BRAIN DISEASE MODEL OF ADDICTION
Brain Disease Model of Addiction (BDMA), according to Volkow, Koob, and America’s Society of Addiction (ASAM), the disease of addiction is irreversible. Medically, it cannot be cured but can only be treated by lifelong abstinence. The disease model, the origin of craving, lies within the individual. The article adopts a medical point of view and also suggests that addiction is an illness that a person has. It also insists that the victim of the habit cannot control themselves without the intake of the given substance. Therefore, due to the continued use of the drug for survival, the victim is powerless to hider themselves from using the medicine, and this is overtaken by an irresistible craving of the same when they are not exposed to the drug. The disease model gives the addicted time to comprehend their behavior, helps them develop an abstinence behavior that much works on some of the addicted people, and also adds an advantage to the drug becoming a health issue and not just a legal issue. The disease model only offers abstinence as the only course of treatment, which, particularly among the youths, is not suitable. It also removes the sense of responsibility to the victim, leaving it to those in the rehabilitation centers carrying the subject’s burden and hence, not supported by a large amount of evidence. ASAM is putting more effort into accessing and improving the quality of addiction treatment as a part of mainstream medicine. They are doing this by educating physicians and the public, improving on their research on treatment and the prevention of the continued addiction on the victim, and also promoting the role of the specialists while caring for the victims of addiction.
Articles that refutes Volkow and Koob’s report on BDMA
The report by Marc Lewis argues that of DL Thombos (2019) introduction to addictive behaviors, addicts are neither powerless nor are they entirely in control. Lewis also strongly refutes the brain disease model of addiction (BDMA), because of what he says makes people lose their trust in the self-effacements and therefore obstruct their recovery. Although he accedes to the fact that there is an affixation state of addiction, he disputes the claim that this preoccupation is hard to provide evidence for. Thombos continues to insist that the BDMA loses considers the seriousness of those who are addicted and hence obstruct their recovery. Lewis’s work offers a hopeful and respectful platform of improvement to the addicted and objects what people refer to as damaged brains. However, I argue that over reckoning an addict’s agency can also lead to losing faith in their self-assuredness. Lewis strongly focuses on the radical change of the addicted, which, at high probability, might not correspond to their experiences of struggle, hence putting into practice their feelings of guilt when they fail to control the rate at which they use them. I propose to replace the approach of addiction as a disease with the concept of a disease-like stage in addiction known as duress stage. This applies when the habit is widely impenetrable to the agent’s values and available techniques of self-control. However, the addict can fight this duress stage by acquiring new life skills on self-control, improving self-confidence, changing their behavior and environment, and by involving themselves in projects that are meaningful to them.
Miller’s Statement
Principles of addiction provide a solid understanding of the differences between use, abuse, and disorder. It describes the characteristics of these syndromes and causes. The article examines the nature of addiction and models of how to fight the addiction. Additionally, it states that addiction is not a society moral problem or a criminal problem, but it’s a manifested behavior. It analyzes the conceivable outcomes of implementing school-based substance abuse prevention among youths. If practical, it is to be implemented nationwide. The study concludes that the cost of substance abuse could be offset by a nationwide implementation of effective prevention policies and programs.
Social Learning Model, according to Miller’s Statement.
Behaviors leading to addiction are only terminated when the individual ranks the cost of continued use higher than the benefits of quitting the use of a similar drug. This happens when one has a sense of compulsion of wanting to involve in a behavior such as drug abuse, with the knowledge of that one should not consider that for a progress. The social learning model insists that the tone becomes more erratic when someone wants to do something very much, knowing that it will lead to a hallmark of addictive behavior. Therefore, anyone who involves themselves in an activity that they find being of pleasure is at risk of dependence on that activity.
Relationship between Models of Addiction and Assessment.
Researchers have come up with various models of drug use. Currently, the bio-psychosocial model in the cause of addiction creates the foundation of most responses to addictive behavior. Opposite to the disease model, the bio-psychosocial model views addiction as a behavioral puzzle having biological, psychological, sociological, and behavioral traits. These include craving, short-term gratification at the risk of longer-term harm, and rapid change in physical and mental states. Addiction by the individual, high involvement in drug use, increased desire to continue using certain drugs, and lack of control to the usage of the given drug.
Miller, P. M. (2013). Principles of addiction: comprehensive addictive behaviors and disorders (Vol. 1). Academic Press.
Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2010). Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 217-238.
Snoek, A., & Matthews, S. (2017). Introduction: testing and refining Marc Lewis’s critique of the brain disease model of an addict
Lewis, M. (2017). Addiction and the brain: development, not disease. Neuroethics, 10(1), 7-18.ion. Neuroethics, 10(1), 1-6.