Christopher Hitchens diagnosed with cancer

[Meekychuppet]

Drug Use may not be an illness, but addiction can be a mental illness.

I heard you the first time, and I didn't buy it then either. As far as I can see addiction is a dependency in to which the addict has conditioned themselves. Calling it an illness is just giving addicts excuses rather than assistance. It's the same nonsense as calling being fat an illness. It's not, and neither is addiction.

[Tigger]

Drug Use may not be an illness, but addiction can be a mental illness.

I heard you the first time, and I didn't buy it then either. As far as I can see addiction is a dependency in to which the addict has conditioned themselves. Calling it an illness is just giving addicts excuses rather than assistance. It's the same nonsense as calling being fat an illness. It's not, and neither is addiction.

Meeky, I agree with you. I have, I think, what is termed as an addictive personality. I don't actually believe all that crap: what happens is that I decide I like the effect of a drug, drink, whatever, and I then can't/won't stop. I think it's entirely possible to take an addictive drug maybe a few times and still stop; it's when you decide to continue to the point where the addiction kicks in, despite knowledge, that the trouble starts. Until then there is a choice. It could be a physical addiction (like cigarettes) or a psychological one like maybe cannabis or what have you. Having said that, I started smoking tobacco when I was too young to appreciate the nature of the genuine physical addiction, but I have been hooked on things since then that I knew all about before partaking, and the concomitant risks associated with them. The only reason I have never tried a class A drug is that I absolutely know I would get hooked. I am frightened of my "addictive personality", which is a healthy way to go for me, because I can control it.

[Meekychuppet]

Drug Use may not be an illness, but addiction can be a mental illness.

I heard you the first time, and I didn't buy it then either. As far as I can see addiction is a dependency in to which the addict has conditioned themselves. Calling it an illness is just giving addicts excuses rather than assistance. It's the same nonsense as calling being fat an illness. It's not, and neither is addiction.

Meeky, I agree with you. I have, I think, what is termed as an addictive personality. I don't actually believe all that crap: what happens is that I decide I like the effect of a drug, drink, whatever, and I then can't/won't stop. I think it's entirely possible to take an addictive drug maybe a few times and still stop; it's when you decide to continue to the point where the addiction kicks in, despite knowledge, that the trouble starts. Until then there is a choice. It could be a physical addiction (like cigarettes) or a psychological one like maybe cannabis or what have you. Having said that, I started smoking tobacco when I was too young to appreciate the nature of the genuine physical addiction, but I have been hooked on things since then that I knew all about before partaking, and the concomitant risks associated with them. The only reason I have never tried a class A drug is that I absolutely know I would get hooked. I am frightened of my "addictive personality", which is a healthy way to go for me, because I can control it.

I also think there's a bit of home sapiens arrogance involved too, because addiction is largely chemical, and humanity is defined largely by sentience, consciousness and self-determination. The idea that we might be subject to the whims of chemical processes similar to lower orders of life is hard to admit, so we call it a disease instead.

[Coito ergo sum]

Addiction can classify as a mental illness.

I think you are correct, at least according to psychiatrists. Addiction may be the result of a mental illness, and it may be part of a mental illness. It's not an either/or all or nothing, addiction is or is not a mental illness. A mental illness is psychiatric conditions, usually characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by physiological or psychosocial factors.

Many sufferers of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which is a mental illness, become addicted to drugs and alcohol as part of their mental illness. So, one can say the addiction is a symptom of the PTSD, or is a result of the PTSD.

In addition, the DSM-IV lists substance related disorders, substance abuse and substance dependence, as "disorders."

Substance Dependence

Category
Substance Related Disorders

Etiology
There is evidence that genetic factors play a role in both dependence and abuse. Other theories involve the use of substances as a means to cover up or get relief from other problems (e.g., psychosis, relationship issues, stress), which makes the dependence or abuse more of a symptom than a disorder in itself.

Symptoms
Substance use history which includes the following: (1) substance abuse (see below); (2) continuation of use despite related problems; (3) increase in tolerance (more of the drug is needed to achieve the same effect); and (4) withdrawal symptoms.

