I don't usually feel that it's necessary to call out someone who incorrectly or ignorantly throws around words like 'alcoholic' or 'drunks,' but since I live in Madison and am a regular reader of the Wisconsin State Journal I think I have a small right to respond to his latest piece titled, "Managing, not curing, disease of alcoholism may be best option." (WSJ, Feb. 18, 2012)
First of all, the view that alcoholism is a disease is a widespread, yet controversial theory. Although it is a very mainstream idea, accepted by the American Medical Association, and many other individuals and groups in the medical and counseling community, but not everyone believes that addiction fits the definition of disease. Addiction may be a problem, or a major difficulty, but it that doesn't mean it's a disease. In fact, there is a pretty big debate going on right now about it within those who provide behavioral health, the substance use community at large, as well as the editors of the DSM V.
Secondly, using labels like 'alcoholic' or 'drunks' is stigmatizing and reinforces the social acceptance of using these terms. One should instead use person-centered language placing the individual first (in fact, this should be something all journalists do with all their writing). Furthermore, just because someone is drinking a lot or has been in trouble with the law doesn't mean that they are an 'alcoholic' or 'habitual drunk' at all. Are all college students who binge drink 'alcoholics?' I don't think so. For some reason, it's seems like it's o.k. for Chris to talk about homeless people or people who are prone to being arrested (this could be due to other factors, incidentally, including race, class, or even the way the person dresses or talks), but not the many people who drink to excess but don't get in trouble for it. Labels like this may be of use in a diagnostic setting, or as a personal reflection, but they shouldn't be used to cover an entire 'class' of people. It's the same with how members of other communities refer to themselves - it is not necessarily appropriate for members outside that group to use the same terms.
I did not find Chris' column to be entirely objectionable. I will agree with him that people who drink should be allowed to drink. Banning people from buying liquor or preventing inebriated people from entering homeless shelters is akin to not letting someone with a gambling addiction have an internet connection or be able to drive (lest they find a place to gamble). We need more acceptance of peoples' choices in order to help them access services and resources which might actually help them get their lives back on track. What does that have to do with buying liquor? Imagine that someone has PTSD, and this is part of the reason why they drink - how would that person feel knowing that they are banned from entering stores that plenty of other people use (or misuse) all the time?
I don't mean to suggest that acceptance and increased access to shelters alone will solve the problem of substance misuse. Treatment and peer support are important parts of the equation. Health insurance coverage with mental health parity will help. Addressing social inequality would be good too. Meanwhile, journalists should try to cut down on adding to the stigmatization of people who drink or who have problems related to substance use.
No comments:
Post a Comment