Neuroethics

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 19–24 | Cite as

If Addiction is not Best Conceptualized a Brain Disease, then What Kind of Disease is it?

Original Paper

Abstract

A modest opposition to the brain disease concept of addiction has been mounting for at least the last decade. Despite the good intentions behind the brain disease rhetoric – to secure more biomedical funding for addiction, to combat “stigma,” and to soften criminal approaches – the very concept of addiction as a brain disease is deeply conceptually confused. We question whether Lewis goes far enough in his challenge, robust as it is, of the brain disease concept. For one thing, the notion that addiction is a disease (especially within the behavioral realm) is challenging to refute or confirm because the disease concept itself is poorly defined in medical and psychological nosology. More important, quibbling over what kind of disease addiction is unlikely to be productive. The rational response to adjudicating whether addiction is a brain disease is not to engage in potentially fruitless debates over the question of disease classification but rather to view addiction as an enormously complex set of behaviors that operate on several dimensions, ranging from molecular function and structure and brain physiology to psychology, the psychosocial environment, and social and cultural relations.

Keywords

Addiction Brain disease Reductionism Levels of analysis National Institute on Drug Abuse Neurocentrism Philosophy of medicine Over-medicalization 

References

  1. 1.
    Kendell, Robert E. 1975. The concept of disease and its implications for psychiatry. The British Journal of Psychiatry 127(4): 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wakefield, Jerome C. 1992. The concept of mental disorder: on the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist 47(3): 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klein, Donald F. 1978. A proposed definition of mental illness. In Critical issues in psychiatric diagnosis, ed. Donald F. Klein and Robert L. Spitzer, 41–71. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henriques, Gregg R. 2002. The harmful dysfunction analysis and the differentiation between mental disorder and disease. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 1(2): 157–173.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lilienfeld, Scott O., and Lori Marino. 1995. Mental disorder as a Roschian concept: a critique of Wakefield’s “harmful dysfunction” analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 104(3): 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lilienfeld, Scott O., and Lori Marino. 1999. Essentialism revisited: evolutionary theory and the concept of mental disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 108(3): 400–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kendell, Robert E. 2002. The distinction between personality disorder and mental illness. The British Journal of Psychiatry 180(2): 110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zachar, Peter, and Kenneth S. Kendler. 2012. The removal of Pluto from the class of planets and homosexuality from the class of psychiatric disorders: a comparison. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 7(4).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kendler, Kenneth S. 2014. The structure of psychiatric science. American Journal of Psychiatry 171(9): 931–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satel, Sally and Lilienfeld, Scott O. 2013. Brainwashed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gold, Ian. 2009. Reduction in psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 54(8): 506–520.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, Seth J., Scott O. Lilienfeld, Alan Meca, and Katheryn C. Sauvigné. 2016. The role of neuroscience within psychology: a call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness. American Psychologist 71(1): 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watson, David, Lee A. Clark, and Allan R. Harkness. 1994. Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103(1): 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kagan, Jerome. 2006. An argument for mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dennett, Daniel. 1995. Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lilienfeld, Scott O. 2007. Cognitive neuroscience and depression: legitimate versus illegitimate reductionism and five challenges. Cognitive Therapy and Research 31: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinker, Steven. 2003. The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, Marc. 2011. Memoirs of an addicted brain: a neuroscientist examines his former life on drugs. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leshner, Alan I. 1997. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science 278(5335): 45–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dentzer, Susan. 2011. Substance abuse and other substantive matters. Health Affairs 30(8): 1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Satel, Sally, and Lilienfeld, Scott O. 2013. Addiction and the brain-disease fallacy. In Brainwashed, 49–71. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Whitten, Lori. 2001. NIH develops high school curriculum supplement on addiction. NIDA Notes 16(1): http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol16N1/NIH.html. Accessed 2 August 2016.
  23. 23.
    Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction. 2011. American Society of Addiction Medicine. http://www.asam.org/advocacy/find-a-policy-statement/view-policy-statement/public-policy-statements/2011/12/15/the-definition-of-addiction. Accessed 2 August 2016.
  24. 24.
    Massing, Michael. 2000. Seeing drugs as a choice or as a brain anomaly. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/24/arts/seeing-drugs-as-a-choice-or-as-a-brain-anomaly.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. June 24, Accessed 2 August 2016.
  25. 25.
    Tran, Quynh-Giang. 2002. Drug policy chief looks to the root of addiction: U.S. eyes 10 % reduction in abuse in two years. Boston Globe, July 10, A3.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Biden, Joseph. 2009. Remarks of the vice president and chief kerlikowske on his nomination as the new director of the office of national drug control policy. Office of the Vice President: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-vice-president-and-chief-kerlikowske-his-nomination-new-director-office-nat. Accessed 2 August 2016.
  27. 27.
    Rose, C., and Volkow, N. 2011. The Charlie Rose Brain Series, Year 2. The Charlie Rose Show, PBS. New York.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lemonick, Michael D. 2007. How We get addicted. Time. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1640436,00.html. July 5, Accessed 2 August 2016.
  29. 29.
    Interlandi, Jeneen. 2008. What addicts need. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/what-addicts-need-93767. February 23, Accessed 2 August 2016.
  30. 30.
    Volkow, Nora D., George F. Koob, and A. Thomas McLellan. 2016. Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. The New England Journal of Medicine 374: 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Higgins, Stephen T., Silverman, Kenneth, and Heil, Sarah H., eds. 2008. Contingency management in substance abuse treatment. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Satel, Sally, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2010. Signing the brain disease blues. AJOB Neuroscience 1(1): 46–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leshner, Alan I. 1997. Treatment: effect on the brain and body. National Methamphetamine Drug Conference. https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/drugfact/methconf/plenary2.html. Accessed 2 August 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American Enterprise InstituteWashington DCUSA
  2. 2.Yale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of PsychologyEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations