The Addiction a Disease or Not - Essay Example

September 7, Addiction: A Definitional Analysis Introduction The voluminous search on varied concerns regarding addiction could immediately be proven through the search engine. One’s own research on the topic generated as much as 32.3 million results in merely 0.22 seconds (addiction). Refining the search into definition of addiction streamlined the results to 9.79 million within 0.16 seconds (definition of addiction); still a magnanimous source of information. The medical dictionary defines addiction as “a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance” (Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine par. 1). Saah, on the other hand, provided the meaning of the term as “a personality disorder, (which) may also be seen as a worldwide epidemic with evolutionary genetic, physiological, and environmental influences controlling this behavior” (Saah: Introduction par. 1). The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) presented its meaning as “a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences” (NIDA par. 1). These definitions have disparities in terms of identifying addiction as a state of dependence, which is a behavioral or personality condition; as contrasted to it being identified as a disease of the brain. The aim of the current discourse is therefore two-fold: (1) to argue whether addiction is a disease or a behavioral manifestation; and (2) to show evidence that confirms the veracity and validity of its contention through an examination of terminology. Background and Review of Literature The history of having diagnosed addiction as an abnormal condition was noted to have originated from the 1800s where doctors allegedly worked with patients, identified to have been diagnosed with alcoholism and drug addiction, as confined in private sanitariums (Origins Recovery Centers). Only in 1934 was it disclosed that a particular doctor, Dr. William D. Silkworth, had apparently revolutionized finding appropriate and effective treatment for addiction through the establishment and close link of working and being supported by a group of committed individuals. As noted, “it was the doctor’s belief that an addict has both mental and physical abnormalities” (Origins Recovery Centers par. 5). At this stage, addiction has already been identified complex in terms of containing mental, as well as physical abnormalities; components which were separately identified in definitions noted above. From the study written by Sussman and Sussman, the authors explored the various definitions of addiction. Accordingly, the authors included “elements of addiction derived from a literature search that uncovered 52 studies include: (a) engagement in the behavior to achieve appetitive effects, (b) preoccupation with the behavior, (c) temporary satiation, (d) loss of control, and (e) suffering negative consequences” (Sussman and Sussman 4025). The authors have likewise uncovered the date of origin of examining addiction cases to the 1700s from the study written by Meyer entitled “The disease called addiction: Emerging evidence in a 200-year debate” (Sussman and Sussman 4036). Analysis of the Definition of Addiction In a contemporary article written by Weir, the author revealed that the controversial nature of defining addiction, in conjunction with proposals for treatment remains to be debated by medical practitioners. As averred, “the current edition of the DSM, published in 1994, divides substance use disorders into two categories: dependence and abuse… In the upcoming fifth edition of the manual, or DSM-5, due to come out next May, the proposed changes call for combining the categories into a single diagnosis of ‘substance use disorder’” (Weir pars. 3 & 4). The controversial nature and ongoing debate is corroborated by Lewis who likewise asserted that “there are three main definitional categories for addiction: a disease, a matter of choice, and self-medication” (Lewis par. 2). Those who asserted that addiction is a disease allegedly supported and validated their contentions through stating that addictive substances significantly alter the brain. It was likewise expounded that “in the vulnerable brain -- not everyone who experiments with drugs is going to get addicted -- in the vulnerable brain, if you use drugs at a high enough dose, frequently enough, and for long enough, you literally change the way the brain works, you change the way nerve cells communicate in such a way that you develop this compulsive, out-of-control use despite knowing that all kinds of terrible things can happen to you, and despite even experiencing many of those things” (Hyman 1). On the contrary, Lewis contended that other emotions, such as love, also alter the brain; yet, not called a disease. He argued that “physical changes in the brain are its only way to learn, to remember, and to develop. But we wouldn’t want to call learning a disease” (Lewis par. 9). To this, he aptly concluded that “addiction (whether to drugs, food, gambling, or whatever) doesn’t fit a specific physiological category. Rather, I see addiction as an extreme form of normality, if one can say such a thing. Perhaps more precisely: an extreme form of learning. No doubt addiction is a frightening, often horrible, state to endure, whether in oneself or in one’s loved ones. But that doesn’t make it a disease” (Lewis par. 11). Confirmation These arguments point out that the definition of addiction is more complicated in terms of the complex factors that need to be considered, such as the five elements of addiction noted by Sussman and Sussman; as well as the criteria in the new definition under the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders which specifically indicated that: “a patient who meets at least two of the 11 criteria would be diagnosed with such a disorder” (Weir par. 4). On the medical science side, practitioners have supported the arguments that addiction is a disorder, an abnormality, a disease; regardless of it being debated on whether it should be categorized as a disease of the brain, or a personality disorder. The contrasting argument that addiction is not a disease lacks substantial support since it presupposes the condition as an extreme form of learning; apparently neglecting the negative consequences that make it a dilemma. A condition was accurately explained being considered as a disorder, it some requisites are present, to wit: “A condition is a disorder if and only if (a) the condition causes some harm or deprivation of benefit to the person as judged by the standards of the person’s culture (the value criterion), and (b) the condition results in the inability of some internal mechanism to perform its natural function, wherein natural function is an effect that is part of the evolutionary explanation of the existence and structure of the mechanism (the explanatory criterion)” (Wakefield 1992, p. 384). Since addiction clearly satisfies all the conditions above noted, then, it is definitely confirmed as a disease. Conclusion The current discourse successfully presented crucial concerns and issues that examined the evolution and components integrated in defining addiction and validating whether addiction is a disease. A brief historical background on the subject was presented; prior to delving into a review of related literature that pursued the controversial nature of defining the term. Likewise, it also traced the various elements and arguments that contributed to its controversial nature in terms of classifying it as a disease or other condition; which actually led to having identified it as an extreme learning form of learning. From the supporting arguments and validating statements, it was finally affirmed that since addiction satisfied all the requisites for clearly confirming it as a disorder; therefore, addiction was appropriately defined and acknowledged as a disease. Works Cited "addiction." 30 January 2013. Google. 30 January 2013 . "definition of addiction." 30 January 2013. Google. 30 January 2013 . Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. "Addiction: Definition." 2008. The Free Dictionary. 30 January 2013 . Hyman, Steven. "An Interview with Steven Hyman, M.D." n.d. Moyers on Addiction. 30 January 2013 . Lewis, Marc. "Why Addiction is NOT a Brain Disease." 12 November 2012. The Public Library of Science (PLOS). 30 January 2013 . Meyer, R. E. "The disease called addiction: Emerging evidence in a 200-year debate." Lancet (1996): Vol. 347, 162-166. Print. NIDA. "The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction." December 2012. drugabuse.gov. 30 January 2013 . Origins Recovery Centers. "History of Addiction ." n.d. originsrecovery.com. 30 January 2013 . Saah, Tammy. "The evolutionary origins and significance of drug addiction." 29 June 2005. Harm Reduction Journal. 30 January 2013 . Sussman, Steve and Alan N. Sussman. "Considering the Definition of Addiction." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2011): Vol. 8, 4025-4038.Print. Wakefield, J. "The concept of mental disorder: on the boundary between biological facts and social values." American Psychologist (1992): Vol. 47, 373-388. Print. Weir, William. "Doctors Disagree On How To Define Addiction." 23 July 2012. Hartford Courant. 30 January 2013 . Read More