[ May 24, 2010, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Valentine014 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Heart attack at 32 doesn't simply mean heart attack, usually.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
As I said on twitter this morning, I bet it was precipitated by anorexia.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: As I said on twitter this morning, I bet it was precipitated by anorexia.
Aggravated by a combination of stimulants and opioids is my guess. This is indeed a sad pattern among celebrities.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's possible, too, but less likely. In my totally uninformed opinion. She's married, and never had a rep as a party girl.
She was perilously thin, though, especially for her frame and when compared to when she was in her teens.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, you don't have to got to parties to get addicted to opiates- Michael Jackson didn't have parties, and by the time he died he had graduated to surgical grade anesthetics.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
She also had a history of diabetes.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
True, although in Michael's case I think we'll find that that happened because he had so many freaking procedures done.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
didn't she just get fired from a movie a few weeks ago
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
It's really unfair to be speculating about this at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Or at least pretty distasteful.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Right but when I read about this on twitter I assumed it was like RIP Kanye, talking about her career and not her life. Since I remembered something about her getting fired recently.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: True, although in Michael's case I think we'll find that that happened because he had so many freaking procedures done.
No, that happened because he was an addict and he surrounded himself with enabling people, including doctors. The surgeries stemmed from and were a part of the addiction, not the other way around.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: It's really unfair to be speculating about this at all.
No, when someone dies in what are clearly not normal circumstances, it is, in my opinion, an unhealthy impulse to keep our mouths shut about our suspicions for fear of "speaking ill of the dead." Especially if this woman did indeed suffer from a disorder of some sort, that has to be confronted as a real possibility, rather than something distasteful and which we'd rather not discuss. These are diseases we are talking about, not the morality of the recently deceased. You would not get up in arms if we were speculating about whether it was an aneurysm or cancer- so think of bulimia and drug addiction as similar disease states.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
No. If someone you know possibly has a disorder of some sort then there may be some benefit to confronting it. Now you're just using her death as fodder for your entertainment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We live in an era of Action Forensics Drama on network television. Death is speculated upon casually. In the case of celebrities, unstoppably so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, when someone dies in what are clearly not normal circumstances, it is, in my opinion, an unhealthy impulse to keep our mouths shut about our suspicions for fear of "speaking ill of the dead."
Except you really have no idea whether the circumstances were normal or not, do you? Statistically speaking, it certainly was abnormal, but maybe there were some specifics in her life that make this normal as well, without the stigma of drug addiction or mental health problems entering into things at all.
Maybe she had a heart attack because she was poisoned by a rival actor or actress, who knows? Are drug addiction or anorexia or bulimia 'real possibilities'? Well, obviously. But in the complete absence of evidence, it's unreasonable and unfair to speculate as to the cause of death.
Especially since, unfortunately, I'm sure we'll be neck deep in tabloid news all about it very soon anyway, so why not just wait 24 hours or so for some real facts to come in?
quote:We live in an era of Action Forensics Drama on network television. Death is speculated upon casually. In the case of celebrities, unstoppably so.
That speculation will happen is unstoppable, of course. That it is definitely, unavoidably going to happen on an individual level is a very different thing, and quite untrue. It won't stop, it's not unstoppable.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I have no idea who this woman was, and really don't care enough to even google to find out.
However, just because someone is dead does not automatically make above reproach. Even if it is just for entertainment, what is the harm in online speculation? It's not like anyone was saying this stuff to her grieving family.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I was sad when I read this! I loved her so much in Clueless. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: No. If someone you know possibly has a disorder of some sort then there may be some benefit to confronting it. Now you're just using her death as fodder for your entertainment.
You aren't in a position to know whether I am entertained by such things. I am not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:No, when someone dies in what are clearly not normal circumstances, it is, in my opinion, an unhealthy impulse to keep our mouths shut about our suspicions for fear of "speaking ill of the dead."
Except you really have no idea whether the circumstances were normal or not, do you? Statistically speaking, it certainly was abnormal, but maybe there were some specifics in her life that make this normal as well, without the stigma of drug addiction or mental health problems entering into things at all.
Maybe she had a heart attack because she was poisoned by a rival actor or actress, who knows? Are drug addiction or anorexia or bulimia 'real possibilities'? Well, obviously. But in the complete absence of evidence, it's unreasonable and unfair to speculate as to the cause of death.
You see it as unfair and unreasonable because drugs and bulimia are involved in the speculation. If it was between two non-stigmatized diseases, then you wouldn't be piping up, or at least fewer people would be. But you have to consciously choose to treat those diseases as no different in root cause than any other. Considering that the United States has been in something of a prescription drug abuse epidemic in this past decade, not to mention an even older problem of EDs, we need to be able and willing to talk openly about such things without feeding the stigma. Again, I don't consider it a moral issue, and though I make no definitive statements as of yet about what actually happened, since I don't know, I feel no compunction in stating that these are the likely culprits in such a case, barring less likely but possible explanations.
