Dear Caring Corner:
My husband recently told me he’s addicted to internet pornography. He has even gone so far as to actually meet some of the women he’s already “met” online. I am very upset, hurt, and angry. I think I would be willing to work on our marriage if he was willing, but he tells me addiction is a chemical or genetic thing so he can’t help himself. I can’t see any reason to try and save the marriage if he can’t help himself. Doesn’t that mean he’ll just keep on doing the same thing again and again? I’m at a loss to know what to do. Do I just stay with him and just keep on forgiving him if he can’t help what he’s doing? What if I get a STD? Or should I make him leave? Somehow neither option seems biblical to me. What do you think is the right thing to do?

Dear Caring Corner:
I just found out my college-aged son is an alcoholic. I am devastated. Before he went to college, he always seemed so kind and generous and was never a problem to us. I’m not sure what to do now. I hear all the time that alcohol is a disease and that’s what my son said his counselor at school told him (he’s on probation for some of the things he did while he was intoxicated). I’ve heard that, too, but I know the Bible says drunkenness is a sin. It seems really mean to me to call it a sin if it’s a disease. I know if it’s a disease, he’s addicted to it and he isn’t really responsible for what he did. It doesn’t seem fair to me that he’s on probation although some of the things he did were really awful. He wants to come home and live for awhile. I wonder if we should let him do that? How can we best help him?


Answer:
I have put these questions together since they both deal with the concept of “addiction.” I would like to talk about what the medical profession, AA, and the Bible each have to say about “addiction.” Bottom line, the object(s) of our addiction (sex or alcohol—or drugs, food, laziness, anger, procrastination, shopping, spending, gossiping, people-pleasing, self-righteousness, etc.) does not really matter. The principle behind addiction is always the same: we are all drawn to find life in someone or something other than the living God. (To answer the above questions, I will do a short overview of the theology and science of addiction. If you just want a practical answer, skip to the end. If you want to know why this is the answer you are receiving, please read the entire answer.)

In Addiction: a Banquet in the Grave, author Ed Welch calls addiction a “disorder of worship” and states that an addict is like Solomon who declared, “I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure” (Eccl. 2:10). That is, he was worshipping himself by selfish indulgence in any and every thing he craved. When one is ruled by his or her sensual desires, it is because s/he loves what an addiction does for him or her more than s/he loves God. Even AA calls giving in to one’s every desire “self-will run riot.” When one gives in to an addiction, s/he is serving what one loves: “Either we will love and serve God or we will love and serve our idols” (Welch, 1998, p. 23).

However, to one who is “caught” in an addiction, it doesn’t seem as if s/he is worshipping a drug, food, sex, etc.—it feels like one who has “caught” a “real” disease. What about the biological aspect of addiction? When AA was founded by Bill Wilson in the 1930s, he used the metaphor of “disease” to describe alcoholism. That is, he did not mean it was a disease; he was saying it was like a disease. Eventually, the like was dropped and people began saying that alcoholism is a disease. Although AA speaks of the cause of alcoholism in disease terms, “the cure is decidedly moral” (Welch, 1998, p. 21). The way to stop the course of the disease is to say “no,” because even though “you are not responsible for the cause . . . you are responsible for the cure” (p. 21).

Many researchers, however, state that “addictions—whether to food, cigarettes, sex, alcohol, drugs—are not diseases, and they’re not necessarily lifelong problems” (Peele & Brodsky, 1992). Dr. Peele states, “Addiction characterizes some aspect of everyone’s life—this is one reason why it is so ridiculous to think of it as a disease. . . . people [can] learn to resist successfully the addictive or unhealthy urges that come with being human” (p. 46). Another researcher, William Playfair, M.D., in The Useful Lie, relates:

Some sort of genetic factor is possibly present, but its exact role is uncertain and miniscule. In summary, it seems that:

• genetics may be a factor in predisposition to alcoholism, but its magnitude is unknown.

• the studies have been hampered by differing definitions of
alcoholism by the various researchers.

• genetics may be used to predict national rates of alcoholism, but
is useless on an individual basis since 83 percent of the time the prediction is not fulfilled.

• whatever the role of heredity, if any, life history and environment
appear to be far more important in determining whether or not an individual will ever become a heavy drinker.

• genetic factors do not account for the widely ranging differences between problem and non-problem drinkers.

