Contrasting Two Theories of Addiction - Essay Example

Comparing and Contrasting Two Theories of Addiction Grade (Feb. 3rd, Comparing and contrasting two theories of addiction Addiction is a term that has been applied to refer to the behavior of an individual being no longer responsible for, or in control of his/her thoughts, feelings and behavior towards something (West, 2005). In this respect, various theories have been put forward in an attempt to explain why individual continue to engage in the consumption and abuse of drugs even despite the fact that such behaviors have harmful or negative consequences on such individuals. There are different theories that have been put across, trying to explain the causation of drug dependence and abuse among the drug addicts. However, despite the numerous views on the causation of drug abuse and dependence among the addicts, there is no single theory that enjoys universal support for its explanation, owing to the fact that the real cause of addiction has not been fully devised (Powledge, 2002). Instead, when one theory fails to give a convincing explanation on one aspect of drug addiction and dependence, another theory comes in to fill the gap, which then makes the complete understanding of addiction and its causation a matter of blending various theoretical dimensions into forming the most insightful explanation. In this respect, this discussion seeks to compare and contrast two of the most diverse theories of addiction; the disease theory of addiction and the moral theory of addiction. These two theories appear to offer very different explanations regarding the causation of drug and substance abuse and dependence, making them suitable for offering varied insights regarding the issue of addiction. Discussion The moral theory of addition describes addiction to certain drugs and substances as a matter of choice for individuals (Tatarsky, 2003). According to the moral theory of addiction, the principle of choice has indicated that some people have chosen to use drugs while others have opted not to engage in drug use, all as a matter of individual preference. On the contrary, the disease theory of addiction offers a completely different description of addiction, by holding that addiction is something that is wholly beyond the control of the affected individual, and thus passes as a disease, just like any other disease that people may suffer (Zinberg, 1972). Thus, according to the disease theory of addiction, an individual has a choice in as far as treating the disease is concerned, but not a choice over whether to have or not have the addiction in the first place. In this respect, the explanations of the concept of addiction by the two theories actually portrays too much disparity, so much so that it creates confusion, instead of creating explanation to the concept of addiction. The disease model holds that addiction is a disease because it causes an individual to develop compulsive tendencies that are beyond normal behavior of individuals. This model holds that the drugs have ill effects that cause individuals to engage in behaviors that are outside their will (Tatarsky, 2003). These effects include the changes in brain that are brought about by the drugs, which in turn cause the affected individuals some overpowering urges to do things that are beyond their control. The disease model of addiction also introduces the concept of craving, which holds that the overpowering urge caused by the drugs in the brain of the addicts is so strong. Thus, the addicts are compelled to take whatever steps necessary to fulfill this urgent and overpowering urge, to the exclusion of everything else (Sullivan, 2002). The outcome of this compelling urge is that the drug addict has no choice regarding whether to take drugs or not, since the only way out is for the addict to access and consume the drugs urgently, regardless of whether they have negative implications on the addict. Thus, the disease model of addiction holds that addiction is a mental illness suffered by an individual from the prolonged period of using certain drugs and substances, such that the individual’s brain becomes responsive to both lack and the consumption of the drugs in different ways. However, while there appears to be some truth in relation to the explanations of addiction by the disease model of addiction, the major shortcoming is that the model has not offered convincing truths regarding why this disease only attacks some individuals (Beauchamp, 1980). The moral theory of addiction holds that consumption of drugs is a choice for individuals, and thus just the same way an individual can choose to take the drugs, they can also choose not to (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2008). The moral model holds a philosophical view that the drug and substance addicts are people suffering as a result of their failure to abide by some ethical or moral standards observed by the rest of the society. Thus, the moral model holds that drug and substance addicts are just individuals with no will power. The major truth associated with the