I think if 4 high school kids plow into a tree at 100 miles an hour at 3am on a friday night, everybody reiterates to themselves and neighbors the dangers of teen alcohol abuse- but maybe that 17 year old driver had a heart attack, or a seizure. I simply don't see it as crass to discuss these things in light of the circumstances. Quite the opposite, I find it distasteful that the media has spent so many years helpfully spouting euphemisms like the "heart attacks" of Elvis and Michael Jackson, to name only two infamous examples. Considering that these gossip mills like TMZ get everything about celebrities lives wrong while they're actually alive, the indignity of their deaths being treated like shameful reminders of low morals or personal weakness, rather than the effects of a disease state that is common, is much more insulting to me.
Now, what that all boils down to is that I think it's perfectly reasonable to voice my suspicion that a skeletally thin actress with a long series of personal and professional problems and disappointments, who lives in a community and in a profession infamous for a culture of elicit and prescription drug abuse and body image issues, who drops dead suddenly at the age of 32 after being fired from her most recent job, while her husband, himself recently hospitalized in bizarre circumstances, states that he does not wish an autopsy to be performed, while prescription medications were collected from the scene of the death, might have had a drug problem or an eating disorder. I don't think that's a crazy unreasonable leap to make. I find it quite reasonable. I will, of course, drop it completely if it turns out not to be true, but I see no harm, whatsoever, in stating it as a suspicion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I will, of course, drop it completely if it turns out not to be true...
Then...why not wait? The truth will out in any event, and just as there isn't actually any harm being done to anyone here, there's certainly no benefit, either-or is this some sort of stance on equalizing drug addiction and bulimia in the public eye? Convoluted path to that goal if so.
quote:Considering that the United States has been in something of a prescription drug abuse epidemic in this past decade, not to mention an even older problem of EDs, we need to be able and willing to talk openly about such things without feeding the stigma.
Well, that's begging the question, isn't it? We need to not feed the stigma because it isn't fair to stigmatize it. Not very compelling. But even if it was, saying, "It's distasteful to speculate like this before there are any facts at all," hardly 'feeds the stigma'. Note that the objections made were on speculating, not on discussing the matter at all.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm not particularly interested in your opinion, to be honest. I was stating my reason, not inviting further discussion. You've been heard- we disagree.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Imagine my surprise.
Though there were quite a few persuasive-argument statements in that post for 'not inviting further discussion'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm sorry to have misled you. It's simply not something I think will be productive to talk about with you- especially considering the thrust of your argument was essentially that you didn't want me to say anything- so here you have it. Don't get pissy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm certainly not being any pissier than you, Orincoro. I was just remarking that it was a strange time to say, "I don't want to talk about this," after talking about it at some length. And being curt almost to the point of rudeness doing so.
And, no, my argument was not that I didn't want you to say anything.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I will, of course, drop it completely if it turns out not to be true...
Then...why not wait?
Yeah, no. Look, you convinced me that talking to you about this is not productive. I have finally learned this from you. You have finally succeeded. I hope that it is everything you hoped it would be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That speculation will happen is unstoppable, of course. That it is definitely, unavoidably going to happen on an individual level is a very different thing, and quite untrue. It won't stop, it's not unstoppable.
Well there's also the part where on an individual level I don't see what's patently objectionable about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah, no. Look, you convinced me that talking to you about this is not productive. I have finally learned this from you. You have finally succeeded. I hope that it is everything you hoped it would be.
Well, if you actually had 'learned that talking to me about this is not productive', perhaps I could decide whether or not it was everything I hoped it would be. But it doesn't appear you have, because you're still talking about it.
-----
quote:Well there's also the part where on an individual level I don't see what's patently objectionable about it.
Well, sure-that's a different question, though.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That speculation will happen is unstoppable, of course. That it is definitely, unavoidably going to happen on an individual level is a very different thing, and quite untrue. It won't stop, it's not unstoppable.
Well there's also the part where on an individual level I don't see what's patently objectionable about it.
Here's what I find objectionable about it. The news media has clearly stated that the Coroner made a statement that she died of natural causes. There are any number of medical conditions that could have led to a death by natural causes for this young woman. Anything from a genetic disorder to some kind of cancer, yet all anyone is speculating about is drug use and eating disorders. Even the paparazzi hasn't started speculating about drug use or eating disorders as far as I can tell. Why is it that this forum is speculating about something even the paparazzi isn't? Until the coroner completes his autopsy and releases his findings, there's no reason to speculate. It could be a case of SADS (sudden arrhythmia death syndrome) for all we know.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: The news media has clearly stated that the Coroner made a statement that she died of natural causes.
The statement was actually far more vague than that. Anyway, at this point there's no way they can know that. Certain things can be ruled out by on-scene evidence (like that she wasn't killed with a blunt object); most will need a complete autopsy to rule out.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, it's like I saw a news title attached to something on google saying essentially: "Brittany Murphy claimed by same sickness as Michael Jackson:... cardiac arrest." Oh, all the brave souls who have been claimed by the pernicious cardiac arrest.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: It's really unfair to be speculating about this at all.
No, when someone dies in what are clearly not normal circumstances, it is, in my opinion, an unhealthy impulse to keep our mouths shut about our suspicions for fear of "speaking ill of the dead." Especially if this woman did indeed suffer from a disorder of some sort, that has to be confronted as a real possibility, rather than something distasteful and which we'd rather not discuss. These are diseases we are talking about, not the morality of the recently deceased. You would not get up in arms if we were speculating about whether it was an aneurysm or cancer- so think of bulimia and drug addiction as similar disease states.
