Unconstitutional A.A.

[PSPookie]

This is true, but you can claim a disability for it and a few years ago, doctors stated that being homosexual was a disease.

Are you getting your info from King of the Hill?

The Americans With Disabilities Act does list addiction and alcoholism as disabilities but you are afforded no special treatment. That is: you cannot collect disability insurance for being alcoholic. Similarly, employers are free to terminate any addict/alcoholic if their disability interferes with their job performance in any way.

From ADA.gov: "However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. "

 

[Quickie]

"Many physicians reject the disease theory of alcoholism. One study found that only 20 percent of physicians believe that substance addiction is a disease. In addition, 55 percent believe that there is "no effective treatment" for it.(T. McLellan. R-Considering Addiction Treatment: How Can Treatment Be More Accountable And Effective? A Continuing Medical Education (CME)Course. Cranston, Rhode Island, Association for Medical Education and Research on Substance Abuse, 2006.)

Another study found that only 25 percent of physicians believed that alcoholism is a disease. The majority believed alcoholism to be a social or psychological problem instead of a disease. (S.I. Mignon. Physicians' Perceptions of Alcoholics: The Disease Concept Reconsidered. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 1996, v. 14, no. 4, pp. 33-45)"

Disease theory of alcoholism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AA agrees with you, but not everyone

Definition of Alcoholism -- published by the Journal of the American Medical Association

" Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial ."

What part of this don't you understand?

The "American Medical Association", or the chronic disease definition given by them?

Let's move on.

 

[PSPookie]

Definition of Alcoholism -- published by the Journal of the American Medical Association

" Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial ."

What part of this don't you understand?

The "American Medical Association", or the chronic disease definition given by them?

Let's move on.

I believe the point he was trying to make is that the medical community is divided on this issue. The Journal of the American Medical Association is not the final authority on all things medical.

FWIW, I think it's a disease, but I'm no doctor.

However you two seem to be arguing about which shade of blue the sky is while both agreeing that it is, in fact, some shade of blue.

 

[Quickie]

Are you getting your info from King of the Hill?

The Americans With Disabilities Act does list addiction and alcoholism as disabilities but you are afforded no special treatment. That is: you cannot collect disability insurance for being alcoholic. Similarly, employers are free to terminate any addict/alcoholic if their disability interferes with their job performance in any way.

From ADA.gov: "However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. "

Supreme Court rules addiction considered disability

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]


You must be under the care and treatment of a licensed doctor or accredited religious practitioner during the first eight days of your disability. (The beginning date of a claim can be adjusted to meet this requirement.) You must remain under care and treatment to continue receiving benefits.

WHEN ARE ALCOHOL USERS COVERED UNDER THE ADA?

Individuals who abuse alcohol may be considered disabled under the ADA if the person is an alcoholic or a recovering alcoholic.[40] Courts have usually held that alcoholism is a covered disability. For example, in Williams v. Widnall,[41] the court flatly stated, without discussion, that alcoholism “is a covered disability.

Chapter 4

I believe the point he was trying to make is that the medical community is divided on this issue. The Journal of the American Medical Association is not the final authority on all things medical.

FWIW, I think it's a disease, but I'm no doctor.

However you two seem to be arguing about which shade of blue the sky is while both agreeing that it is, in fact, some shade of blue.

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[fmoore200]

If I'm uncomfortable because the guy next to me is an atheist, is that his problem or mine?

100% yours.... BUT...

the caveat is if the court mandated you to sit there and be subjected to his belief systems.

 

[MatticusMania]

I don't disagree that it happens regularly, I know it does, its on the news every week. That doesn't mean the majority of offenders do this.

The fact that any do is why I feel like there should be more stringent penalties. People understand financial loss directly, even if they're too blitzed to comprehend that their driving puts others lives at risk. I actually wouldn't want to set a specific dollar amount, 50K to one person may be the end of the world, when to another its pocket change. so the wealthy businessman could receive a substantially higher fine so that the impact is felt.

