This just in… sin is a medical problem…

The big question is, will Obamacare cover treatment… and that prompts another, will the Church be put out of business?

Asam A major event has occurred in the realm of addiction science and treatment. America’s top addiction experts at The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) have just released their sweeping new definition of addiction. This new definition ends the debate over whether sex and porn addictions are “real addictions.” They are.

From the ASAM press release:

The new definition resulted from an intensive, four‐year process with more than 80 experts actively working on it, including top addiction authorities, addiction medicine clinicians and leading neuroscience researchers from across the country. … Two decades of advancements in neurosciences convinced ASAM that addiction needed to be redefined by what’s going on in the brain.

It’s likely ASAM acted, in part, because the psychiatrists who are revising the DSM (the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) have been dragging their feet in bringing the upcoming DSM-5 into alignment with advances in behavioral addiction research. Traditionally, the DSM offers diagnoses based not on underlying disease, but on lists of behaviors. Since DSM authors can’t agree on a list of sexual behaviors that constitute “Hypersexuality Disorder” (which addresses compulsive porn use), they are hamstrung. In fact, they may banish the disorder to the appendix—right as Internet porn use among adolescent boys is becoming nearly universal.

In contrast, the ASAM definition, “looks at the role of the brain in the etiology of addiction—what is happening with brain functioning and specific brain circuitry that can explain the outward behaviors seen in addiction.” It is an acknowledgement that a sexual behavior (e.g., viewing Internet porn daily) may be evidence of pathology in one person’s brain without reflecting pathology in another’s.

Research shows that both behavioral and chemical addictions entail the same major alterations in brain anatomy and physiology. An ASAM spokesman explained:

The new definition leaves no doubt that all addictions—whether to alcohol, heroin or sex, say—are fundamentally the same. Dr. Raju Haleja, former president of the Canadian Society for Addiction Medicine and the chair of the ASAM committee that crafted the new definition, told The Fix, “We are looking at addiction as one disease, as opposed to those who see them as separate diseases. Addiction is addiction. It doesn’t matter what cranks your brain in that direction, once it has changed direction, you’re vulnerable to all addiction.” …Sex or gambling or food addiction [are] every bit as medically valid as addiction to alcohol or heroin or crystal meth.

And so the redefining of sin marches on.  It’s no longer a matter of choices wrongly made.  It’s about a disease that needs medical treatment.

But I wonder, isn’t that going to upset those who’ve simply embraced porn and/or sex as a lifestyle?  Is the medical community, as represented by ASAM, simply being pornophobic and bigoted?  Will there soon be porn parades and/or porn pride movements?

The slippery slope gets steeper.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Jon Stewart: "That custom tailored Obama scandal... is finally here"
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Anonymous

    Looks like serial killers will now have a new cause for appeal of their convictions.  “I’m an ADDICT!  I’m not a bad person, I have a ‘medical condition’.”

    Just another nail in the coffin of personal responsibility.

    • Think the propostion through compleatly: that is, BECAUSE the serial killer has a medical condition, then he must be executed. Seig Heil Garand`Fan ! 

      • Anonymous

        So everyone with a “medical condition” must be executed?

  • Anonymous

    What could the treatment be? Stimulus checks and sterility procedures?

    lol

  • jim_m

    I’m waiting for the first lawsuit for wrongful discharge claiming that the employee wasn’t sexually harassing coworkers but is a sex addict and therefore the firing was illegal under he ADA.

    Leftist heads exploding in 3…2…1…

    Seriously, it’s just another example of the left demanding that no one be held responsible for their actions and that the public be forced to let itself be victimized over and over again by those groups the left deems useful to protect.

  • Psychiatry is pretty much a scam.  Look at what they are doing here:  defining new conditions that will now qualify for insurance and/or government reimbursement for treatment.

    Imagine if the AMA convened to invent new diseases which they could then get rich treating . . . why, it is just like lawyers in the legislatures, haven’t we learned our lesson on how that works out?

  • herddog505

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that these headshrinkers are correct and that addition, be it to crack, booze, or porn, is rooted in a biochemical process over which the individual has no control.  OK, what ISN’T something that we can control?  If a person gets cross with his boss or somebody who cuts him off in traffic and flies into a rage that leads to violence, isn’t that also the result of a biochemical reaction over which he has no control?  If a man sees a pretty woman and his sexually attraction to her is so overwhelming that he attacks and violates her, isn’t that also the result of a biochemical reaction over which he has no control?

    As I see it, the law rests on the proposition that we should and CAN control various impulses; unless a person is so mentally defective that he can’t possibly know right from wrong, he is culpable for any crime he commits.  To suggest that the person, even though he knew he was doing wrong, couldn’t help it because he was “addicted” is such a huge legal excuse that virtually every criminal could use it.

    Further, it seems to me that “addiction” does not mean an irresistable impulse.  A crack addict will not uncontrollably fire up his pipe in the middle of a crowded street; a drunk will not uncontrollably swill a fifth of cheap liquor in front of a police officer; a “porn addict” will not uncontrollably pull up a porn site in the middle of a business presentation.  Ergo, these “addicts” have at least SOME control over their actions.  Ergo, while they may need help to cure (or at least control) their addictions, they cannot plead that the addition irresistably caused them to commit some crime.

    • jim_m

      Liberal and criminal impulses are all beyond our control.  Conservative and Christian impulses are all within our control and therefore need to be outlawed.

      Does that clarify things for you?

      • Anonymous

        “Liberal and criminal impulses are all beyond our control.”

        Yes, but how do we know which is which?

      • herddog505

        Nail.  Head.

        Thanks!

  • Oysteria

    How do we know it’s not just a hobby?

  • What we have here is a case of people changing the data to fit their conclusions, instead of changing their conclusions to fit the data. If something does not fit the definition of a disease, then they change the definition of “disease”. 

  • Pingback: Addiction and Recovery: Is My Love of Sex and Chocolate an Addiction? | Focus on Great()