[ QUOTE ]
I find it foolish to say 'mental illness' or 'addictions' are diseases. What constitutes a mental illness or an addiction? Is it a lesion, an abnormal x-ray finding, elevated enzymes, tissue damage, insufficient insulin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes, any of these things other than "an abnormal x-ray finding" can cause mental illness.

[ QUOTE ]
No, mental illneses and addictions are repetitive behaviors that are socially undesireable. The labels are a very convenient mechanism for both the 'sufferer' and the labeler. The person labeled wins because they are exonerated from personal responsibility. Instead of actively chosing to engage in undesired behaviors, the addict/neurotic is the victim of 'bad brain chemistry.' The labeler (such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, chemical dependency evaluator, social worker, medical doctor, drug company representative, parole officer) benefits because they have created a whole new class of clients needing assessment, treatment and diagnosis for these 'diseases.'

It's almost comical how many new 'diseases' are being evented each year. Look at the explosive growth of the DSM (Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) if you need proof. We are now being told that using too much caffeine, smoking, being shy, easily distracted, staying online for long hours, shoplifting, drinking, etc. are diseases. They are said to be the function of 'bad brain chemistry.' Every year we're told they're on the breakthrough of finding the cause of these pernicious disorders and disease. Of course, one is never found. It's called being HUMAN!

Why do think the advocacy groups were so hellbent on getting the AMA to call alcoholism a 'disease.' Because the label of disease conveys a lot of weight and exonerates the afflicted of responsibility. They no longer freely choose their behavior but are compelled to act in a certain way by virtue of 'brain chemistry disequilibrium.' There are financial incentives as well; think of the windfall created by labeling drug and alcohol abuse a disease. Insurance companies now are doling out billions to medically treat what was once thought of as merely immoral, sinful, neurotic, foolish behavior. And then there are billions spent on researching possible treatments.

My personal bias is seeking explanations that maximize free will. Rather than viewing chronic alcohol abusers as 'diseased alcohlics' I see them as individuals who make the foolish and self-defeating choice to persist in drinking large quantities. I believe that labels of 'mental illness' and 'addictive disease' do represent true diseases in the traditional sense. Rather, they describe problems in living.

I am not trying to say that chronic drinkers or chronic drug abusers do not suffer as a result of their behavior. Obviously, an addict can create real disease states by persisting in chronic use of intoxicating agents. I believe that we largely choose our behaviors and destinies. I believe that 'addictive disease' and 'mental illness' are metaphors for problems in living; not legitimate or verifiable diseases. Unfortunately, many people tend to underestimate their ability to actively choose their thoughts and behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, crazy people are just stubborn.

Do you really believe this crap? Here's a question for you - why do you think people make those bad decisions?

And another question - have you ever known a person with a serious mental illness? I mean severe psychotic/anxiety/dissociative disorders, OCD and schizophrenia and the like. And have you ever been close to someone with a relatively "minor" mental illness?

I'll be the first to admit the line can be hard to draw, and the DSM is a rather poor piece of work. I also think treatment recommendations have a tendency to be drug-heavy and questionable. But no such thing as mental illness? That's absurd.