Plans to treat ‘mild alcoholics’ with pills may fail because people who drink two glasses of wine a night often do not believe they have a problem and may refuse to take drugs, Royal College of GPs has said.

Dr Helen Stokes-Lampard, from the Royal College of GPs, said it was a ‘welcome addition to the armoury’ but doctors will only prescribe it to those who want to reduce their drinking.

That two glasses a night is a problem is a problem in itself. I’d certainly class it under the freedom to find our own way into that long dark night. Not that it actually works particularly well. But isn’t it nice that they tell us that only people who actually want it will be prescribed it?

21 thoughts on “Quite”

  1. When asked by the practice nurse, “How much do you drink?”
    “Till I’ve had enough” is my usual reply.

  2. “mild alcoholic”: by reason of a glass of sherry before dinner, and a glass of table wine with? Charlatans! Or some other word beginning with “c”.

  3. So Much for Subtlety

    Plans to treat ‘mild alcoholics’ with pills may fail because people who drink two glasses of wine a night often do not believe they have a problem and may refuse to take drugs, Royal College of GPs has said.

    Obviously refusal to admit they have a problem is a sign of their denial and hence mental unfitness. Clearly they need to be committed so that they will take their medicine and otherwise do what is good for them.

    France is down to an average of one glass a day. Shameful.

  4. As a proper alcoholic (retired), I am offended by people who drink only two glasses of wine a night being called “alcoholics”.

    I earned the right to call myself an alcoholic. These lightweights are “alcoholics” in the same sense that Diane Abbott hurrying to a buffet table is an “Olympic sprinter”.

    And then there’s this:

    The new drug for ‘mild alcoholics’ drinking two glasses of wine a night will only work if people want to cut down

    In other news, ursine mammals defecate in forests, the Bishop of Rome wears a tall mitre, etc.

    So this pill is expensive (£3 a pop) and useless (only works on people who aren’t alcoholics). Wonderful!

  5. I disown my profession. It has been colonised by scientivists, gullible big pharm enthusiasts and totalitarians. The BMJ opined that climate change was a bigger threat than Ebola, FFS. A lot of the problem is that they are employed by the state and not by patients which has encouraged such authoritarian delusions.

  6. Let’s offer ’em a choice. You’ll be shipped to Africa to Fight Ebola, or to China to Fight Climatechange. That should shut them up for, oh, five minutes

  7. So two drinks a day qualifies one as a “mild alcoholic”?

    Reminds me of a physicians’s definition of a “well person” – – someone whose diagnostic workup is still incomplete.

  8. Twobottlesofwhiskyadayfene, now that would have helped me before I tried AA, which costs the taxpayer nothing.

    Two glasses of wine a day? That’s not even trying.

  9. I thought they routinely doubled what people said, so presumably if you say 1 glass, that’s taken as two (don’t mind if I do!), so every wine drinker is certain to qualify.

  10. When I started psychiatry in 1968, we already had disulfuram, Antabuse, which you can take regularly and which makes you very ill if you have a drink while it’s in your bloodstream. It was little used because if the patient wanted a drink without side-effects, he just omitted the Antabuse.
    The active ingredient in Antabuse is contained in the mushroom Coprinus atrimentarius.


    There will be some within half a mile of you if you live in the UK. It’s good if you want a laugh at a dinner party where the guests are reasonably robust.


  11. Also, this “glasses” thing: the cunning will say “none” (happily 2×0 is still 0, so that’s all right) and rely on the vodka jellies.

  12. Never mind “the cunning”–the only answer to such a question is “mind your own fucking business”.

  13. You’re assuming it won’t become an offence not to answer the question.

    I do wonder whether there isn’t the same trend here as is noted by Steyn about big government: http://www.steynonline.com/6586/ebola-yes-bagpipes-no

    We’re often told that the NHS is “in crisis” (despite sucking up more and more money since Brown’s time, and beyond) and no one has time to do anything, but there seem to be a fair number of people in the NHS and related organisations with time to come up with suggestions like this.

  14. I think that I’ll stick to the old definition of an alcoholic… “Someone who drinks more than his doctor”.

  15. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Exactly what level of drinking classes one as an alcoholic is impossible to quantify because it is behaviour that constitutes alcoholism more than just the millilitres of ethanol imbibed. There are non-alcoholic drinkers who consume more than some alcoholics. This is so typical of the prodnose medical profession – to take a bogus, pulled-out-of-a-hat number that bears no relation to any real problem – and then use it as the basis of policy recommendations. I am 100% confident that if you polled a group of recovering alcoholics and asked them if a couple of glasses of wine a night in the absence of any ancillary behavioural problems constituted alcoholism, mild or otherwise, they would laugh you to scorn,

  16. dearieme,

    > Let’s offer ‘em a choice. You’ll be shipped to Africa to Fight Ebola, or to China to Fight Climatechange.

    No, it wouldn’t be a proper scientific trial if we offered them a choice. We need to ship a third of them to China and a third of them to Africa, chosen at random. The remaining third would be the control group. We could ship them to, I don’t know, Helsinki? And to make it a proper double-blind trial, no-one must know where they’ve been sent. Might make it difficult to get them back, but hey, you can’t make science without breaking a few eggs.

  17. My mother refuses to see a GP unless they’re a smoker, on the grounds that the non-smokers never bother with a proper diagnosis as they just blame everything on her smoking. She used to be a rather senior NHS manager, so her attitude is based on intimate insider knowledge.

    She used not to have a problem with GPs until she worked with them. Now she loathes them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *