seems like a debate about semantics. Why can't the answer be a multi-variate model in which disease like factors get a weight and non-disease like factors get some kind of a weight? What's the point arguing about these non continuous binary options?
a slim majority of the panelists, including Murphy, did not want to emphasize the word "disease," because it implies that chemical dependence is primarily a function of pathology, when in fact environmental factors (dysfunction at home, stress at work), learned behavioral patterns (binge drinking, for instance), and economic disparities have been shown to play a significant causal role. Clearly, the debate was not just semantic.
environmental factors (e.g. bad air), learned behavioral patterns (hygiene) and economic disparities (to afford a doctor) all play a role in the course of a lung infection, even leading to death, too. I don't think it isn't a prime example of a disease.
> (pathology) An abnormal condition of a human, animal or plant that causes discomfort or dysfunction; distinct from injury insofar as the latter is usually instantaneously acquired.
There is no debate to be had at all. I get where this comes from, the scientific definition is more involved, but then addiction is just a symptom, while the damage, eg. to the nervous system, is material. Would ignorance count as disease?