• no evidence shows that certain individuals become alcoholics as a
result of the first drink.

No one can demonstrate that a gene causes alcoholism, just as no one can demonstrate that a gene causes adultery, lying, thievery, blasphemy, or any other such behavior. These are sinful activities in which we choose to participate rather than diseases we inherit (pp. 47-48). “The idea that alcoholism is genetic is the leading example of the effective marketing of pseudoscience by biological psychiatry,” state Ross & Pam (995, p. 97).

Calling addiction a disease started as long ago as 1784, when Dr. Benjamin Rush first described habitual drunkenness, as well as lying, murder, and political dissent, as diseases (Katz & Liu, 1991). This disease concept was “seized by the temperance societies which won Prohibition and today stands as the basis for the modern temperance movement spearheaded by Alcoholics Anonymous” (p. 18). Even though it went out of favor during the Victorian era, “Dr. Rush’s interpretation of all undesirable behavior as a disease was resuscitated during the past century by members of the psychiatric and legal communities” until Dr. Karl Menninger, echoing Dr. Rush’s beliefs, “wrote in 1928: ‘The time will come when stealing and murder will be thought of as a symptom, indicating the presence of a disease, a personality disease.’” These theories form “the overriding presumption throughout that the individual is unaccountable” (p. 18). A critic of the progressive disease theory of human behavior, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, further states, “Psychiatric diagnoses are stigmatizing labels, phrased to resemble medical diagnoses and applied to persons whose behavior annoys or offends others” (p. 18). So, “by fitting our problems into disease categories we create the illusion that they can easily be explained and treated without our ever claiming responsibility for them.” This brings about “an unfortunate result of our culture’s acceptance of the disease theory: we tend to overlook cases of individuals who cure or avoid problems by claiming responsibility for them” (p. 18). Citing cases of celebrities, Katz & Liu point out that “behavior that is considered unusual, shameful, or threatening gets attention, while moderate behavior does not” (pp. 18-19).

“If addiction is a disease, then it is a disease of choice,” state Katz & Liu; “[it] is simply not the same as a virus or bacteria that unexpectedly invades our bodies and takes control of our lives. Addictive behavior involves choice and consent. It is an active expression of our values, skills, and expectations—or lack of them. . . . [so] the responsibility for the addiction lies with the addict” (1991, p. 207; 13). To state that theologically, “one is habituated into sinning; the longer it is practiced, the more a bondage it becomes. . . . [while] one is not responsible for the vulnerability [which one may have to addiction], . . one nevertheless chooses how to deal with it” (Mercadante, 1996, p. 115). Welch summarizes, “there is no clear evidence that alcoholism is primarily a disease. . . . No one has found a gene or a chemical imbalance. Most researchers are quick to point out that genes can influence people, and this, of course, is true. We can be genetically predisposed to enjoying a particular drug, food, or activity. But there is a huge difference between being influenced by genetics and being determined by it” (1998,p.24).

It is very difficult for our culture to give up the gene/disease concept of addiction, alcoholism in particular, “despite the fact that it has no scientific foundation and is logically incorrect. . . . {The belief is] that alcoholics are born with a reduced tolerance to alcohol, and therefore get drunk more easily than nonalcoholics, resulting in their drinking to intoxication more readily and more often” (Ross & Pam, 1995, p. 96). However, if intoxication were not “reinforcing, pleasant, and a reward” and if it was instead perceived as unpleasant, then alcohol would be avoided by even those who become intoxicated more often. In other words, even if a person had a gene for alcoholism, when he drank the first time if he got, say, severe stomach cramps, vomiting and diarrhea instead of euphoria or anxiety-reduction—would s/he continue to drink? Would the gene continue to “cause” him to drink? Of course, an alcoholic can get to the place where s/he has developed severe physical consequences (e.g., cirrhosis of the liver) and yet continues to drink. So, even though the bad consequences of alcoholism are no deterrent (later on in the person’s drinking history), what if there were no pleasant consequences, either—no euphoria, calmness, relaxation—just nothing. Would a person continue to drink to intoxication if he felt nothing? That’s why s/he drinks more and more—to keep feeling the same effect as when s/he first started drinking. In more medical terms, Ross & Pam state, “Alcoholism cannot be a primarily genetically driven condition like Huntington’s chorea because Huntington’s chorea occurs no matter what human beings are doing culturally, as do Tay-Sachs disease and Lesch-Nyan syndrome. Once one has the gene for one of these illnesses, it will inevitably be expressed as a full disease syndrome” (p. 98).