DUI's already carry pretty hefty financial penalties, upwards of $5000 for some first time offenders. That might not be that much to everyone, but for some that is enough to bankrupt them.

 

[thumpbass1]

Supreme Court rules addiction considered disability

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

WHEN ARE ALCOHOL USERS COVERED UNDER THE ADA?

Individuals who abuse alcohol may be considered disabled under the ADA if the person is an alcoholic or a recovering alcoholic.[40] Courts have usually held that alcoholism is a covered disability. For example, in Williams v. Widnall,[41] the court flatly stated, without discussion, that alcoholism “is a covered disability.

Chapter 4



Here you go.

Quickie do you even proof read your links? Rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada have nothing to do with U.S. law, our courts, etc. Just saying.

Also I'll tip off folks that the A.D.A. laws as administrated by the E.E.O.C. and the laws regarding Social Security Disability Insurance, how one qualifies, etc, as
administrated by the Social Security Administration are two different entities and legal beasts entirely. As for any individual states offering any benefits or special
accommodations through their own state laws, they do not apply beyond their own borders.

 

[Waterpilot]

100% yours.... BUT...

the caveat is if the court mandated you to sit there and be subjected to his belief systems.

I don't know... Maybe I haven't thought this through but the court can send you to jail as a form of punishment. AA is for rehabilitation. I'm not sure how AA would be worse then jail.

 

[Southpaw5]

The AMA is not a reputable source, they work for doctors for financial reasons, this has been documented throughout their history.

 

[spade2you]

The AMA is not a reputable source, they work for doctors for financial reasons, this has been documented throughout their history.

I may be more partial to the British Medical Journal, but bashing the AMA smells of a conspiracy theorist.

 

[PSPookie]

Supreme Court rules addiction considered disability

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]


You must be under the care and treatment of a licensed doctor or accredited religious practitioner during the first eight days of your disability. (The beginning date of a claim can be adjusted to meet this requirement.) You must remain under care and treatment to continue receiving benefits.

WHEN ARE ALCOHOL USERS COVERED UNDER THE ADA?

Individuals who abuse alcohol may be considered disabled under the ADA if the person is an alcoholic or a recovering alcoholic.[40] Courts have usually held that alcoholism is a covered disability. For example, in Williams v. Widnall,[41] the court flatly stated, without discussion, that alcoholism “is a covered disability.

Chapter 4

As has been pointed out: the Canadian Supreme Court has nothing to do with US law.

Also, did you read ALL of Chapter 4? Because the accommodations laid out for alcoholism as a disability basically say that an employer has to give you the schedule flexibility to attend meetings/counseling. Aside from that, there's not much in the way of rights or protections.

Also the edd link you posted was for the state of CA and thus, does not apply nation-wide. Also it doesn't say anything that isn't already covered in the ADA.

What's your point, if you have one?

 

[Quickie]

As has been pointed out: the Canadian Supreme Court has nothing to do with US law.

Also, did you read ALL of Chapter 4? Because the accommodations laid out for alcoholism as a disability basically say that an employer has to give you the schedule flexibility to attend meetings/counseling. Aside from that, there's not much in the way of rights or protections.

Also the edd link you posted was for the state of CA and thus, does not apply nation-wide. Also it doesn't say anything that isn't already covered in the ADA.

What's your point, if you have one?

ADA does however. And the additional Canada post it to show you that it is a widely accepted disease.

It's a disease. It's covered. And there is case law for it.

Have a nice day. I'm going to get a beer.

The AMA is not a reputable source,

Of course not. It aids in dis proving your argument.

 

[Southpaw5]

I may be more partial to the British Medical Journal, but bashing the AMA smells of a conspiracy theorist.

