Thread: Dr. Drew stfu about Whitney Houston's addictive "disease".

Originally Posted by Neomalthusian

Many people are attractive when they're young. Most people aren't after years of addiction.

And your point?

What a profoundly baseless and stupid comment. Does everything have to be about skin color to you?

Apparently it is to right-wing Republican/conservatives. If Whitney had been white (as other white celebrities that have died and have had flags flown at half mast without as much as one complaiant) there would not have been any whining and complaining from the right about it. But there is, so, I'll ask you the same thing, "Does everything have to be about skin color to you Republican/conservatives"?

Don't be vague. Call them out. WhoTF are you talking about? Quote the post.

I don't take orders from anyone, as you will find out if you stay here long enough, so go fly a kite. I wasn't posting to you, and I don't have to give you the post, if you are that damn interested go read the entire thread, otherwise STFU!

Originally Posted by the watchman

I've told you several times now. Dr. Drew himself admits that he gives diagnosis on tv. He's given interviews, that I've linked and referred you to several times, where it's clear that in his mind that's what he's doing. You can also look up the medical definition of the word diagnosis. Here, I'll make it easy for your.

Quizzes A-Z List on MedicineNet.com

And what you have ignored several times is the fact that saying "addiction" is not a diagnosis. That's like a physiologist saying "broken arm." In a clinical diagnosis, that doctor would have to specify what kind of fracture it is, and where it is. You have repeatedly ignored the reality that to diagnose someone, it has to be specific. "Addiction" encompasses a huge set of particular conditions that are outlined in a diagnostic manual, which doesn't even use the word, "addiction," because that word is only used in the context of a very general discussion. There are so many variables that need to be considered when diagnosing, it's mind boggling that you believe saying "addiction" is some sort of diagnosis. It doesn't take anything beyond very pedestrian understanding to understand this.

'She drank champagne': Dr. Drew outraged – Dr. Drew - CNN.com Blogs

How does he know what her goal is? There are substance abuse recovery options, which don't require
complete abstinence. It's called Harm Reduction. He doesn't know what her doctor told her, or advised her to do.

Because he knows that the vast majority of outpatient programs use abstinence, and very few use harm reduction outside of heroin or other opioids. Harm reduction programs concentrate on injection-risk behavior. Drug addicts, however, routinely argue for harm-reduction approaches to all drugs, to continue their use.

I don't watch those shows. I'm not going to watch those shows. And I'm not required to include every other "similar" show in the OP. That's ridiculous.

You don't have to watch those programs to understand how they work and to use the overall market for them to put your example in context. Of course, you aren't "required" to, but exclusion of other examples makes a pretty flaccid argument.

LOL. Oh, so you get to decide what the focus of the thread should be? That's rich. It's not about Whitney Houston. It's about Dr. Drew statement about Whitney Houston? Says who? It's about both I wrote it, I should know. How about that? How about you have your focus. And let the rest of us have ours?

Your OP was clearly about the incident of Dr Drew speaking about Whitney Houston in the media.

Other than a media-driven enrollment in a rehab program, there's no evidence Houston was ever "addicted" to anything.
Did she use drugs recreationally? Probably, around 90% of all people have.

Originally Posted by the watchman

Again, if you take issue with the word diagnosis, you need to take it up with Dr. Drew. He's the one claiming he's diagnosing people on tv. As far as your claiming that my position is that all a doctor needs to do is say the word "addiction", that's a misrepresentation of what I said. Never said that. If that's your impression, it's wrong.

If my impression is wrong, then please expand on what you do mean, because it becomes foggier and foggier with each passing outburst about Dr. Drew.

I don't know where you getting your information. But, there is no HUGE set of particular conditions outlined in "a diagnostic manual".

Again, you seem to be unaware of very standard practice. There are literally hundreds of specific conditions under addictive and compulsive behavior.

The fact that you don't even seem to know that name of this manual says it all.

It's the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders. Just about everyone who understands the most remedial about psychology and psychiatry knows that.

Most diagnosis of addiction are very simple and easy to understand.

Absolutely not. There are many, many variables to weigh into consideration of a diagnosis. You don't get an MD in psychiatry or a PhD in psychology to do something that is "very simple and easy to understand." Most addicts have other underlying disorders that are either peripheral to the addiction, and/or other disorders that are the main underlying issue. It can take months, if not years of therapy at times, to get a well-rounded picture of what's working against the patient's interest.

Typically, it merely consist of filling out a questionnaire and being interviewed.

That's false.

You're wrong about when and how harm reduction is used. Where are you getting this information?

Other than through experience, it's in many journals and websites.

This is from a paper abstract on the NIH site:

The paper concludes with a discussion of four basic assumptions central to harm reduction: (a) harm reduction is a public health alternative to the moral/criminal and disease models of drug use and addiction; (b) it recognizes abstinence as an ideal outcome but accepts alternatives that reduce harm; (c) it has emerged primarily as a "bottom-up" approach based on addict advocacy, rather than a "top-down" policy established by addiction professionals; and (d) it promotes low threshold access to services as an alternative to traditional high threshold approaches.

Harm reduction: come as you are. [Addict Behav. 1996 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI

In short, harm reduction isn't very good. It's typically used with injection users who want to keep using. As I stated before, generally, addicts advocate for it. It's a last line of treatment for addicts.

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

If my impression is wrong, then please expand on what you do mean, because it becomes foggier and foggier with each passing outburst about Dr. Drew.

Outburst? What are you talking about? What is it specifically that you're confused about?

Again, you seem to be unaware of very standard practice. There are literally hundreds of specific conditions under addictive and compulsive behavior.

Never said there wasn't.

It's the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders. Just about everyone who understands the most remedial about psychology and psychiatry knows that.

Then why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Absolutely not. There are many, many variables to weigh into consideration of a diagnosis. You don't get an MD in psychiatry or a PhD in psychology to do something that is "very simple and easy to understand." Most addicts have other underlying disorders that are either peripheral to the addiction, and/or other disorders that are the main underlying issue. It can take months, if not years of therapy at times, to get a well-rounded picture of what's working against the patient's interest.

Then what makes Dr. Drew think he's qualified to second guess Whitney Houston's doctors with regards to what medications she's on? What makes him qualified to provide his expert opinion, when he can't possibly be aware of all these variables?

As far as the diagnosis. I meant that the questions during the assessment process are presented in a manner that's very easy to understand. It's not as complicated as you're indicating it is. At least not for the patient. It certainly doesn't take years to be diagnosed. It takes maybe an hour or so, at the most.

But, you're arguing with the wrong person. It's Dr. Drew that's saying he doesn't need to engage in the traditional diagnostic criteria to diagnose people on tv. He's saying he can look at a person, or make a determination by what he's heard about them, through the coroner's office, people he hasn't talked to giving interviews, etc. And regardless of whether you call it a diagnosis, or an simply an expert opinion, he's been criticized for providing it on television, for both. The only way you can argue that he hasn't, is if you claim that he's not giving the opinion in his capacity of an expert. Which, again, is just ridiculous.

That's false.



Other than through experience, it's in many journals and websites.

This is from a paper abstract on the NIH site:

Harm reduction: come as you are. [Addict Behav. 1996 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI

In short, harm reduction isn't very good. It's typically used with injection users who want to keep using. As I stated before, generally, addicts advocate for it. It's a last line of treatment for addicts.

I happen to know for a fact that there are Harm Reduction groups, being offered by the Veteran's Administration, for anyone that wants to attend. I speak regularly with the individual that runs the group. And I know that the sciences is changing, where addictive treatment is concerned. Harm Reduction is being offered as an alternative the the 12-Step approach. As it has been for some time now.

And come on.

1996?

You've got to be kidding me.

You might want to check this out.

HAMS is a peer-led and free-of-charge support and informational group for anyone who wants to change their drinking habits for the better. The acronym HAMS stands for Harm reduction, Abstinence, and Moderation Support. HAMS Harm Reduction strategies are defined in the 17 elements of HAMS. HAMS offers information and support via a chat room, an email group, and live meetings--as well is the articles on this web site. All information on this site may be reproduced free of charge as long as the HAMS copyright is included.

HAMS--Alcohol Harm Reduction Support

*edit*

Here's proof that it works.

http://hamsnetwork.org/evidence/

Originally Posted by Mertex

And your point?

My point is addiction tends to make people ugly a lot of the time. Inside and out. So your comment that she was a beautiful person is curious.

Apparently it is to right-wing Republican/conservatives.

Apparently nothing. You're making shit up.

If Whitney had been white (as other white celebrities that have died and have had flags flown at half mast without as much as one complaiant) there would not have been any whining and complaining from the right about it.

Who is whining or complaining? I don't tend to notice when flags are flying at half mast. Who was the last white drug-addicted celebrity to die and then have flags lowered? Michael Jackson?

I wasn't posting to you,

Then who? Your own straw man?

The onus is not on me to go searching for support of your random, baseless comments.

Originally Posted by Neomalthusian

My point is addiction tends to make people ugly a lot of the time. Inside and out. So your comment that she was a beautiful person is curious.

Why should it be curious. She was physically beautiful, and the many charitable things she did makes her beautiful on the inside too. What is curious is that you even question it.

Apparently nothing. You're making shit up.

You're the one that brought up skin color, so apparently it is to you.
And all the posters that are on this forum complaining about why the flag is being flown half-mast just happen to be righties, is that a coincidence? I don't think so.

Who is whining or complaining? I don't tend to notice when flags are flying at half mast. Who was the last white drug-addicted celebrity to die and then have flags lowered? Michael Jackson?

Like I said, all the posters that are whining about why the flag has to be flown half mast for Whitney just happen to be rightries. And FYI, your comment regarding Michael Jackson sounds rather racist. I know you are going to deny it, that seems to be the drill for righties.

Then who? Your own straw man?

The onus is not on me to go searching for support of your random, baseless comments.

I don't really give a shit if you believe it or not, your opinion is of no consequence to me, and like I said, I wasn't responding to you in the first place.