No abstract

This study evaluated the discriminative power and predictive validity of five common typological schemes used to classify alcoholics for theoretical or clinical purposes. A heterogenous sample of 321 alcoholics was classified according to primary vs secondary alcoholism, parental alcoholism, Fellinek's gamma-delta distinction, gender, and subtypes derived from MMPI profiles. A prospective longitudinal cohort design was employed to compare the relative ability of these typologies to differentiate alcoholics according to natural history, alcohol-related consequences, response to treatment, and post-treatment adjustment. The findings indicate that while 'one-dimensional' typologies discriminate subgroups in terms of etiological variables, presenting symptoms, and drinking patterns, none of the classification systems emerges as a strong predictor of outcome status. In addition, these typologies do not discriminate well with respect to the alcoholic's drinking patterns and presenting symptoms, except in areas closely connected with the model (e.g. alcoholics with antisocial personality (ASP) indicate more social problems related to alcohol use than do primary alcoholics). Because there is a great deal of overlap among certain subtypes identified within different typological models (e.g. alcoholics with primary ASP tended to have a positive family history and a gamma pattern of impaired control), we hypothesize that empirical clustering techniques that search for naturally occurring commonalities among alcoholics may be a better way to identify homogeneous subtypes.

Research involving the administration of ethanol to human subjects has been conducted with some regularity since the 1960s. The purpose of this paper is to provide a broader discussion of the ethical and clinical issues pertaining to the administration of ethanol to subjects with a history of alcohol dependence and to assess the potential benefits and risks of ethanol administration research. Three kinds of investigation are reviewed: (1) basic scientific research on alcohol dependence and related disabilities; (2) clinical research that involves ethanol administration as part of the treatment; and (3) studies that have evaluated the short- and long-term effects of ethanol administration on the health and wellbeing of alcoholic research participants. It is concluded that ethanol administration research has not only contributed to the fund of knowledge about basic mechanisms of alcohol dependence; it has also advanced the scientific understanding of treatment. Moreover there is no compelling evidence that participation in ethanol administration research per se has adverse effects on alcoholic research subjects. In the interests of developing a practical approach to the ethical dilemmas posed by ethanol administration research, an ethical review process is suggested that takes into account the principles of respect for people, beneficence, and justice by tailoring the risk/benefit analysis to four types of research subjects: alcoholics recruited directly from the community, subjects recruited from residential treatment settings, recovering alcoholics, and alcoholics in outpatient treatment.

No abstract

No abstract