Addiction should or should not be defined as a disease

An Annotated Bibliography

Heather , Nick. “Is Addiction a Brain Disease or a Moral Failing? A: Neither ” Neuroethics  10 (2017): 115-24.

This article marks Mark Lewis’s work as a foundation to argue the socio-political perspective of the “brain disease model of addiction (BDMA)”. The statement that promoting BDMA is the only way to convince the general public to reject the guilt and punishment of drug addicts has been criticized. After discussing public understanding of the concept of disease dependence, it is pointed out that a scientific explanation of addiction can be developed that is neither a disease nor an ethical model, but that the public can recognize.Addiction as a choice disorder can cause particular problems in public communication and risk being misunderstood. Though, methods of offering this model to the public are proposed to evade such risks. Finally, it disputes the assertion that BDMA is the only way to ensure access to treatment and support funding for addiction research, as well as a way to preserve these benefits in the proposed model of the choice disorder. In conclusion, the article enthusiastically supports Lewis’s appeal or the third stage of the image of addiction management.

Copoeru, IoIon. “Portraying Addiction as a Disease: A Phenomenological Answer.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24 (2018): 1101-06.

This article is based on the concern that, in certain situations, classification could lead to the destruction of an object. It tries to response the query if there is a way to describe addiction without placing addicts in categories that hurt them. After the author shows in the first section how stigma is part of the process of becoming (and maintaining) addiction, he turns to the phenomenological practice to revisit the basic suggestive categories that have been used up to now to define addiction as a “deviant” or “pathological” or experience.

In the second section, addiction is considered as a familiarity of hetero-transformation of the psychophysical accord of the distinct individual, which includes a candid sense of the strength of the bodily theme, and the third is devoted to changes in time with dependence, particularly on the possibility of trauma. The article concludes that the understanding of addiction depends on the representation of the experience of addiction mainly as a form of non-pathological expression and considering it as an effort to repair the abilities of a exposed subject.

Snoek , Anke. “How to Recover from a Brain Disease: Is Addiction a Disease, or Is There a Disease-Like Stage in Addiction?” Neuroethics 10 (2017): 185–94.

People who struggle with addiction are neither powerless nor completely in control. Snock proposed replacing the concept of addiction as a disease with the concept of a stage analogous to addictive disease. The author called this stage of addiction coercion stage, in which the behavior of addiction is mainly resistant to the agent’s values ​​and the accessible self-control techniques.Though, the agent can repressed this phase by evolving new self-control techniques, building self-esteem and belief in their own effectiveness, changing their environment and practices, and participating in projects that are important to the agent.

Lewis , Marc. “Addiction and the Brain: Development, Not Disease.” Neuroethics10 (2017): 7–18.

In this article Lewis is reviewing a ‘brain disease model of addiction” endorsed by scientific, medical, and clinical experts in the United States and other countries. Lewis noted that the disease model was imperfect because addictive brain changes are similar to those commonly seen when repetitive, highly motivated, goal-oriented outcomes lead to deep habit development, Pavlovian learning, and prefrontal shutdown.This analysis is based on the concepts of self-organization, personality development, neuroplasticity, and delay reduction. It also highpoints neural and behavior parallels among substance addictions, normative compulsive behavior, behavioral addictions, and falling in love. He noticed that the short-term reward of addiction leads to damaging emotions that speed up the learning cycle, but the reconfiguration of the cortex during recovery should also notify our accepting of addiction. In conclusion, lewis shows that the ethos of the disease model makes it difficult to align with a learning and development orientation.

Fraser, Suzanne, et al. “Addiction Stigma and the Biopolitics of Liberal Modernity: A Qualitative Analysis    ” Journal of Drug Policy 44 (2017): 192-201.

The definitions of addiction have never been challenged. The advancement in neuroscience research has not only led to a highly controversial explanatory approach to public awareness, but has shed new light on the lack of agreement among the many experts who challenge it. Protagonists claim that considering addiction a “brain disease” is vital because it is de-stigmatizing. Several critics of neurobiological approach also agree with this.In this article, authors considered the issue of stigma as it plays on addiction to simplify and encounter claims of progress associated with disease patterns. The authors argue that by viewing stigma as politically prolific – as a random bio political performativity process, rather than as a constant marker of some previous difference – we can better understand what it is trying to achieve.This permits us to think through not only how the “disease” of addiction can be de-stigmatized, or even if the “disease” of addiction itself stigmatizes, but whether the problematization of “addiction” itself is in the first place is a process of stigmatization.