American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Criticisms

* Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition. In Free to Choose, Friedman said "the AMA has engaged in extensive litigation charging chiropractors and osteopathic physicians with the unlicensed practice of medicine, in an attempt to restrict them to as narrow an area as possible."[31]


* Profession and monopoly, a book published in 1975 is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. These claims ignore the fact that the total number of physicians in the United States increased by 142.3 percent between 1975 and 2008, from about 394,000 to 954,000. Physician workforce growth was much greater than national population growth during this period. As a result, the total number of physicians per 100,000 people in the United States climbed from 180 in 1975 to 314 in 2008 (Source - "Physicians Characteristics and Distribution in the US, 2010 Edition," pages 439, 441 and 451). The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. Restrictions against advertising that is not false or deceptive were dropped from the AMA Code of Medical Ethics in 1980 (See AMA Ethical Policy E-5.02). The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.[32]
* The AMA and other industry groups predicted an over-supply of doctors, and worked to limit the number of new doctors. But recently, the AMA has changed its position, predicting a doctor shortage instead.[33]
* It has been argued that the AMA's CPT monopoly has been created by the government and makes the organization subject to government influence; further, the restricted access to CPT codes may not be in the interest of its constituents.[34]

Also, my wife is a LCMT(massage therapist) she works mainly with clients with chronic pain, as well as cancer patients. The AMA is a driving force in keeping traditional medical treatment(MD) in the forefront and downplaying the benefits of alternative therapy. This also is part of the slow growth of insurance coverage for such treatment, but that is another can of worms altogether

 

[Southpaw5]

ADA does however. And the additional Canada post it to show you that it is a widely accepted disease.

It's a disease. It's covered. And there is case law for it.

Have a nice day. I'm going to get a beer.




Of course not. It aids in dis proving your argument.

Your "disease" is making you do that, stop you need treatment!

 

[Quickie]

Also, my wife is a LCMT(massage therapist) she works mainly with clients with chronic pain, as well as cancer patients. The AMA is a driving force in keeping traditional medical treatment(MD) in the forefront and downplaying the benefits of alternative therapy. This also is part of the slow growth of insurance coverage for such treatment, but that is another can of worms altogether

Yep. They tried the massage therapy with my back. Thank God for the traditional doctors who found two herniated discs, pushing on my sciatic nerve and operated on it (double fusion, three vertebrae) and.....wala!! Pretty much pain free (compared to the past) for a few years.

FYI

What causes sciatica?
The most common cause of sciatica is a bulging or ruptured disc (herniated disc) in the spine pressing against the nerve roots that lead to the sciatic nerve. But sciatica also can be a symptom of other conditions that affect the spine, such as narrowing of the spinal canal (spinal stenosis), bone spurs (small, bony growths that form along joints) caused by arthritis, or nerve root compression (pinched nerve) caused by injury.


Had I listened to the "pain management" therapist....I would have suffered severe nerve damage by now. And my personal experience, the insurance companiy fought to keep me in the pain management program.

Now can we get back to the OT?

 

[Quickie]

Your "disease" is making you do that, stop you need treatment!

 

[Southpaw5]

Yep. They tried the massage therapy with my back. Thank God for the traditional doctors who found two herniated discs, pushing on my sciatic nerve and operated on it (double fusion, three vertebrae) and.....wala!! Pretty much pain free (compared to the past) for a few years.

FYI

What causes sciatica?
The most common cause of sciatica is a bulging or ruptured disc (herniated disc) in the spine pressing against the nerve roots that lead to the sciatic nerve. But sciatica also can be a symptom of other conditions that affect the spine, such as narrowing of the spinal canal (spinal stenosis), bone spurs (small, bony growths that form along joints) caused by arthritis, or nerve root compression (pinched nerve) caused by injury.


Had I listened to the "pain management" therapist....I would have suffered severe nerve damage by now.

I find you example to be insulting, the "therapist" you are referencing is either fictional or not a professional.

 

[fhm555]

..."Treatment outcomes for alcoholism compare favorably with outcomes for many other chronic medical conditions. The longer an individual abstains from alcohol, the more likely they are to remain sober. Ongoing support from mental health professionals, family members and others are extremely significant to recovery. It is important to remember that many people relapse once or even several times before achieving long-term sobriety. Relapses are common and do not mean that a person has failed or cannot eventually recover from alcoholism. If a relapse occurs, it is crucial to once again stop drinking and to get whatever professional help is needed to continue abstaining from alcohol."