moral model of addiction is the fact that; starting the consumption of drugs and substances is a matter of choice for individuals (Carlson, 2001). The moral model therefore holds that addicts are just bad people trying to get good. According to the moral model, drug and substance abuse constitutes irresponsible behavior on the part of the addicts, or at the worst, evil conduct. However, the moral model fails to recognize that; though starting the consumption of the drugs is a matter of voluntary choice for individuals, there is no telling what the voluntary drug consumption will do to an individual. There are some people who indulge in drug and other substance consumption, yet they do not seem to suffer greatly from the negative consequences. On the other hand, other people consume the substances and instantly become a slave (Chance, 2003). The most outstanding disparity is the fact that the moral and the disease models of addiction engages in a tag of war regarding the concept of addiction, with the moral theory of addiction placing the full responsibility of addiction on the affected individual, while the disease theory of addiction exonerates the affected individual from any responsibility (Comer, 2004). The outcome of this tag of war is that the moral theory upholds addiction as either a sin or a criminal issue, and thus points to either the church or the courts, as the direction of resolving the issue. On the other hand, the disease model points to the clinical and psychological intervention as the direction of resolving the issue of addiction, owing to the fact that the model holds the affected individuals as suffering from a condition that is beyond their control (Durrant, Adamson, Todd & Sellman, 2009). The moral theory and the disease theory of addiction compare in the sense that both have failed to offer adequate explanation regarding the causation and the appropriate ways of addressing addiction. First, the moral theory of addiction holds that the only way out of addiction for the affected individuals is through either corrective or punitive measures (Edwards, 2012). Therefore, the moral theory holds that any other intervention that works towards protecting the addict from further negative effects of addiction, for example a program that creates awareness and advocates for the prevention of sharing needles among the addicts, as inappropriate. This is because; the moral theory holds that the drug addicts have engaged in the practice of drug and substance abuse voluntarily and as a matter of choice, and thus they deserve to be punished for it (Everitt & Robbins, 2005). The disease model also fails in a similar way. The disease model of addiction holds that addiction is a matter that is beyond the control of an individual, thus absolves the issue of personal responsibility and choice. Instead, the disease model tends to create a justification for involvement in drug and substance abuse, through holding that the affected individuals do not do it as a matter of choice, but simply because they cannot help it (Gordon, 2003). The effect of the failures in both the moral theory and the disease theory of addiction is that; both the affected individuals and the society are placed at an even higher risk of experiencing the negative implications of addiction. This is because; with the moral theory of addiction placing the burden of addiction solely on the affected individual by holding that it is a matter of choice, the society is released from its responsibility to help the addicts overcome the addiction habit (Heyman, 2009). On the other hand, with the drug and substance addicts being exonerated from any responsibility by the disease model of addiction which holds that addictions is a force beyond an individual’s control, it fails to shape and sustain responsibility for addicts to seek treatment and overcome the addiction (Keyes, 2002). The overall effect of both the moral theory and the disease theory of addiction is creating explanations that distort either the societal or the addict’s responsibility to do what it takes to overcome the addiction. The moral theory perceives the addict as a villain, while the disease model perceives the addict as a victim. This way, the moral theory places the responsibility of overcoming addiction solely on the individual, while the disease control places the burden on the society to help the addict overcome the addiction (Levinthal, 2010). The other contrast between the moral model and the disease model is that; the disease model of addiction eliminates the societal stigma and the moral shame that is associated with drug and substance addiction (Koob, 2003). This occurs through the model holding that addiction is not a matter of poor choice, but rather a matter of serious illness that is beyond the will power of the affected individual. It is this perception that removes the shame and guilt that is associated with drug addiction, and thus allows the addicts to seek intervention and treatment without fear (Pistoi, 2001). Nevertheless, the major weakness associated with the disease model is that it