It's crass. If you've ever personally known someone whose death caused speculation from strangers on the internet of any kind, you will know how just how crass it is.
Whatever you talk about on this site, you do so for your own entertainment. Just because the subject is death and disease, and you might not be laughing while typing doesn't mean it isn't entertainment for you.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: True, although in Michael's case I think we'll find that that happened because he had so many freaking procedures done.
No, that happened because he was an addict and he surrounded himself with enabling people, including doctors. The surgeries stemmed from and were a part of the addiction, not the other way around.
You're doing that thing again, where you act like you know something for sure when in actuality you're just guessing. Unless you'd care to source this?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:No, when someone dies in what are clearly not normal circumstances, it is, in my opinion, an unhealthy impulse to keep our mouths shut about our suspicions for fear of "speaking ill of the dead."
Except you really have no idea whether the circumstances were normal or not, do you? Statistically speaking, it certainly was abnormal, but maybe there were some specifics in her life that make this normal as well, without the stigma of drug addiction or mental health problems entering into things at all.
Maybe she had a heart attack because she was poisoned by a rival actor or actress, who knows? Are drug addiction or anorexia or bulimia 'real possibilities'? Well, obviously. But in the complete absence of evidence, it's unreasonable and unfair to speculate as to the cause of death.
The 'complete absence of evidence' for either anorexia or drugs? Really? I know hyperbole is fun, but that's just silly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So you have some evidence that either anorexia or drug use caused or helped to cause her death?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I guessed anorexia because I have a brain and two eyes. I suppose Orin guessed drugs because of either the tabloid reportings of her drug problems or simply because it's always a good guess with young celebrities dying young.
Neither of those is hard evidence (which is why you'll notice we were both clear that we were speculating); neither is the 'complete absence of evidence' as you claimed. Absolutes are funny that way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Whatever you talk about on this site, you do so for your own entertainment. Just because the subject is death and disease, and you might not be laughing while typing doesn't mean it isn't entertainment for you.
I'll remind you of your lack of mind reading powers, and ask you not to speculate on my personal motivations in this case. You are, as I've already stated, incorrect.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: You're doing that thing again, where you act like you know something for sure when in actuality you're just guessing. Unless you'd care to source this?
It's far from a guess. Jackson's death was ruled a homicide, and his personal physician is currently under investigation for manslaughter.
Linky. His autopsy showed large amounts of powerful anesthetics and benzodiazepines: propofol, lorazepam and midazolam. Propofol is a surgical drug used under general anesthesia, and the AP reported that Jackson was being administered these drugs on a regular basis to maintain sleep.
At the very least, that Jackson had a severe drug addiction is an educated guess. I think though, it's a near certainty. I also think that given the nature of the popular cultural denial of what drug addiction is and looks like, and given Jackson's estate and partners' financial motives for preserving his image and pretending his life was not an empty shell of despair for the last 10 years, which is what allowed him to spiral into hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, and surround himself with people who were perfectly willing to dose him with dangerous drugs to keep him docile and compliant, I think that, as in the case of Elvis, the proverbial 40 pound colon full of perscription medications will be overlooked in popular memory, and we'll be left with "heart attack." That, and Janis Joplin choked on a sandwich.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Neither of those is hard evidence (which is why you'll notice we were both clear that we were speculating); neither is the 'complete absence of evidence' as you claimed. Absolutes are funny that way.
In what way are either her weight or her reported drug problems evidence that that's what killed her, though, is my question? I didn't say you had no evidence she had anorexia, I said you had no evidence that that's what killed her. You have, in fact, no actual facts at all about her personal life, or at least you didn't mention any. Hell, you even acknowledged your own opinion as 'totally uninformed'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh be quiet- since when did you become the guardian of lost souls?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Here's what I find objectionable about it. The news media has clearly stated that the Coroner made a statement that she died of natural causes. There are any number of medical conditions that could have led to a death by natural causes for this young woman. Anything from a genetic disorder to some kind of cancer, yet all anyone is speculating about is drug use and eating disorders. Even the paparazzi hasn't started speculating about drug use or eating disorders as far as I can tell. Why is it that this forum is speculating about something even the paparazzi isn't?
Um, both the paparazzi and the media world they fuel are openly speculating about it.
quote:Until the coroner completes his autopsy and releases his findings, there's no reason to speculate.
'there's no reason to speculate' is entirely false. Hopefully I don't have to explain why?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So you have some evidence that either anorexia or drug use caused or helped to cause her death?
I think you're lacking perspective here. This isn't a court of law. Nobody here needs photo evidence or medical records to prove anything so that it can fulfill some standard of 'admissible internet speculation.'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh be quiet- since when did you become the guardian of lost souls?
Can't you go back to not wanting to talk about this with me? Well, actually, even when you said that, you didn't live up to it, so going back to it won't change much.
----
quote:I think you're lacking perspective here. This isn't a court of law. Nobody here needs photo evidence or medical records to prove anything so that it can fulfill some standard of 'admissible internet speculation.'
