Abstract
Berridge's nuanced approach to the conceptualization of addiction as a disease is easier for me to accept than most others. In fact, Berridge and I agree on many core features of addiction, but still not on how to label it. When competing definitions reach a standoff on intellectual grounds, we should look at the clinical utility of each. And here I think that Berridge misses a critical insight. Yet, we end by agreeing to keep listening to each other.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Berridge, Kent C. 2017. Is addiction a brain disease? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9286-3.
Brewer, Judson A., and Marc N. Potenza. 2008. The neurobiology and genetics of impulse control disorders: Relationships to drug addictions. Biochemical Pharmacology 75: 63–75. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2007.06.043.
Post, Robert M. 2007. Kindling and sensitization as models for affective episode recurrence, cyclicity, and tolerance phenomena. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.003.
Kvaale, E.P., N. Haslam, and W.H. Gottdiener. 2013. The “side effects” of medicalization: A meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clinical Psychology Review 33: 782–794. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.06.002.
Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the Brain: Development, not Disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, M. A Graded Approach to “Disease” -- Help or Hindrance? Reply to Berridge. Neuroethics 10, 35–37 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9316-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9316-9