Views of Addiction Neuroscientists and Clinicians on the Clinical Impact of a ‘Brain Disease Model of Addiction’
- 2k Downloads
Addiction is increasingly described as a “chronic and relapsing brain disease”. The potential impact of the brain disease model on the treatment of addiction or addicted individuals’ treatment behaviour remains uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study to examine: (i) the extent to which leading Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians accept the brain disease view of addiction; and (ii) their views on the likely impacts of this view on addicted individuals’ beliefs and behaviour. Thirty-one Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians (10 females and 21 males; 16 with clinical experience and 15 with no clinical experience) took part in 1 h semi-structured interviews. Most addiction neuroscientists and clinicians did not uncritically support the use of brain disease model of addiction. Most were cautious about the potential for adverse impacts on individuals’ recovery and motivation to enter treatment. While some recognised the possibility that the brain disease model of addiction may provide a rationale for addicted persons to seek treatment and motivate behaviour change, Australian addiction neuroscientist and clinicians do not assume that messages about “diseased brains” will always lead to increased treatment-seeking and reduced drug use. Research is needed on how neuroscience research could be used in ways that optimise positive outcomes for addicted persons.
KeywordsAddiction Treatment Attitudes Qualitative research Neuroscience Brain disease
The research presented in this paper was funded by Fellowships awarded to Dr Carter and Professor Hall by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Grant IDs 628935 and 569738 respectively). We would like to thank Anke Snoek, Carla Meurk and Daniel Buchman for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- 1.Illich, I. 1976. Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- 4.Parr, J., and N. Rasmussen. 2012. Making addicts of the fat: obesity, psychiatry and the ‘fatties anonymous’ model of self-help weight loss in the post-war United States. Critical perspectives on addiction (series volume 14), 181–200. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
- 5.Midanik, L. 2006. Biomedicalization of alcohol studies: Methodological shifts and institutional challenges. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- 6.Netherland, J. 2011. “We haven’t sliced open anyone’s brain yet”: Neuroscience, embodiment and the governance of addiction. In Sociological reflections on the neurosciences (advances in medical sociology, volume 13), ed. M. Pickersgill and I. Van Keulen, 153–177. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.ASAM. 2011. Public policy statement: definition of addiction (long Version). Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction Medicine; Contract No.: Document Number|.Google Scholar
- 16.Cunningham, J.A., L.C. Sobell, and V.M. Chow. 1993. What’s in a label? The effects of substance types and labels on treatment considerations and stigma. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 54: 693–699.Google Scholar
- 22.Satel, S. 1999. The fallacies of no-fault addiction. Public Interest: Winter: 52–67.Google Scholar
- 23.Satel, S. 2006. For addicts, firm hand can be the best medicine. New York Times. 15 August: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E4DB173EF936A2575BC0A9609C8B63&scp=1&sq=For%20addicts,%20firm%20hand%20can%20be%20the%20best%20medicine&st=cse. Accesed 16 May, 2011. Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/62jXgGGxv on 27 October, 2011.
- 24.Satel, S., and S. Lilenfeld. 2007. Medical misnomer: addiction isn’t a brain disease, Congress. Slate. 2 August: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2007/07/medical_misnomer.html. Accesed 2 August 2007. Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/62jYPAQv1 on 27 October, 2011.
- 25.Satel, S.L. 2001. Is drug addiction a brain disease? In Drug addiction and drug policy: the struggle to control dependence, ed. P. Heymann and W. Brownsberger, 118–143. New York: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 33.Carter, A., B. Capps, and W. Hall. 2009. Addiction neurobiology: ethical and social implications. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.Google Scholar
- 34.Carter, A., and W. Hall. 2012. Addiction neuroethics: the promises and perils of neuroscience research on addiction. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 36.Dingel, M.J., K. Karkazis, and B.A. Koenig. 2011. Framing nicotine addiction as a “disease of the brain”: social and ethical consequences. Social Science Quarterly 92: 1363–1388.Google Scholar
- 37.Bammer, G., W. Hall, M. Hamilton, and R. Ali. 2002. Harm minimization in a prohibition context—Australia. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 58: 80–93.Google Scholar
- 39.Meurk, C., A. Carter, W. Hall, and J. Lucke. 2012. Public understandings of addiction: the impact of addiction neuroscience research. Neuroethics under review.Google Scholar
- 40.Morphett, K., J. Lucke, C. Gartner, A. Carter, C. Meurk, and W. Hall. 2012. Public attitudes towards the treatment of nicotine addiction. Nicotine and Tobacco Research under review.Google Scholar
- 43.Racine, E., S. Waldman, N. Palmour, D. Risse, and J. Illes. 2007. “Currents of hope”: neurostimulation techniques in U.S. and U.K. print media. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16: 312–316.Google Scholar