Their conclusion is that “Alcoholism is the behavioral outcome of an accidentally related set of circumstances: (a) the invention of alcohol, (b) the fact that alcohol causes intoxication, and (c) the fact that intoxication is highly valued by some human beings.” To drive this point home, they ask, “Do traveling salesmen drink more and eat more French fries than control groups because of genetic illnesses called alcoholism and French frieism, which drive them into this occupation? Isn’t it likely a scientific fact that more people die from the long-term bio-medical consequences of eating fast food than of alcoholism in North America? Why is there no inherited disease of fast food consumption? This does not occur because decisions about what gets conceptualized as a biomedical illness within psychiatry are entirely socially determined” (Ross & Pam, 1995, p. 99).

Perhaps you are considering now that alcoholism might not be a disease. What about a sexual addiction, however? Let me ask the same question as I did above: What if sexual “addiction” to the internet or promiscuity had no “pleasant” reward? Without that reward, I don’t think a sexual addiction “gene” would make one keep looking—do you? What if one felt nothing when s/he participated in these activities (isn’t that sometimes why sex in marriage stops—“I just don’t feel like having sex with you any longer” i.e., “you do not bring me pleasure”)? Are those the words of someone who “can’t help it?” (In other words, if you have cancer or some other measurable medical disorder, it doesn’t come and go according to what you do.) Katz & Liu agree with “anthropologist Melvin Konner, who was so troubled by Boston Red Sox player Wade Boggs’s public declaration of ‘sexual addiction’ as the excuse for his philandering that he wrote, ‘We would all like to point at an illness—a psychiatric label—and say of our weak or bad actions that that thing, the illness, did it, not me. It.’ But at some point we must draw ourselves up to our full height, and say in a clear voice what we have done and why it was wrong. And we must use the word ‘I’ not ‘it’ or ‘illness.’ I did it, I. I” (1991, p. 49). As Jeremiah 8:6 says, “I have listened attentively, but they do not say what is right. No one repents of his wickedness, saying, ‘What have I done?’”

And think about this: What if an anorexic got fat when she didn’t eat? Would she continue not eating? What if a gambler never won—would he continue to gamble? What if a person raged but it never affected anyone he raged at? Are you beginning to better understand what Welch means when he says, “We love what our [addiction] does for us more than we love God”? A non-Christian addict is still loving what a pleasurable (or numbing) addiction does for him/her until s/he finds something else which is more rewarding (or numbing) or even healthy. Do you begin to understand the huge role choice plays in addiction? What is it that causes the addict to choose the bait of addiction/sin? It is a “longing—a longing not just of brain, belly, or loins but finally of the heart. Because they are human beings, addicts long for wholeness, for fulfillment, and for the final good that believers call God. Like all idolatries, addiction taps this vital spiritual force and draws off its energies to objects and processes that drain the addict instead of filling him. Accordingly, the addict longs not for God but for transcendence, not for joy but only for pleasure—and sometimes for mere escape from pain” (Plantinga, 1995, p. 131).

Isn’t the actual question, “Does the person have values that are stronger than that of continuing the addiction? In fact, nearly every addict has one such value or set of values and has quit the addiction for a time” (Peele, 1995, p. 187). Examining a study about cigarette smoking and the “inability” to quit, Peele observes that “Orthodox Jews who are addicted to cigarettes quit smoking ‘without a qualm’ on the Sabbath.” He asks, “How is it that [they] can overcome chemical dependence so readily for the entire Sabbath day when it is the first twenty-four hours during which people feel withdrawal pangs most intensely? The answer would appear to be that Orthodox Jews’ devotion to God and Jewish tradition is greater than their urge for tobacco. . . . somehow this story doesn’t appeal to scientists, however, because these values that combat addiction---like God, health, self-control, a desire for the good opinion of others—have been around forever and don’t constitute scientific-seeming discoveries” (p. 188).