Invalid Link Removed

Concludes the individual making a good living off people forced into treatment.

Anyone who thinks this...

"The longer an individual abstains from alcohol, the more likely they are to remain sober."

Knows dick all about alcoholism.

This is the ultimate falsehood/CYA statement that so many who make their living off the recovery industry swear by...

"Relapses are common and do not mean that a person has failed or cannot eventually recover from alcoholism. If a relapse occurs, it is crucial to once again stop drinking and to get whatever professional help is needed to continue abstaining from alcohol."

This basically says AA has no worth in treatment of alcoholism because it is not "professional help". As any clod knows, "professional help" must be paid for, preferably by an insurance policy.

Short form for me folks, intervention is a construct of those who earn their living off the recovery industry.

Not saying intervention is not helpful if you are trying to get someone out of a cardboard box under an overpass, but to send a drunk in denial to a court ordered treatment is all but a guarantee that drunk will be a many times repeat customer before the truth sinks into their denial addled brain.

And what better way to make a good living off this nation's alcoholics than to create a system of repeat customers in need of your expertise? And what better way to insure a steady income stream than to have customers ordered by the court to pay you?

...soapbox returned to the stowed and locked position...

 

[PSPookie]

ADA does however. And the additional Canada post it to show you that it is a widely accepted disease.

1) At no point have I argued that alcoholism/addiction is not a disease.
2) Yes the ADA is very pertinent to a discussion of American disability law. What an astute observation

It's a disease. It's covered. And there is case law for it.

Yes, it's a disease. Yes, it is covered under the ADA, but not very well (see the part about minimal accommodations and protections). Yes, there is case law for it and I would wager that the vast majority of the rulings in those cases are for the employer.

Have a nice day. I'm going to get a beer.

You do that. I'll abstain.

I'll give you two guesses as to where I get my AA/alcoholism/ADA info.

 

[spade2you]

American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Criticisms

* Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition. In Free to Choose, Friedman said "the AMA has engaged in extensive litigation charging chiropractors and osteopathic physicians with the unlicensed practice of medicine, in an attempt to restrict them to as narrow an area as possible."[31]


* Profession and monopoly, a book published in 1975 is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. These claims ignore the fact that the total number of physicians in the United States increased by 142.3 percent between 1975 and 2008, from about 394,000 to 954,000. Physician workforce growth was much greater than national population growth during this period. As a result, the total number of physicians per 100,000 people in the United States climbed from 180 in 1975 to 314 in 2008 (Source - "Physicians Characteristics and Distribution in the US, 2010 Edition," pages 439, 441 and 451). The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. Restrictions against advertising that is not false or deceptive were dropped from the AMA Code of Medical Ethics in 1980 (See AMA Ethical Policy E-5.02). The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.[32]
* The AMA and other industry groups predicted an over-supply of doctors, and worked to limit the number of new doctors. But recently, the AMA has changed its position, predicting a doctor shortage instead.[33]
* It has been argued that the AMA's CPT monopoly has been created by the government and makes the organization subject to government influence; further, the restricted access to CPT codes may not be in the interest of its constituents.[34]

Copy+Paste, eh? I love e-debates. Cliff's Notes vs. reading the book.

Also, my wife is a LCMT(massage therapist) she works mainly with clients with chronic pain, as well as cancer patients. The AMA is a driving force in keeping traditional medical treatment(MD) in the forefront and downplaying the benefits of alternative therapy. This also is part of the slow growth of insurance coverage for such treatment, but that is another can of worms altogether

The thing about medicine is that LCMTs know more than doctors, as do nurses, etc. Everybody is the expert, but nobody has done the other's coursework.

The slow growth is due to the insurance companies not wanting to reimburse. They're using the argument that there isn't enough published data, not because doctors aren't doing their jobs or enough research, but because they simply don't want to pay. Simple as that.