Neuroethics 13 (3):311-324 (2019)
AbstractSubstance addiction affects millions of individuals worldwide and yet there is no consensus regarding its conceptualisation. Recent neuroscientific developments fuel the view that addiction can be classified as a brain disease, whereas a different body of scholars disagrees by claiming that addictive behaviour is a choice. These two models, the Brain Disease Model and the Choice Model, seem to oppose each other directly. This article contends the belief that the two models in the addiction debate are polar opposites. It shows that it is not the large amount of addiction research in itself what sets the models apart, but rather their extrapolated conclusions. Moreover, some of the most fiercely debated aspects - for instance, whether or not addiction should be classified as a disease or disorder - are irrelevant for the conceptualisation of addiction. Instead, the real disagreement is shown to revolve around capacities. Discussing addiction-related capacities, especially regarding impaired control, rather than the assumed juxtaposition of the two models can be considered the true addiction debate. More insight into the extent to which the capacities of the addicted individual were affected would be highly useful in various other areas, especially legal responsibility.
Similar books and articles
Addiction and the Concept of Disorder, Part 1: Why Addiction is a Medical Disorder.C. Wakefield Jerome - 2016 - Neuroethics 10 (1):39-53.
Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction.Nora D. Volkow, George F. Koob & A. Thomas McClellan - 2016 - New England Journal of Medicine 374:363-371.
Squaring the Circle: Addiction, Disease and Learning.Maia Szalavitz - 2016 - Neuroethics 10 (1):83-86.
Views of Addiction Neuroscientists and Clinicians on the Clinical Impact of a 'Brain Disease Model of Addiction'.Stephanie Bell, Adrian Carter, Rebecca Mathews, Coral Gartner, Jayne Lucke & Wayne Hall - 2013 - Neuroethics 7 (1):19-27.
A Critique of the Disease Model of Addiction.Annette M. Mendola - 2003 - Dissertation, The University of Tennessee
Free Will, Black Swans and Addiction.Ted Fenton & Reinout W. Wiers - 2016 - Neuroethics 10 (1):157-165.
Addiction and Moralization: the Role of the Underlying Model of Addiction.Lily E. Frank & Saskia K. Nagel - 2017 - Neuroethics 10 (1):129-139.
Addiction and Moralization: the Role of the Underlying Model of Addiction.Steve Matthews & Anke Snoek - 2017 - Neuroethics 10 (1):129-139.
Addiction is not a brain disease (and it matters).Neil Levy - 2013 - Frontiers in Psychiatry 4 (24):1--7.
The neurobiology of addiction: Implications for voluntary control of behavior.Steven E. Hyman - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (1):8 – 11.
If Addiction is not Best Conceptualized a Brain Disease, then What Kind of Disease is it?Sally L. Satel & Scott O. Lilienfeld - 2016 - Neuroethics 10 (1):19-24.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Towards a Dispositionalist (and Unifying) Account of Addiction.Robert Kelly - forthcoming - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics:1-20.
Determinism and Destigmatization: Mitigating Blame for Addiction.Thomas W. Clark - 2020 - Neuroethics 14 (2):219-230.
References found in this work
Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making.Allen E. Buchanan & Dan W. Brock - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
The Concept of Disease and its Implications for Psychiatry.Robert Evan Kendell - 1974 - University of Edinburgh.
The Purpose in Chronic Addiction.Hanna Pickard - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 3 (2):40-49.
Agency and Responsibility: A Common-Sense Moral Psychology.Jeanette Kennett - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Cynthia's dilemma: Consenting to heroin prescription.Louis C. Charland - 2002 - American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):37-47.