It's strange to be accused of lacking perspective about this when I've never said or even suggested there was some requirement for speculation, Samprimary. All I said was, "Geeze, this is pretty distasteful considering there isn't any evidence that either anorexia or drug use were her cause of death, or contributed to it. Especially since just wait a few days and it'll all come out anyway."
In response to this I got some nonsense about how this speculation was actually some sort of service to drug addicts and anorexics, and now I'm accused of thinking there are some sort of actual requirements here.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'd just like to point out that I've known three separate people, who were otherwise the picture of health, who died of sudden, unexplained cardiac arrest at a very young age. One of them was an Air Force Academy cadet who simply dropped dead during an intramural tennis game. All three were the result of a minor birth defect that went undetected till autopsy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: who were otherwise the picture of health
I think this is the key phrase.
Murphy most certainly was not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Oh be quiet- since when did you become the guardian of lost souls?
Can't you go back to not wanting to talk about this with me? Well, actually, even when you said that, you didn't live up to it, so going back to it won't change much.
Perhaps you should stop being a holier than thou gainsayer- in fact if you do, I bet *everybody* will stop talking about this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That, and Janis Joplin choked on a sandwich.
That would be Mama Cass.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I'd just like to point out that I've known three separate people, who were otherwise the picture of health, who died of sudden, unexplained cardiac arrest at a very young age. One of them was an Air Force Academy cadet who simply dropped dead during an intramural tennis game. All three were the result of a minor birth defect that went undetected till autopsy.
This happened to the 18 year old son of one of my colleagues. He dropped during a soccer game, and the only reason he survived is that one of the other players was a med student who did CPR until the ambulance arrived and they were very, very close to a hospital so they got him there fast. The doctors said there is about a 3% survival rate for that type of incident.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's strange to be accused of lacking perspective about this when I've never said or even suggested there was some requirement for speculation, Samprimary. All I said was, "Geeze, this is pretty distasteful considering there isn't any evidence that either anorexia or drug use were her cause of death, or contributed to it. Especially since just wait a few days and it'll all come out anyway."
Exactly. You're saying it's distasteful and objecting to it in a way that suggests that it shouldn't be done, and you are hinging it all on a proof requirement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Perhaps you should stop being a holier than thou gainsayer- in fact if you do, I bet *everybody* will stop talking about this.
Well, I'm hardly inclined to take your word for that, having already said you weren't going to talk about this with me and then failed to do so repeatedly:)
----
quote:Exactly. You're saying it's distasteful and objecting to it in a way that suggests that it shouldn't be done, and you are hinging it all on a proof requirement.
No, not 'proof requirement'. 'Evidence requirement', and it's obviously not a requirement that has any teeth. Certainly not a courtroom standard, which is what you were saying.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think it is perfectly fine to speculate on the cause of her death as being related to anorexia or drugs, especially since she actually had a problem with both in the past. If Orincoro had speculated that it was caused due to something that has never been related to the actress I may have issue with that. And I do agree with him in that this has become a trend lately among celebrities.
I don't find it disrespectful in the least.
My mother has a friend named Lisa that is the sister of Stephanie Romanov. Stephanie works in Hollywood as an actress and was one of the main characters on the old Melrose Place show. Lisa went to a few Hollywood parties with her sister and said drug use among actors is worse than you may think. She went with her sister to a party, and as soon as you walked in the door there was a table where you could basically "choose your drug." Heroine, cocaine, marijuana, meth, and other drugs were just laying there on the table.
I really think it is a lot worse than people think.
I think that the reason people jump to the conclusion of drugs being the cause of a celebrity death is because that is how MOST of them have gone lately.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Perhaps you should stop being a holier than thou gainsayer- in fact if you do, I bet *everybody* will stop talking about this.
Well, I'm hardly inclined to take your word for that, having already said you weren't going to talk about this with me and then failed to do so repeatedly:)
See? See?? And FYI, we're not talking about the same thing anymore- I said I didn't want to talk to you about that, which I don't. Doesn't mean I pledged not to inform you that you're being an annoying prig.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
News Flash:
Orincoro and Rakeesh both die of diarrhea of the mouth...
Hatrack rejoices.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: This happened to the 18 year old son of one of my colleagues. He dropped during a soccer game, and the only reason he survived is that one of the other players was a med student who did CPR until the ambulance arrived and they were very, very close to a hospital so they got him there fast. The doctors said there is about a 3% survival rate for that type of incident.
*nod* It happened to a kid I went to high school with. He was running during track practice and died. His father was a teacher there, too. Very sad.
The moral I've learned from all of this: don't play sports.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
unfortunately, lobo, it's not fatal. Or at least I've never heard of a fatal case. Feel free to speculate as to cause of death for someone, though;)
quote:See? See?? And FYI, we're not talking about the same thing anymore- I said I didn't want to talk to you about that, which I don't. Doesn't mean I pledged not to inform you that you're being an annoying prig.
Well I'll certainly accept your status as an expert witness on questions of who is an annoying prig or not:) And you did want to talk about it-or rather, you wanted to get your say and then drop it entirely, speaking as though you'd won the point handily. Sorry I wasn't playing along. I had a point to make, I can in no way stop discussion about this even if I wanted to (if I had moderator powers, I wouldn't), and it's on topic. Sorry if it's a point you disagree with.
