Dear Mr. Westin:

In the recent ABC News special, Help Me, I Can't Help Myself, John Stossel presented a grossly distorted and narrow-minded view of addiction. With selected editing, keenly placed voiceovers, and strategically positioned individuals, Stossel depicted a disease process so badly skewed that it impugned the credibility of ABC News. As one of the scientists interviewed in the program, I am outraged by the blatant presentation of his personal bias and the near total disregard for decades of scientific research.

It is terribly unfortunate that Stossel chose to portray drug addiction in the same backward light that other mental illnesses were considered just a few short years ago. Depression, now clearly recognized as a brain disorder with genetic, biological, chemical and behavioral components, was long considered to be an expression of a "weak mind." In a similar fashion, Stossel has suppressed the wealth of scientific data that point to addiction as a disorder with genetic, biological, chemical and behavioral components.

In this news special, Stossel and ABC News did more damage to those suffering from this disease than any self-inflicted wound ever could. As a direct result of the extensive scientific database that has been amassed over the past several decades, organizations such as the World Health Organization, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the American Medical Association have unanimously categorized drug addiction as a disease. Stossel selectively ignored the evidence-based views embraced by these honored organizations, instead focusing on the discredited views of those who supported his position and were seemingly on the program to promote their books - not to promote the truth on addiction.

It is morally repugnant and scientifically untenable to accept the proposition that the hundreds of thousands of people who die in this country each year due to the consequences of drug addiction are merely the expression of a simple Darwinian process in which those who have "weak minds" or make poor choices are selectively eliminated. The complexity of the addictive process has not and likely will not yield to simplistic approaches.

Stossel's biased view of addiction was evident when we spoke. It was his personal opinion that addiction was merely a choice and not a "real disease" like cancer, a prejudice conveyed by the organization and subsequent presentation of the program. In support of his position, Stossel suggested that no one chooses to have cancer, yet people do make the conscious decision that leads to chemical or behavioral dependence. Stossel, like many others, maintains the foolish view that a "real disease" is something that, by definition, invades a normally healthy body. The innocent victim is subsequently attacked by the disease itself - something over which he or she has no control.

In fact, many "real diseases" are the consequence of self-imposed behaviors. The nation's number one killer, heart disease, stands as a testimony to this very process. When individuals choose to smoke or eat fatty foods and subsequently develop lung cancer or coronary artery disease, they have largely caused their own illness. Like those suffering from addiction, these people did not actively choose to become sick. Rather, they inadvertently chose behaviors that had undesirable effects. People who drink never do so with the intent of becoming addicted. Unfortunately, their behavior caused their illness in much the same way that fatty foods cause heart disease.

Mr. Stossel has championed the notion that since choice precedes the initial use of a drug and some drug abusers do not become addicted, addiction cannot be a disease. This is illogical: Should we conclude that there is no causal effect between smoking and cancer because there are smokers who fail to succumb to the ravages of the disease?

Stossel interviewed a number of leading addiction scientists whose interviews remained on the cutting-room floor. The brief sound bites used from my interview were purposely taken out of context to give the impression that all addicts simply lose their free will and that all addictions are similar. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like many diseases, a wide range of severity characterizes this process. Some find it far easier to stop than others, just as some cancers are easier to treat.

Stossel used a very public forum to send his personal and jaded message to the viewing audience. He perpetuated the old myth that addiction, like the view of mental illness just a few short years ago, is nothing more than the manifestation of moral weakness or intentionally selected bad choices. As it may be more socially comfortable to label the former a "real disease," it is simply hypocritical to suggest the latter is anything different. While a bad choice is a bad choice, the consequences of those choices should not be viewed with the prejudice that permeated Stossel's report.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Dewey, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Brookhaven National Laboratory