In 1962, Davies reported on 7 male patients who showed habits, out of a total of 93 addicts as defined by the WHO at the time (1). All 7 patients had achieved a period of complete abstinence ranging from a few months to a year before taking up normal for a period ranging from 7 to 11 years. Follow-up included outpatient attendances, contact by a social worker, and correspondence with relatives. Davies' paper received 17 critical commentaries the same journal. They included the following statements: in many years of practice, we never encountered a true alcoholic recovering the ability to drink normally, drinking resumption was a freak anomaly of human biochemistry or psychopathology, these patients may have been genuine alcoholics but not genuine drinkers, and was simply a prelude to full relapse. While Davies was not the first to report this phenomenon, he was the first to give it prominence the paper's title, hence, the widespread reaction. In 1981, Heather and Robinson marshalled the related evidence their book Controlled Drinking (2). The notion of by previously identified individuals with alcoholism essentially contradicted the dominant concept of alcoholism as an irreversible disease characterized by loss of control, that is, by the inability to stop once commenced, as described by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA, 3)-a trait later adopted by Jellinek as a characteristic of the gamma alcoholic (4). In Heather and Robinson's view, loss of control described rather than explained alcoholic drinking. Throughout, a conceptual dichotomy differentiated between individuals suffering from the disease of alcoholism and those whose might be abnormal quantity and harmful but who were not diseased. Modern versions of this dichotomy have been adopted by Edwards and others their delineation of the alcohol dependence syndrome as part of a range of alcohol-related disabilities (5). In its criteria for alcohol dependence vs alcohol abuse, the DSM-IV TR nosology reflects a similar range (6), as does the ICD-IO differentiation between dependence and harmful use (7). The Debate Today Fast-forwarding some 25 years, the professional debate the field does not, my opinion, seem to elicit as much passion as it once did, owing to several developments. The first development is recognition that the terms used required further definition. Heather and Tebbutt proposed that the definition of controlled (CD) should include some limit on the amount and frequency of consumption (that is, a maximum of 3 oz of alcohol daily) and the condition that the does not result signs of dependence (that is, withdrawal syndrome) or social, legal, and health problems (8). At present, the term drinker is increasingly replaced by the nosological dichotomies (based on DSM and ICD criteria) of abuse or harmful use and dependence. The second development is increased consensus that abstinence remains the preferred, safer outcome for individuals with alcohol dependency. However, several studies report resumption of controlled drinking, with prevalence estimates ranging from 2% to 30%, depending on definitions. Miller undertook a comparative analysis of 4 samples (n = 140) of media-recruited problem drinkers who self-referred for behavioural self-control training (9). Of the original 140 cases, 99 (71%) were accounted foras follows: at 3.5,5.0,7.0, and 8.0 years, respectively, 23 were abstinent, 14 reported controlled and asymptomatic drinking, 22 were improved but still impaired, 35 were unremitted, and 5 were deceased. Most of the long-term controlled drinkers had established their pattern within the first year of follow-up, but maintenance of this pattern could not be reliably predicted (9). Related to abstinence is the so-called dry syndrome. Dry drunk is a lay term used by AA to describe an individual with alcoholism who has stopped but who may still be suffering many of the emotional symptoms common to actively alcoholism sufferers (3). …
Read full abstract