-----
quote:I don't find it disrespectful in the least.
I find it disrespectful (though not in a big way or anything) because for all the talk about how we shouldn't stigmatize or frown upon anorexia or drug addiction*, the fact is that we do as a society, and if someone wants to take a stance against that, celebrity death discussions...well, let's just say I'm skeptical that that's actually a motive, since it's so ineffective.
quote:I think that the reason people jump to the conclusion of drugs being the cause of a celebrity death is because that is how MOST of them have gone lately.
I don't know that this is accurate. Does anyone actually have some statistics? It's pretty hard to be off-the-cuff reliable about this, given the incredible hype all celebrity scandal news brings.
*And I'm not convinced it would be beneficial to remove all stigma or public frowning upon from things like anorexia and drug addiction. Should they be horrible, deep dark awful secrets that we never, ever discuss anywhere and especially not in public because they're so shameful? Well, certainly not, that's harmful. But there's a huge gaping chasm between that and acknowledging that however much anorexia and drug addiction are genuine, physical and mental illnesses, there is also an element of choice and will in them as well. I'm not saying it's enough that anyone strong-willed enough can simply get over either of them, just that there is some undefined, variable element of choice there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Is there an element of choice in getting cancer? The obvious problem in dealing with addiction is that it appears as if the victim is acting according to his/her own will, and choosing to use despite consequences. The thing is, addiction medicine tells us that addiction is a motivational disorder, so even as the victim themselves rationalize and reason out drug use and other related behaviors (because addiction as a disease is more than just the using of drugs), their actual motivational system, specifically the part of their brains that deals with fight or flight responses, is not functioning properly. Addiction is not called a disease because it is *like* a disease- it actually *is* a disease. The causes of the disease vary from person to person, but ultimately they are manifested in a real inability (not reliant upon one's inherent character), to properly process and deal with one's own motivational system. It is only cast in the light of a moral failing because it involves behaviors that are considered morally questionable: illicit sex, drug abuse, violence, thrill seeking, and other dangerous and destructive behaviors. It remains a disease, and the true addict is personally powerless to overcome it. The only known and variably effective treatment is adherence to a program that can effectively monitor and regulate one's behavior, in order to help one avoid the symptoms of addiction, and its triggers. Addiction as a disorder is incurable, at least today.
But there are many mental and physical diseases that fall into a general category not very different from this. The main difference is that it is popularly believed that alcoholism or addiction can be controlled through will, primarily because most users of alcohol and drugs are not addicts. Kind of like the idea that anti-social behavior can be avoided, because most people, even if they do occasionally choose to engage in anti-social behavior, do not actually have personality disorders. The science of addiction might as well be dealing with any mental disorder not involving the use of drugs, except because addiction involves the use of drugs, addiction treatment focuses on avoiding use. This is not dissimilar in nature from teaching people with panic disorders not to trigger episodes of panic- except in mainstream culture, panic is not generally considered a moral failing or as much of a character weakness (although sometimes it is as well).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, I'm aware of most of that, Orincoro. The problem is that while there is no element of choice in getting cancer (except perhaps after a lifetime of tobacco use leading to, say, lung cancer), and there is no element of choice in one's cancer killing, harming, or being cured...there is an element of choice not in being an addict (that's what I think, at least, but I'm not a doctor), but in succumbing to an addiction over an extended period of time after being offered treatment.
There just is. It does happen. We don't know exactly how, or exactly under what circumstances, but it does happen. Addicts do manage to cure themselves at least of using the substance they're addicted to, if not their addiction to it. And since there is clearly an element of will* involved, I'm not sure if it's wise to treat drug addiction or anorexia as something that just happens to people, like cancer or the flu or a bad ticker. Or rather, that it's wise to treat drug use and an anorexic lifestyle as something that just happens to people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't know enough about drug addictions to say, but I disagree about at least some cases of anorexia. And that is a change of mind in the last five years, because of something that happened to a dear friend.
She was in her early 40s, athletic, loved to cook for family and friends, appreciated good food. Had no "body image" issues at all. Realized one day that she was losing weight and didn't really need to -- she was a very healthy weight to begin with from being reasonably active (walking or biking to work, evening walks with her husband, occaisional volleyball and basketball games, etc.) Realized that she was picking at her food more than eating and didn't have any real appetite. Went to the doctor. Had every imaginable test -- cancer, thyroid disorders, you name it. Finally, as she continued to lose weight, the doctor diagnosed stress-related anorexia. She tried to change her eating habits to correct the weight loss. Didn't work. She asked friends to help her be accountable and work with her to stay healthy. Didn't work. She took a leave of absence from her high-stress job. No go. She was hospitalized at the point when she went under 100 lbs (she's 5'11" tall). She looked like a skeleton of toothpicks with skin over it.
Before that I always thought anorexia involved teenage girls and young women who had unrealistic body images - thought they were too fat even though they were thin and tried to diet. Not always the case -- C didn't like looking like a scarecrow, knew she looked better before she got sick, and couldn't change it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I don't know enough about drug addictions to say, but I disagree about at least some cases of anorexia. And that is a change of mind in the last five years, because of something that happened to a dear friend.