Now to address your addiction question(s): Biblically, you must come to believe your spouse and son are not held victim by a disease, but that they have the ability to change if they want to allow God to work in their lives. However, doing change God’s way doesn’t mean it will be any easier than any other way (it’s even harder, actually, because God deals with our hearts—what we actually want, which requires dying to self—rather than just our learning to change our behavior). God wants to change what we want so that we want Him more than our addiction. John Piper, in Future Grace (1995), states that “No one sins out of duty. Sin is what you do when your heart is not satisfied with God. We sin because it holds out some promise of happiness. That promise enslaves us until we believe that God is more to be desired than life itself (Psalm63:3). Which means that the power of sin’s promise is broken by the power of God’s. All that God promises to be for us in Jesus stands over against what sin promises to be for us without him. This great prospect of the glory of God is what I call future grace[: when God] “emancipates human hearts from servitude to the fleeting pleasures of sin” (pp. 9-10).

In another of Piper’s books, Sovereign Joy (2000), he tells us that “God works deep in the human heart to transform the springs of joy so that we love God more than sex or anything else. Loving God, in Augustine’s mind, is never reduced to deeds of obedience or acts of willpower. Loving God is being so satisfied in God and so delighted in all that he is for us that his commandments cease to be burdensome. Augustine saw this. And we need him badly today to help us recover the root of all Christian living in the triumphant joy in God that dethrones the sovereignty of laziness and lust and greed. For Augustine, loving God is always a delighting in God, and in other things only for God’s sake” (pp. 57-58).

Similarly, Welch tells us that once we recognize our “addiction” (idolatry) problem as one of worship, we realize that the knowledge of God becomes our most important goal because we “need to learn who should be the true object of worship [and once this] “idea takes hold of your heart, you will find that you feel increasingly more at home in a good church than in an AA fellowship. You will draw strength and wisdom from sermons, find encouragement in corporate singing, be spiritually fed in communion, and search the Bible for the living God. You will come to know more about the God who is bigger than you ever thought: bigger in justice, in power, and in love. You will see how His greatness works on your behalf. One problem with AA is that the ‘God as you understand Him to be’ is never large enough” (1998, p. 25).

A good indication that either your spouse or your son wants to grow and change is this: “do [they] have a clear, public strategy? Put another way, if anyone says, ‘I am really going to change this time—[but] I don’t think I need any help,’ then that person has yet to understand the biblical teaching on self-control [of the Spirit]. It is one thing to make a resolution; it is something completely different to repent, diligently seek counsel, and, in concert with others, develop a plan that is concrete and Christ-centered. The heart of any plan, of course, must be Jesus Christ. Self-control is like any other feature of wisdom in that it is learned by contemplating a person. Strategically, this is unprecedented. We would expect God to yell at us and tell us, again, to shape up, but God’s ways, being much better than our own, are rarely predictable. Rather than give us twelve steps on which to rely, he gives us a Person to know. As Jesus is known and exalted among us, you will notice that self-control becomes more and more obvious. The double cure for sin is the foundation for all change. That is, in the gospel, we have been released from both the condemnation and the power of sin. "We have been freed ‘to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he rescued from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (I Thess. 1:9,10) (Welch, 2001, p. 31).

The reason it’s harder to do things God’s way is because “it’s a deeper war” than just focusing on our behavior. While “the Bible is always about behavior . . . it is never only about behavior . . . [because] such [addictive] behavior always arises from desires and beliefs that dethrone God. Whenever I do wrong, I am loving something besides God with all my heart, soul, mind, and might. I am listening attentively to some other voice” (Powlison, 2005, p. 90). It is incredibly important whose voice I listen to, because “the only way you ever sin is by suppressing God, by forgetting, by tuning out his voice, switching channels, and listening to other voices. When you actually remember, you actually change. In fact, remembering is the first change. . . . In order to sin, you’ll have to drown out the voice of reality, put your fingers in your ears, and switch to the fantasy channel, the lie channel, the death channel” when all the time “you only have to open your eyes, listen, and turn around in order to find help. After all, he who loves you says, ‘I am with you’” (p. 106).

