Comments on: Addiction Advances Haven’t Made AA Obsolete — Yet

By: Lenny Robinson

Lenny Robinson — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:55:59 +0000

The discussion of the cause of addiction has indeed become rather carnavalesque; you can buy into or advocate almost whatever you will. This article reminded me of one of the masterful works of the sci-fi writer and story-telling genius Phillip K. Dick. Some would remember his, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.” In this story, made into the film Bladerunner, the use of a “mood organ” (not in the film version) was the way one would alter brain chemistry to alter or regulate moods. You just dial to the desired feeling and presto!–you’re comfortably numb or whatever you like again. I thought Ms. Porter’s article to be interesting though perhaps symptomatic of the limitations of neuroscience. Since no science is by itself culpable, perhaps there is something to be said about the difference between the culture that produced AA and its 12-step cousins (I suppose that would include GA=Gamblers Anonymous)and the postmodern culture that drives us to seek the quick fixes to whatever might be deemed problematic. To be sure, the truth is stranger than it used to be; as monolithic as the AA approach to addiction might have been, the truth about what kept people in denial about their primary source of self-demise was something it it always helped people to acknowledge. Of course, these are aspects of human nature that pharmaceuticals cannot really address. As a mental health professional, I tell clients that psychotropic medications are never to be viewed as the “cure.” They are at best a means (often an excellent means) to reduce symptoms such as to enable the real cure that comes from the psychic aka the soul or mind. Perhaps the primary limitation of brain science is its persistence to confuse the human brain with a person’s mind. AA inspired 12-step programs have tried and do endeavor to strengthen the hearts, minds and souls of individuals who have faced the ravages of and are struggling with addiction. Each person’s addiction has its own phenomenology–its cure is subjective and unique to that person. No manner of treatment can top that.

By: Edward Peter

Edward Peter — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:03:01 +0000

That last sentence should read:”Interested readers CAN research these matters on their own.”

By: Edward Peter

Edward Peter — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:01:43 +0000

I don’t want to accuse Ms. Porter of journalistic dishonesty, but I think it’s more than a little suspect how she manages to jam what is clearly authorial commentary (or personal opinion) in between quotes from sources. Two examples:1) In paragraph 7 she states: “While current and future medications may improve treatment of addiction by blocking intoxication, easing withdrawal symptoms and inhibiting cravings, they’ll supplement 12-step programs rather than replace them.”This comes in between 2 direct comments from Wilson Compton in paragraphs 6 & 8. If the words in paragraph 7 are what Compton means to convey, why not quote him outright? I suspect, that it’s NOT what Compton means to convey but rather what Ms. Porter would have the lay reader infer as Compton’s opinion.2) In the 3rd to last paragraph Ms. Porter states:”AA need not defend its role in recovery anyway. Clearly, there’s no belief that such 12-step fellowship programs will ever become obsolete.”Again, this is commentary rather than quote. The quotes come before & after this little bit of commentary — in a tortured chain running from Mark Willenbring to a ’staff spokesperson’ (is ‘deep background’ really necessary for a puff piece on AA?) back to Willenbring again. Whether or not Willenbring has any opinion about the obsolescence of AA or 12-Step is something for Willenbring express — not for the author to imply.Ms. Porter’s glib, “So, what’s the implication of this research on these vast networks of fellowship recovery programs?Not as much as you’d think.” holds about as much water as her initial assertion that AA ‘pioneered’ the idea of alcoholism as a disease. (She acknowledges as much later in the later article when she writes that Benjamin Rush had proposed that it was a ‘biological malady’ some 200 years prior; I’m no doctor, but isn’t the qualitative difference between a “biological malady” & a “disease” a matter of semantics rather than science?)AA is steadfast in its opposition to research, intellectual inquiry, & medical approaches to alcoholism. For all the Big Book’s palaver about ‘not being doctors’ there’s more than enough material in the book itself, the followup “12 Steps & 12 Traditions’, & general discourse in meetings that slams medicine, psychiatry, & just about any intellectual exercise that doesn’t unequivocally endorse AA’s free-form theological ’solution’.Whether or not neurological research sounds the death knell for AA/12X12 is something both Ms. Porter & I can have an opinion on. The difference is that I don’t try jamming my opinion into someone else’s mouth.By the way, only one medical body (the AMA) officially recognizes ‘alcoholism’ as a “disease”. And E.M. Jellinek’s work when examined closely (just like his academic credentials) is hardly ground-breaking. Interested readers can’t research these matters on their own.