She was in her early 40s, athletic, loved to cook for family and friends, appreciated good food. Had no "body image" issues at all. Realized one day that she was losing weight and didn't really need to -- she was a very healthy weight to begin with from being reasonably active (walking or biking to work, evening walks with her husband, occaisional volleyball and basketball games, etc.) Realized that she was picking at her food more than eating and didn't have any real appetite. Went to the doctor. Had every imaginable test -- cancer, thyroid disorders, you name it. Finally, as she continued to lose weight, the doctor diagnosed stress-related anorexia. She tried to change her eating habits to correct the weight loss. Didn't work. She asked friends to help her be accountable and work with her to stay healthy. Didn't work. She took a leave of absence from her high-stress job. No go. She was hospitalized at the point when she went under 100 lbs (she's 5'11" tall). She looked like a skeleton of toothpicks with skin over it.
Before that I always thought anorexia involved teenage girls and young women who had unrealistic body images - thought they were too fat even though they were thin and tried to diet. Not always the case -- C didn't like looking like a scarecrow, knew she looked better before she got sick, and couldn't change it.
That's a very sad story Dana. Did your friend manage to find a way out of that miserable problem?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It is sad. It's also fascinating. Until I read your post, Dana, I held the opinion that you did prior to witnessing this happen to your friend.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Perhaps it's because I was in high school at a time when we got cautionary tales and movies about anorexia, but I've known for awhile that it can afflict across gender and age lines, though it very much predominately afflicts young white women.
As for the helplessness to change it, well, I've got an addictive personality from a long family history of addictive personalities. Not crippling addictions or anything, but things that over three generations have come and hurt us. My paternal great grandfather smoked his way into a voice-box replacement, but I could tell you stories about his willpower and perseverance that would put the lie to any notion that he could've just stopped if he really, really wanted to. My maternal grandfather ate his way into a triple bypass, and he is one of the most calm, patient, and willing-to-work-hard without recognition people I've ever met or even heard about.
Sometimes it's so bad the people caught within it can't change their addiction or the fact of their succumbing to it. But I don't believe that's universally true, either, which is why I question the overall benefit of removing all social frowning on things like addiction and anorexia. And as for drug addiction, I also believe that some people can fall into it and become an addict, say for example alcohol, tobacco, or heroin. And some social stigma, though not incredibly overpowering never-speak-of-it kind, might definitely serve a purpose there, too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I knew that it occurred across gender and age lines, but I thought that its germ was always dissatisfaction on the sufferer's part with their body.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And since there is clearly an element of will* involved, I'm not sure if it's wise to treat drug addiction or anorexia as something that just happens to people, like cancer or the flu or a bad ticker.
Ironically one of the main things that stands between addicts and sobriety is this belief. They hang on just as you do to the notion that like a normal person, they have a choice in the matter. I don't think so- addiction treatment, even with a very low overall success rate, demands that the successful participant follow all instructions and essentially seed all decision making power over their own lives to someone else. That's why AA sometimes gets called a cult, even though they don't do some of the basic cultish things like take people's money or property or alienate their families. Still, as they say, the first step is an admission not of a problem, but of a total lack of control over a person's own life, and a powerlessness, not a lack of will, to stop using.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ironically one of the main things that stands between addicts and sobriety is this belief. They hang on just as you do to the notion that like a normal person, they have a choice in the matter.
Then no, they don't hang on 'just as I do' to such a notion. It was only a few minutes ago, but I just reiterated that I don't think that all addicts have an element of will in their succumbing to their addiction. For some of them, the addiction is so strong they're helpless before it, and nothing they can do alone will overcome it. And for some rare, deeply unfortunate people nothing they can do with help will overcome it, either.
Ahh, I see what happened. I forgot to explain the asterisk in that post. If I had, it would've looked something like three posts ago.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, that was not at all clear to me...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not saying it's enough that anyone strong-willed enough can simply get over either of them, just that there is some undefined, variable element of choice there.
Well, I did say this earlier, so it should have been clear at least that I wasn't thinking about it in the way you described.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I knew that it occurred across gender and age lines, but I thought that its germ was always dissatisfaction on the sufferer's part with their body.
Really? I've always thought of that as a symptom, rather than a cause. The cause seems to be more a question of feeling like one has no control, and taking control of one thing that can be controlled. Ironically, it ends up making the person less in control, but that is not atypical of dysfunctional responses to stress, neh?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's a very sad story Dana. Did your friend manage to find a way out of that miserable problem?
Well, she's still alive, which at this point is a victory. Her doctor said that had she not been hospitalized when she was she would very likely have died within a week. Of a heart attack, most likely.
She spends way more time and energy than she would like making sure that she eats enough. She's still on disability leave from work, and will probably never go back -- she'll need to find some way to use her (many) skills in a way that won't consume her. Fortunately her spouse has a well-paying career so she has some freedom to explore options.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Really?
Well, no, not really. I agree with you that the ultimate cause is a feeling of being out of control. More accurate to say that I thought that the dissatisfaction I was talking about was an essential component--the reason why the attempt to regain control took the form it did, rather than taking the form of self mutilation or something.
quote:Ironically, it ends up making the person less in control, but that is not atypical of dysfunctional responses to stress, neh?
