of the most frank, blunt interviews I've ever seen, and Namath was very clear about what his treatment involved.
"I learned that I didn't have a drinking problem," he said, "I learned that I have a Joe Namath problem, and that I would always be a drunk until I addressed that problem."
Alcoholism isn't a "disease" in the classic sense of the term at all -- it's a symptom of other disorders that could include depression or other psychological conditions.
This all boils down to how one defines "disease".
Sometimes I get in a bad mood. That could be a disease. Sometimes I am hungry. I have a "food imbalance". It was inherited. When my mothers stomach was empty, she had a food imbalance too. The same thing happens to me. Ergo, I inherited "the gene".
It's really just as simple as to what level you define somethign as a disease.
sh*t there goes my care plans using the ADA
Well said.
Alchoholism: Disease? Yes. Excuse? No.
You're right, though I think the primary motivation for making everything a disease is philosophical.
Dan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.