There has been debate on whether or not addiction to drugs should be considered a brain disease. The idea of addiction as a disease first came about in 1987, 31 years after alcoholism was labeled a disease by the American Medical Association in 1956 (n.d.c). In Unit 3 of Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Health and Society, Leshner and Slate (2018) both provide opposing arguments on the subject. Leshner is arguing that addiction is a brain disease while Slater argues that it is not a brain disease.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. What is a Disease?
3. Addiction
4. Argument-Support
4.1 Koskela et al. – “Update of neurotrophic factors in neurobiology of addiction and future directions”
4.2 Levran et al. – “Susceptibility loci for heroin and cocaine addiction in the serotonergic and adrenergic pathways in populations of different ancestry”
4.3 Diana, M. – “The Addicted Brain”
5. Argument-Oppose
5.1 Reinarman, C. – “Addiction as accomplishment: The discursive construction of disease”
5.2 Byrnes, N. K., & Hayes, J. E. – “Behavioral measures of risk tasking, sensation seeking and sensitivity to reward may reflect different motivations for spicy food liking and consumption”
5.3 Levy, N. – “Addiction is Not a Brain Disease (and it Matters)”
6. Conclusion
Research Goal and Thematic Focus
The primary objective of this work is to analyze the ongoing scientific and societal debate regarding whether addiction should be medically classified as a chronic brain disease or understood through other lenses, such as social construction.
- Analysis of the biological and neurological arguments defining addiction as a disease.
- Examination of sociological and behavioral perspectives opposing the "brain disease" model.
- Evaluation of the impact that medical classification has on healthcare access and insurance coverage for addicts.
- Discussion of environmental, genetic, and neurochemical factors influencing drug abuse disorders.
Excerpt from the Book
Diana, M. – “The Addicted Brain”
This article is a review in opposition of Levy’s (2013) article “Addiction is Not a Brain Disease (and it Matters).” Diana (2013) argues that when thinking about disease, physically and pathologically, social context should not be taken into consideration as Levy (2013) suggests in his article. The effects addiction has on one’s behavior is a “product of brain activity” and can then justify the classification of addiction as a disease because the functioning of the organ (the brain) is impaired (Diana, 2013). Using the definitions of disease and/or disorder, this explanation of addiction would be able to classify as such.
A common trend in the debate of this topic is comparing addiction to other diseases such as diabetes. Diana does so, as well as comparing addiction to malaria. Although drugs can have negative effects when using them, addiction is not harmful until the substance of choice is no longer available (Diana, 2013). The same is true for diabetes because that involves the absence of insulin. In both instances, the absence of a substance disrupts the body’s homeostasis (Diana, 2013). In the case of addicts, although illicit drugs are not normally needed to maintain homeostasis, the drugs have led to physical changes where it is now a necessary component to maintain that internal equilibrium. For malaria, Diana (2013) poses a question of whether someone has malaria if their fever is present or not because typically the fever tends to rise every three to four days. So, do people with malaria only have a disease if they have the fever? If the answer is no, then Diana argues addiction cannot be excluded as a disease.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Provides an overview of the historical debate surrounding the classification of drug addiction as a disease, referencing opposing academic viewpoints.
2. What is a Disease?: Explores the semantic and medical definitions of "disease" and "disorder," noting their frequent interchangeable use in scientific literature.
3. Addiction: Discusses global statistics on drug use and the prevalence of drug abuse disorders as reported by the UNODC.
4. Argument-Support: Examines evidence supporting the disease model, focusing on neurobiology, genetics, and brain function.
5. Argument-Oppose: Reviews critiques of the disease model, highlighting social constructionist theories and arguments regarding voluntary choice.
6. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments and advocates for prioritizing effective treatment and resource allocation for those struggling with addiction, regardless of the classification.
Keywords
Addiction, Brain Disease, Neuroscience, Neuroplasticity, Substance Abuse, Genetics, Dopamine, Glutamate, GABA, Social Construction, Healthcare, Policy, Homeostasis, Mental Health, Clinical Diagnosis
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper investigates the academic and social controversy over whether drug addiction should be officially labeled as a chronic brain disease.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the neurobiological basis of addiction, the role of genetics, the influence of social environment, and the implications of diagnostic labeling on medical treatment.
What is the author's research goal?
The goal is to provide a balanced overview of the conflicting arguments regarding addiction to determine how these viewpoints influence the welfare and treatment of addicts.
Which scientific methods are analyzed?
The paper reviews various studies, including neurobiological research on neurotrophic factors and genetic studies focusing on neurotransmitters like glutamate and GABA.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body examines specific academic arguments—both supporting and opposing the disease model—citing researchers like Leshner, Koskela, Levran, Diana, Reinarman, and Levy.
Which keywords define this work?
Core terms include Addiction, Brain Disease, Neuroscience, Neuroplasticity, Substance Abuse, and Social Construction.
How does the author connect the disease model to healthcare access?
The author argues that labeling addiction as a disease is beneficial because it improves the likelihood of addicts receiving necessary healthcare coverage through insurance.
What is the significance of the comparison between malaria and addiction?
Used by Diana, this comparison challenges the notion that a disease must be continuously present, suggesting that intermittent symptoms (like the fever in malaria or the craving in addiction) do not negate a disease classification.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Alexus Stiles (Autor:in), 2019, Should Addiction to Drugs be Labeled as Brain Disease?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/470551