Yep; very true.
[ December 23, 2009, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: More accurate to say that I thought that the dissatisfaction I was talking about was an essential component--the reason why the attempt to regain control took the form it did, rather than taking the form of self mutilation or something.
Interesting.
I have a feeling I read more novelizations-of-stories-about-anorexics as a teen than you did. (It was a fairly prolific genre at just about the time I was 13 or so, and I may have read a dozen such books.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I have a feeling I read more novelizations-of-stories-about-anorexics as a teen than you did. [/QB]
It's vanishingly possible. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Thanks guys.
I quit even reading this thread when I saw it as just another, "ooh, bad celebrity does bad thingy" thread.
You've grown it into a serious discussion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm not saying it's enough that anyone strong-willed enough can simply get over either of them, just that there is some undefined, variable element of choice there.
Well, I did say this earlier, so it should have been clear at least that I wasn't thinking about it in the way you described.
I understand that- the caveat is the point of contention for me. As long as you hang on to that as an element of your view of the disease, I think you're missing the point. Choice is involved, but "choice" in sense of the malfunctioning of one's motivations is not very important. A person with a motivational disorder isn't dealing with the normal meaning of choice. So even as people "choose" they are also incapable of choosing well. So an alcoholic can choose to drink soda instead, and can in fact choose not to drink, even for extended periods or for the rest of their lives, however the disease itself remains, and can be reflected in many other ways. I've always been fascinated by that phenomenon, and it's an interesting lens to look at addicts, like, say, George W. Bush. It's never been shared with the public whether or not W was involved in a twelve step program (and talking about it would probably violate a custom of 12 step treatment), but I often wonder how his disease effected his Presidency. If the disease was remitted through his entire service, or if he struggled with it while in office, certainly it had some effect on his decisions and actions while President. I would be very fascinated should he ever choose to share a non-politicized account of his time as President, including a discussion of that aspect. I think his retreat from the public eye following his term almost certainly has something to do with it. I say this not in the sense that I think he is in his disease, but that as an alcoholic he is necessarily driven to certain behaviors or modes of thinking that can be self-destructive, and require conscious and continuous effort to be avoided.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Choice is involved, but "choice" in sense of the malfunctioning of one's motivations is not very important. A person with a motivational disorder isn't dealing with the normal meaning of choice. So even as people "choose" they are also incapable of choosing well.
I'm aware of the difficulties of 'choice' when dealing with hampered decision-making processes from before the decision is even considered. But I don't really see how that makes choice not very important, either. Choice would, for a non-addict, be paramount. If you're not addicted, say, to heroin, it's all about the choice not to try it. Once you've tried it, thought, things start to change. It's still about choice, but you don't have as much choice about the choice. Depending on how bad the illness is for a given person, you may effectively have no choice at all about choice.
But I don't think, and I'm unaware of any science that supports the idea - though that's not really saying much, coming from me - that choice isn't important for all or even most addicts. Certainly that's not the sorts of stories they tell about themselves, or at least the overwhelming majority of stories I've read about and heard from recovering addicts is two things: they needed help, and they needed to choose to get help and stay committed to using the help.
That's not the sort of rhetoric that implies choice isn't very important.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Eh. To your first point- addiction as its generally understood is a separate disorder from drug dependence. There are believed to be many people who suffer drug dependence who are not addicts in the sense of suffering from the disease of addiction. At the same time, addiction as a motivational disorder exists before the use of any drug, or the acting out of any addictive impulse. It's only in popular culture that we conflate the two things, but addiction is born out of a combination of genetic and psychological/experiential factors. Many addiction medicine specialists generally believe that there are certain people (though an unknown number) who are simply not genetically disposed to addiction at all, while the whole population is disposed to varying degrees to drug dependence. There are cases where individuals are highly susceptible to addiction, but not to dependence, while others are the opposite. Addiction is known to be genetic, and distinct from dependence, through genetics and heritage studies of specific populations. The native American population, as an example, is thought to have a 100% genetic predisposition to addiction. Yet among native Americans, actual dependence is variable as well. On top of the predisposition (which is connected with the functions of parts of the frontal lobe, specifically the parts that deal with impulse control and stress, among others), psychological damage and trauma is nearly always connected with addiction in those treated (ostensibly, the worst sufferers of addiction).