When Paul was talking to King Agrippa, he said, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20). Your spouse and son will need to show deeds of repentance (obviously, only God can see their hearts) if they are serious about changing. Your “addict” (not forgetting we are all addicted to and idolize some form of sin) must show that s/he is “serious about recovery [and] must at some point take responsibility for the wreckage that surrounds [his/her] addiction and for the salvage work that now needs to start. . . . But the first question for addicts and for all sinners is plain and urgent: In whose name is your help? Who or what is your only comfort in life and in death? To whom or to what do you ultimately belong? The addict who turns to God has made the big and right decision. That is because ‘the hardness of God is kinder than the softness of man, and His compulsion is our liberation.’ But no mere decision is enough. Like all sinners, the addict also needs painfully to unlearn old habits, to dismantle old scenarios, to pay old debts, and then to move steadfastly along the road to recovery one small, secure step at a time [because] we are not in full control of ourselves and cannot find any method of gaining control. The addict therefore needs not just the God who forgives but also the God who heals, not just the good Pardoner but also the Great Physician. Like all sinners, the addict needs spiritual hygiene. For just as sin, addiction, and misery typically go together, so do confession, healing, and the long process of redemption” (Plantinga, 1995, p. 138; 148-149). These are the kinds of behaviors and words you are looking for in one serious about changing.

Always, we need to look at our own hearts first and get the log/beam/plank out of our own eyes before confronting an addict (any sinner) (Matt. 7:5). We must always remember that we are no better than the (obvious) addict. Just because our sins may not show as readily does not mean our hearts before God are not just as evil as anyone else’s. We are to be full of the fruit of the Spirit as we deal with the repentant person. We must also remember that we cannot change another person. That is God’s job. God may call us to patiently walk with the person or He may call us to let go if the person is rebellious and bent on going his/her own way. It may be that we will have to see that person we love “in the middle of a difficult and painful struggle, [but we must learn not] . . . to prevent it, but pray that his difficulty will grow even ten times stronger, until no power on earth or in hell could hold him away from Jesus Christ. Over and over again, we try to be amateur providences in someone’s life. We are indeed amateurs, coming in and actually preventing God’s will and saying, ‘This person should not have to experience this difficulty.’ Instead of being friends of the Bridegroom, our sympathy gets in the way. One day that person will say to us, ‘You are a thief; you stole my desire to follow Jesus, and because of you I lost sight of Him.’. . . Listen intently with your entire being until you hear the Bridegroom’s voice in the life of another person. And never give any thought to what devastation, difficulties, or sickness it will bring. Just rejoice with godly excitement that His voice has been heard. You may often have to watch Jesus Christ wreck a life before He saves it (see Matthew 10:34)” (Chambers, 3/24).

Practically, as the wife of a sexual addict, you need to be tested for a STD. If your spouse is unrepentant, you need to consult with your elders regarding church discipline based on Matt. 18. Allow your elders to help you make wise decisions about the best way to deal with your spouse (also see below resources). Don’t forget to ask God about ways you may have sinned against your spouse. As stated above, you will need help and accountability in your own life as God works in your own heart--regardless of the direction your spouse chooses. He will also change you through this time of suffering and testing.

As a parent, you need to talk to your son. You need to set firm guidelines about what you will and will not allow in your home. If s/he is not willing to live by those guidelines, then s/he does not really want to come home and work on the problem—s/he wants to use you. However, you are not just setting arbitrary rules of conduct. You will also work on the relationship you have with him. You need to find out if there are ways you have sinned against him and ask his forgiveness. Remember that God tells us “if we do [whatever we are commanded] then He will [do what He says],” i.e., He lets us know ahead of time what is going to happen if we disobey. That needs to be plainly spelled out for your son if you are even going to consider his coming home. You need to decide what that entails, e.g., finding a job (within what time frame?); paying rent; seeking accountability as stated above; if he will have a curfew; etc. He also needs to know what happens if he does not do the things he has been asked to do. You are not helping him if you allow him to continue blatantly in sin (see Chambers above).

Please see the bibliography and the resources for more help and information along these lines.

We at the Caring Corner know that there are many who may have life troubling circumstances and questions. Whether family, friends or even the questions that come as we read God's word and then look into the mirror. Often we are anxious or feel there is no one to ask for advice.   

We want to try and help many of you to answer those questions through God's word. So, if you have questions that you don't mind sharing, Cathy Wiseman M.A. of the Caring Corner is a biblical counselor and would like to attempt and help those who have need. If you would like please email your questions to:

caringcorner@ugmsac.com

And she will attempt to answer them.

Bibliography

Katz, S. & Liu, A. (1991). The codependency conspiracy: how to break the recovery
habit and take charge of your life. NY: Warner Books, Inc.
Mercadante, L. (1996). Victims & sinners: spiritual roots of addiction and recovery.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Peele, P. & Brodsky, A. (1989). Diseasing of America: How we allowed recovery zealots and the treatment industry to convince us we are out of control. NY:Lexington Books.
Peele, P. & Brodsky, A. (1992). The truth about addiction and recovery. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Piper, J. (1995). Future grace. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Press.
Piper, J. (2002). The legacy of sovereign joy: God’s triumphant grace in the lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Wheaton: Crossway Books.
Plantinga, C. (1995). Not the way it’s supposed to be: a breviary of sin. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Playfair, W. (1991). The useful lie: the real truth from the Bible and science about
addictions and codependence-and how you can be free of them! Wheaton: Crossway Books.
Powlison, D. (2005). Making all things new: restoring pure joy to the sexually broken.
In J. Piper & J. Taylor (Eds.), Sex and the supremacy of Christ (pp. 65-106). Wheaton: Crossway Books.
Ross, C. & Pam, A. (1995). Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry.NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Welch, E. (1998). A letter to an alcoholic. The Journal of Biblical Counseling, 16 (3) 19-26.
Welch, E. (1998). Addictions: new ways of seeing, new ways of walking free. The Journal of Biblical Counseling, 19 (3), 19-30.
Welch, E. (2001). Self-control: the battle against ‘one more.’ The Journal of Biblical Counseling, 19 (2), 24-31.
Welch, E. (2003). Addictions--A banquet in the grave: Finding hope in the power of the gospel. P&R Publishing.


Further Resources

deParrie, P. (1989). Romanced to death: The sexual seduction of American culture.
Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.
Fitzpatrick, E. & Hendrickson, L. (2006). Will medicine stop the pain? Finding God’s healing fro depression, anxiety & other troubling emotions. Chicago: Moody Publishers.
Fitzpatrick, E. (2003). Helper by design: God’s perfect plan for women in marriage. Chicago: Moody Publishers.
Gallagher, S. (1986). Tearing down the high places of sexual idolatry. Dry Ridge, KY:
Pure Life Ministries ( HYPERLINK "http://www.purelifeministries.org" www.purelifeministries.org)
Jones, R. (2005). Uprooting anger: Biblical help for a common problem. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.
Lane, T. & Tripp, P. (2005). How people change. Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press.
Lane, T. & Tripp, P. (2006). Relationships: a mess worth making. Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press.
Priolo, L. Heart of anger.
Priolo, L. (2007). Pleasing people: How not to be an ‘approval junkie.’ Philipsburg, NJ:
P&R Publishing.
Sande, P. The Peacemaker; Peacemaker for Families.
Smith, W. (2007). Caught off guard: Encounters with the unexpected God. Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press.
Seel, D. (2000). Parenting without perfection: Being a kingdom influence in a toxic world. Colorado Springs: NavPress.
Tripp, P. (2000). War of words: Getting to the heart of your communication struggles.
Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.
Tripp, P. Age of Opportunity: A Biblical guide to parenting teens. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.
Welch, E. When people are big and God is small.
Welch, E. (1998). Blame it on the brain? Distinguishing chemical imbalances, brain disorders, and disobedience. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.
Welch, E. (2004). Depression--A stubborn darkness: Light for the path. Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press.

Terms And Agreement:

We assume no responsibility for the email respondent, their state of mind, emotions or physical condition.

Although you may email to and read the Caring Corner articles and responses, you are responsible for getting the proper help that you need and UGMSac.com/Cathy Wiseman has no legal bindings or ties to assist you in getting help.




Disclaimer:

While UGMSac.com/Cathy Wiseman makes every effort to present accurate and reliable information on this web site. UGMSac.com/Cathy Wiseman strongly recommends that readers do there own due-diligence in the investigation of information. UGMSac.com/Cathy Wiseman cannot endorse, approve, or certify information provided by the Caring Corner. Reading and responding to the Caring Corner is voluntary, and reliance on it should only be undertaken after an independent review of its accuracy, completeness, efficacy, and timeliness. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, service mark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by UGMSac.com/Cathy Wiseman. UGMSac.com/Cathy Wiseman (including its employees and agents) assumes no responsibility for consequences resulting from the use of the information herein, or from the use of the information obtained at linked Internet addresses, or in any respect for the content of such information, including (but not limited to) errors or omissions, the accuracy or reasonableness of factual or scientific assumptions, studies or conclusions, the defamatory nature of statements, ownership of copyright or other intellectual property rights, and the violation of property, privacy, or personal rights of others.