Treatment
Detoxification treatment may need to be administered due to the dangerousness of some withdrawal symptoms. Research suggests that no treatment method is superior, but that social support is very important. Organizations such as AA and NA have had better than average success in reducing relapse.

Prognosis
Variable. Both substance abuse and dependence is difficult to treat and often involves a cycle of abstinence from the substance and substance use.

So, it is a mental disorder with symptoms, treatments and prognoses. http://allpsych.com/disorders/substance ... dence.html

[Robert_S]

Drug Use may not be an illness, but addiction can be a mental illness.

I heard you the first time, and I didn't buy it then either. As far as I can see addiction is a dependency in to which the addict has conditioned themselves. Calling it an illness is just giving addicts excuses rather than assistance. It's the same nonsense as calling being fat an illness. It's not, and neither is addiction.

Meeky, I agree with you. I have, I think, what is termed as an addictive personality. I don't actually believe all that crap: what happens is that I decide I like the effect of a drug, drink, whatever, and I then can't/won't stop. I think it's entirely possible to take an addictive drug maybe a few times and still stop; it's when you decide to continue to the point where the addiction kicks in, despite knowledge, that the trouble starts. Until then there is a choice. It could be a physical addiction (like cigarettes) or a psychological one like maybe cannabis or what have you. Having said that, I started smoking tobacco when I was too young to appreciate the nature of the genuine physical addiction, but I have been hooked on things since then that I knew all about before partaking, and the concomitant risks associated with them. The only reason I have never tried a class A drug is that I absolutely know I would get hooked. I am frightened of my "addictive personality", which is a healthy way to go for me, because I can control it.

I also think there's a bit of home sapiens arrogance involved too, because addiction is largely chemical, and humanity is defined largely by sentience, consciousness and self-determination. The idea that we might be subject to the whims of chemical processes similar to lower orders of life is hard to admit, so we call it a disease instead.

What would you call it that both accurately describes what is happening and would possibly lead a person to do whatever it takes to deal with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Addiction can classify as a mental illness.

A person may become an addict as a result of self-medicating, but addiction? Illness it ain't.

Well it sure ain't "wellness", so what is it then?

Semantics?

Whether it's illness, disease or unwellness, we were discussing whether or not drug addiction deserved the same sympathy as other illnesses or diseases.

Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances?

If woman becomes drug addicted because she went through a series of violent rapes, was beaten and abused, then was involved in a car accident, lost a leg, and had someone steel her dog and pee in her cheerios, suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and taking solace in marijuana and booze, I would sympathize quite a lot. If a frat boy had led a charmed life, but started recreational drug use for no reason and let it get out of control, causing himself to spiral into a vicious circle of drug use and gambling, wasting away his fortunes for cheap thrills, then I wouldn't be quite as sympathetic.

[Robert_S]

If woman becomes drug addicted because she went through a series of violent rapes, was beaten and abused, then was involved in a car accident, lost a leg, and had someone steel her dog and pee in her cheerios, suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and taking solace in marijuana and booze, I would sympathize quite a lot. If a frat boy had led a charmed life, but started recreational drug use for no reason and let it get out of control, causing himself to spiral into a vicious circle of drug use and gambling, wasting away his fortunes for cheap thrills, then I wouldn't be quite as sympathetic.

I'd still be sympathetic to the extent that the frat boy accepted the propositions that he made some highly regrettable and dumb decisions and that being drunk is not a licence to be an asshole.

[Coito ergo sum]

I blame Darwin.

I blame God

No I blame cigarettes

Esophogeal cancer is sexist, by nature, discriminating against men in that 3 times as many men develop it as women. It's a very misandric disease.

30% of this kind of cancer is linked to acid reflux, and if Hitch had "Barrett's Esophagus" then he was 50 times more likely to get it.

He tended to be overweight, and that was a risk factor. Obese men are 50 times more likely to die from it.

Smoking doubles the risk.