So in addiction, choice is fairly irrelevant. However, as to your second point, you are right, but I think you are trying to tie two types of choice into one. Choice is very important for addicts when it comes to getting help. That is, they have to have the will and make the choice to seek treatment. AA and many treatment centers will not even attempt to help an addict who has not expressed and demonstrated the desire to stop. But at the same time, the choice to seek help or even the desire to stop is always a reaction to extremely negative consequences. Many addicts say that they are unable to seek treatment until they "hit bottom." Quite literally, addicts don't seem to be able to choose to improve their situations unless the choice to do so is motivated by an extreme aversion to personal circumstances- essentially, seeking help and following advice must be viewed as the *only* option, rather than *an* option. The slightest sense of control over one's own actions is likely to perpetuate the disease cycle- it's part of the first step in twelve step, admitting powerlessness and desperation. And this is the reason why addiction as a disease has a higher death and morbidity rate in treated cases than most cancers- only around 4% of treated patients achieve lifetime sobriety. So for different people, that tipping point can be a wide range of actual conditions, but according to everything I've read from real addiction experts, on both the science of addiction and the treatment process, success is only really achieved when the patient is essentially stripped of all his or her abilities to deal with the disease alone. Interestingly, I've read accounts by addiction specialists who actually admit that with certain patients, particularly long term alcoholics and heroin addicts with certain types of personalities, that point cannot be reached, and treatment of the disease is therefore probably impossible- they're considered terminal cases. Interestingly too, there are people who's disease behavior can remit for years without manifesting in the original symptoms. But even with these people, there are symptoms of addiction and actual impaired function of the brain and motivational systems that can manifest in other ways- "dry drunk" syndrome, for instance. In some cases, addicts who are not using but are not in progressive recovery can even manifest the symptoms of drug and alcohol use despite not drinking- the brain and motivation is *that* powerful.
[ December 24, 2009, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So what can we as a Society do?
If addiction can only be cured when the addict is ready to be cured, and the act of addiction creates a danger to society and to healthy members of that society, what can the society do to protect itself?
Should we make leper colonies of the addicted? That is to say, separate them from the rest of society where they can't harm anyone else, until the time that they are ready to fight for their treatments.
Is that what we have started doing with prisons?
Do we as a society of non-addictives have a responsibility to insure the safety of addicts? If so, the Leper Colony idea is out, as left to their own devices they will harm themselves and each other to gain the addictive element they crave.
Do we treat even when the patient does not wish to be treated? If they do not wish to be treated the treatment will fail. Does the state or society even have the right to force treatment on people?
Do we create the "Bottom" for the addicts, and push them into it so that they can begin to climb out? What of the injury and suffering we cause to those we push into that bottom?
Right now the standard procedure is to prosecute most addictions. We send them to jail where their addictions fester, criminal contacts and skills are acquired, and mostly we can ignore them until they get out and return to their addictive ways.
The liberals would prefer to replace the prisons with treatment centers. The hope is to cure the addictive personalities so that they break the cycle of drugs-prison-drugs. Yet if only those ready to be helped can be helped, forcing addicts into treatment gives the same results as prison, just on a shorter time scale. They go to the treatment center--make contacts--and return to the streets, maybe believing they are cured, but soon fall back into old patterns. Treatment outcomes are far better than prison, but no where good enough to protect society.
The first law of physics is that "Matter can neither be created or destroyed."
I suggest the first rule of politics is that "People can neither be created--short of birth (and usually sex) -- or destroyed -- short of death."
To say that an addictive person can not be helped until they are ready to be helped is fine, but if you then ignore them until that time, consequences such as crime will be the result. Throwing them in prison, then thinking they are taken care of will result in a host of prison related problems.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well the idea of creating a consequence free environment for addicts is also misguided, so the treatment rather than prison solution is not *Quite* right. But you also pointed out why the prison system fails in terms of drug addicts, despite incarcerating more and more of them over recent years.
Really effective and clear consequences have to be established and maintained- and though forced treatment doesn't generally work, punishment without the option for treatment is also counterproductive.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:"A check of the nightstands revealed large amounts of prescription medication in the decedent's name," TMZ first reported after reviewing what they say were notes made by an investigator from the L.A. County Coroner's office. "Also noted were numerous empty prescription medication bottles in the decedent's husband's name, the decedent's mother's name, and unidentified third party names."
quote: The medications found in the Murphy's bedroom included: - Topamax - Methylprednisolone - Fluoxetine - Klonopin - Carbamazepine - Ativan - Vicoprofen - Propranolol - Biaxin - Hydrocodone - Vitamins.
There are a couple of pretty hardcore medications on this list- not the kind of stuff most people have in their medicine chests.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, those vitamins are nasty.
(Seriously, who decided to include those on the list! It's like a round of One of These Things Is Not Like the Others.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not really.....depending o =n what type, there are some fairly serious drug interactions with a number of supplements and vitamins, and they are something that a lot of patients forget to tell their health care providers about.
It leads to a fair number of deaths each year, actually.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
All true.
Still doesn't belong with the rest of that list.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
she was taking propanolol? that's a beta blocker. that could give potential evidence towards a heart disorder.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
More likely high blood pressure.
Or maybe migraines, apparently.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I have no idea who this woman was, and really don't care enough to even google to find out.
However, just because someone is dead does not automatically make above reproach. Even if it is just for entertainment, what is the harm in online speculation? It's not like anyone was saying this stuff to her grieving family.
Prove it. There may very well be a Hatracker who was very close to Ms. Murphy. I certainly don't know that there isn't. How can you know it? Especially when you don't even care who she was and haven't even got the tact to stop yourself from barging in to a thread commemorating her death just to say so?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
"You shouldn't say that she died of anorexia or drug overdose until there is actually some serious evidence of it, particularly since that evidence is only a few days away at most anyway," hardly equals, "She's above reproach and you shouldn't say anything bad about her!"
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[/QB]![[Frown]](frown.gif)