makes excuses for deviant social behavior, by holding that drug and substance addicts are not the wrong doers, but rather, it is the drugs they consume (Miller & Gold, 990). On the other hand, the moral model advocates for personal responsibility on the side of the addicts, and thus empowers people to make the right choices right from the beginning (Parrot, Morinan, Moss & Scholey, 2004). In addition, the moral model also brings a spiritual angle to the addiction issue, by holding that the willpower of the drug addicts is weak, and thus advocates for a strong willpower to refuse to engage in drug and substance consumption, through upholding the moral and ethical codes established by the society. Nevertheless, the moral model contributes in stigma, shame and guilt on the side of the drug and substance addicts, thus making it difficult for them to seek the right intervention (McKim, 1997). Conclusion Addiction is a concept that has been explained in varied terms. Addiction refers to a situation where an affected individual is no longer able to control his/her will and urge to consume drugs and substances, even though they have negative and harmful effects on the individual. Numerous theories have been developed to address the issue of addiction, most especially in relation to the causation factors and how it can be addressed. However, there is no single theory that has been developed so far, which can claim to have given a complete explanation of addiction. The different theories that have been developed do not seek to comprehensively explain addiction, but rather to fill in the gaps that have been left by the other theories in their explanations of addiction. The moral model and the disease model of addiction are some of the major theories that have been developed to explain the concept of addiction. However, as opposed to being complementary, the two theories contrast to a greater extent, with the moral theory holding that addiction is as a result of poor personal choices, while the disease model holds that addiction is a disease that is beyond the control of an individual. The effect of these contrasting explanations is that the moral model places the entire burden on the addicts, thus creating guilt, shame and stigma on their side. On the other hand, the disease model exonerates the drug and substance addicts from any responsibility, thus condoning deviant social behavior associated with addiction. References Beauchamp, D.E. (1980). Beyond alcoholism: Alcoholism and public health policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Capuzzi, D., & Stauffer, M.D. (2008). Foundations of addictions counseling. Boston, MA: Pearson. Carlson (2001). Physiology of Behavior, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Chance, P. (2003) Learning and Behavior. 5th edition Toronto: Thomson-Wadsworth. Comer, R.J. (2004). Fundamentals of abnormal psychology. New York: Worth. Durrant, R., Adamson, S., Todd, F., & Sellman, D., (2009). Drug use and addiction:      evolutionary perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(11) 1049-1056. Edwards, G. (2012). ‘The evil genius of the habit’: DSM-5 seen in historical context. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 73(4): 699–701. Everitt, B. J. & Robbins T. W. (2005). Neural Systems of Reinforcement for Drug       Addiction: From Actions to Habits to Compulsion. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11)      1481-1489. Gordon, S. M. (2003). Relapse and Recovery: Behavioural Strategies for Change.       Excellence in   Addiction Treatment. Pg. 1-24. Heyman, G. M., (2009). Resolving the Contradictions of Addiction. Behavioural and Brain    Sciences 19 (4): 561-610. Keyes, J. (2002). Flourishing: The Positive Person and the Good Life. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Koob G.F. (2003). Alcoholism: allostasis and beyond. Alcohol Clin Exper Res 27, 232–243.  Levinthal, C. F. (2010). Drugs, Behaviour, and Modern Society. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. McKim, C. (1997). Drugs and Behavior , 6th Ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Miller, N. S., & Gold, M. (1990). The disease and adaptive models of addiction: A re-evaluation. Journal of Drug Issues, 20(1), 29-30. Parrot, A., Morinan, A., Moss, M., & Scholey, A. (2004). Understanding Drugs and       Behaviour. John Wiley & Sons: England. Pistoi, D. (2001). Study Reveals Why People Might Crave Cocaine. Scientific American. Powledge, K. (2002). Beating Abuse: Glutamate may hold a key to drug addiction . Scientific American. Robinson, B. (2003). Addiction. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 54. Sullivan, H. (2002) Psychotropic substance seeking: evolutionary pathology or adaptation? Addiction 97, 389-400. Tatarsky, A. (2003). Harm reduction psychotherapy: Extending the reach of traditional substance use treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 25, 249–256. West, R. (2005). Theory of Addiction. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Zinberg, N. (1972). Drugs and the public. New York: Simon & Schuster. Read More