My 10-year case of abstinence, although not unique, surely, is practically a blind-spot for the thousands of researches of the alcohol addiction. It’s easy to imagine an addict’s tiresome path, described traditionally as a set of relapses followed by rehabilitation programs, about three weeks of enjoyment of “new life”, new drinking bouts and repeated treatment. However, the researches contain next to nothing about those people who leave this circle. The main two reasons of the leave are the death and, using the disease model terminology, the complete recovery. As regards the second reason, very few people made an effort to control and study this population of statistically low significance (the best-known exclusion is the book: Vaillant, George E. 1995. The natural history of alcoholism revisited. Cambridge Mass. Harvard University Press). This problem stands behind such a statistical trick as some programs reporting of 50 – 80 % patients recovered. The statistics is based on the mere data of how many of the “cured” ones don’t show up to be treated again. The disease model, in our opinion, in general is determined to cover today’s (or even fundamental) impotence to overcome a humans love to a wineglass. All rehabilitation programs compete about the length of the period between the end of the program and another relapse: a month, three months, six months, a year. Usually, according to the reference literature I’ve read and to my own experience, this period lasts three weeks. Nevertheless, let’s think what the figures mean. The desire goes nowhere and the eagerness to drink persists. So, what can the period tell us if a person keeps it to take to the bottle again? Maybe little if not nothing at all.
The Addiction Philosophy Map
