Conceptualizing Addiction Paper Essay

IntroductionFor somewhat(prenominal) years, individuals have battled substance ab employ and dependance. My face comes from hearing about it, having seeing results from it, and teaching about it, as well as developing my ingest thoughts about dependency. Weil and Rosen (1993) believe that a do medicates call (and dependency) results from humans longing for a sense of completeness and wholeness, and searching for satisf follow out away of themselves. McNeece and DiNitto (2012) says the rationality why people watch to map drugs to the point of becoming a physically and/ or psychologically myrmecophilous on them are more complex, some have tried to explain this phenomenon as a deficit in clean-living values, a malady, conditioning or knowing behavior, or as a inherited prosperity. Still some see it as a rewiring of the brain (Mc Neece &type A DiNitto, 2012).At this point, at that place is no one individual(a) scheme that adequately explains dependency (McNeece & amp DiNitto, 2012). dependence is non easily defined. For some, it involves the continued, self-administered use of a substance despite substance- cogitate problems, and it results in tolerance for the substance, withdrawal from the substance, and positive drug- taking behavior due to cravings or drives to use the substance (Schuckit, 1992, p. 182). No bingle theory adequately describes the aetiology of addiction or dependence (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). some illustrations of addiction is an addictive sickness (Washton, 1989, p.55). In this paper go out compare and severalize the clean impersonate and the malady sham conceptualizing addiction. Describe the two on how they trail competing views on addiction, and a summary on a theory that can be nearly useful in dowery to substitute on addiction.The Moral mannequinOne of earliest theories aimed to explain the etiology of addiction is humankinds over-the-top nature (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Since it is diff icult to make empirical evidence of a foul nature, the lesson feign of addiction has been mostly discredited by modern scholars. However, the legacy of treating alcoholism and drug addiction as sin or moral impuissance continues to influence human beings policies regarding alcohol and drug abuse (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Competing ViewsThe posture appeals to our commonalty sense be perplex it is consistent with liberal views. In a liberal society, free will and individual autonomy are super emphasized and valued ideals (Wilbanks, 1989). Addicts are conceived as free willed individuals making rational choices and the reason they engage in drug use is because they have bad morals. However, individuals with good morals are just likely to use drugs such as alcohol or marijuana. If this is the case other factor outs are present. In the face of reality, the moral model is inadequate to capture the phenomenon of drug addiction (Wilbanks, 1989).The affection ModelThe indisposition model of addiction rests on three primary assumptions sensitivity to use a drug, loss of fudge over use, and progression (Krivanek, 1988, p.202). These physiological alterations cause an undeni sufficient desire to take more drugs (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Addicts are viewed as individuals with an incurable illness with drug addiction as the symptom. The disease model argues users cannot be held responsible for their addictions (Kirvanek, 1988).Competing ViewsAs the disease model argues that there is no cure for addiction, the only treatments purchasable aims to reduce or suppress the weightlift to use drugs (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Firstly, addicts are promote to acknowledge that they have a distemper that cannot be dealt with alone and to seek garter from professionals such as counselors and therapist (Schaler, 1991). For instance, Narcotics nameless uses twelve step program where addicts mustiness first admit that they are suspensorless over thei r addictions and must appeal to a power greater that themselves to overcome addictions. Critics of the disease model believes that it takes responsibility away from the addicts and instead characterizes them as victims (Schaler, 1991, Wilbanks 1989).Compare and ContrastThe moral model describes addiction as wholly a issuing of choice, where the disease model illustrates it as something that is beyond the control of the individual. With the disease model choice is a factor only insofar as a person actually chooses to treat their disease, not in actually feeding of having the addiction to begin with (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). For instance, where the moral model conceptualizes addiction as a matter or weakness or sin, the public response within this framework is naturally one where the only appropriate action is a corrective or punitory one (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012).Theory most helpful to intervene on AddictionThe two models are very different, with the moral model essentiall y discounting most of what unverbalized sciences offers, and the disease model embracing it to a large degree (Miller & Gold, 1990). theology concept in addiction offer the counselor, and client very little to shape up on in monetary value of congruence, because they also dismiss physiological, and neurobiological factors as a cause of addiction (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). So with that been said the disease model would be most useful helping to intervene on addiction. Conversely the disease model allows the counselor to illustrate an individuals addiction as something that can be explained in terms of hard science, as well as in terms of how an individual has certain obligations inside the mend process (Comer, 2004).ConclusionIn coating writing this paper was very interesting, and informational breeding about the different models they have to help with drug or alcohol addiction. compare and contrasting the moral model and the disease model was helpful in apprehensivenes s the differences they both had to offer, and competing views. Also being able to choose one model to which would be helpful in intercession of addiction was pretty interesting doing research, and learning that the disease model would work well for intervention purposes. Lastly, McNeece & DiNitto (2012), says no single theory adequately describes the etiology of addiction or dependence.ReferencesMcNeece, C. A., & DiNitto, D. M. (2012). Chemical dependency A systemsapproach (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson. Krivanek, J. (1988). Heroin Myths and realities Sydney Allen & Unwin. Schaler, J. A. (2000). Addiction is a choice. Chicago Open court. Schuckit, M. A. (1992). Advances in collar the vulnerability to alcoholism. In C.P. OBrien & J. H. Jaffe (Eds.). Addiction states (pp.93-108). stark naked York Raven push Wahshton, A. M. (1988). Cocaine addiction Treatment, recovery, and relapse prevention. New York W. W. Norton. Wilbanks, W. (1989). The danger in viewing addicts as victims A critique of the disease model of addiction. Criminal Justice Policy. Comer, R. J. (2009). Fundamentals of defective psychology. New York Worth Miller, N. S., Gold M. (1990).The disease and the adaptive models of addiction. A re-evaluation Journal of dose Issues, 20(1), 29-30