[Coito ergo sum]

If woman becomes drug addicted because she went through a series of violent rapes, was beaten and abused, then was involved in a car accident, lost a leg, and had someone steel her dog and pee in her cheerios, suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and taking solace in marijuana and booze, I would sympathize quite a lot. If a frat boy had led a charmed life, but started recreational drug use for no reason and let it get out of control, causing himself to spiral into a vicious circle of drug use and gambling, wasting away his fortunes for cheap thrills, then I wouldn't be quite as sympathetic.

I'd still be sympathetic to the extent that the frat boy accepted the propositions that he made some highly regrettable and dumb decisions and that being drunk is not a licence to be an asshole.

Well, the difference I was trying to illustrate was that someone who gets a raw deal thrust upon him or her is more deserving of sympathy than one who brings it on himself or herself.

[Trolldor]

On topic again.

Hitchens at his clearest, most persuasive, most emotive.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5cxwq6Q ... re=related[/youtube]

[Coito ergo sum]

...It's an interesting feeling to think in the moment that each day might be your last.

By "interesting" you surely mean "shit"?

That would seem to be the easy answer, but I don't think it is, based on what I have talked about with people who are dying and now dead. Once you have really accepted you will die, it's actually kind of a relief for many people as well as a new journey of self-discovery.

Seems like that would be the kind of journey Hitch would want to take as well.

I know this will sound very weird but of all the things I could die of, I hope it's not dementia or Alzheimers. I want to be aware of the process of my dying. After all, I only get to do it once.

Whether we want to or not, we're going. We've gotten on the roller coaster, and we will be riding it to the end. No matter what.

It is the uncertainty of what it will be like that gets us nervous about dying. And, it's the process that scares us too, seeing as it can be unpleasant and painful.

One of the things that eased my anxiety about inevitable demise is to imagine times past. Say, an old movie. Picture the people in an old black and white movie as being alive, and try to juxtapose that with the fact that you were not alive when the movie was being made. You weren't around. You were completely oblivious to the goings on. And, did it bother you? The answer, of course, is no. Not being alive is what? Being dead, right? All of know exactly what it's like to be dead. It's like it was for us when Bogie and Bergman were filming Casablanca. We were dead then. And, it was fine.

We're dead to most of the stuff that goes on in the universe. Not just most of it, almost all of it. In fact, the number of places we have absolutely no perception of (and hence are the equivalent of dead). The percentage of the universe that we are oblivious to is 99.999999999999999999...........9999999999999%, almost infinity.

Death is not being there.

Think about that

[maiforpeace]

Most recent interview with the Atlantic.

[Coito ergo sum]

August 14, 2010
The author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything says it is "touching" that many Christians are praying for his healing, both body and soul.

Iconoclastic atheist Christopher Hitchens, whose columns appear in the Chicago Sun-Times, has been stricken with esophageal cancer, a disease that leaves few survivors.

Conservative Catholic writer Thomas Peters has challenged readers of the American Papist website to join him in praying one Hail Mary a day on behalf of Hitchens for salvation and that "God will be with him at the hour of his death."

Hitchens told evangelical broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that he remains convinced these prayers "don't do any good, but they don't necessarily do any harm. It's touching to be thought of in that way."

Hitchens has warned his admirers that if he should cry out to the Almighty, they should ignore it.

"If that comes it will be when I'm very ill, when I am half demented, either by drugs or by pain and I won't have control over what I say," he told CNN.

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/reli ... 15.article

This makes me sad.

[Coito ergo sum]

Writer Christopher Hitchens — and his family, friends and fans — is grappling with his recent bad news: A cancer diagnosis and the additional bad news that it had spread from his esophagus to his lymph nodes.

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1 ... ears_.html

Ugh...I had not heard the cancer had spread to his lymph. That really sucks.

[Coito ergo sum]

Next month, leading atheist Christopher Hitchens is scheduled to debate leading agnostic David Berlinski on the topic, “How Atheism Poisons Everything” in Birmingham, AL.

http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php ... onth-13359