Abstract
Szalavitz’s model and mine share a good many components. Foremost among them is the conviction that addiction is a developmental trajectory, not a disease. Szalavitz is correct that we should consider controlled substance use an acceptable outcome, though I would like her to shift her terminology away from the medical mainstream. Finally, I suggest that Szalavitz's important idea of a "reset" in brain development might best be addressed by the notion of kindling.
Bibliography
Szalavitz, Maia. 2017. Squaring the circle: addiction, disease and learning. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9288-1.
Szalavitz, Maia. 2016. Unbroken brain: a revolutionary new way of understanding addiction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Lewis, Marc D. 2017. Addiction and the brain: development, not disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.
Moncrieff, Joanna, David Cohen, and Sally Porter. 2013. The psychoactive effects of psychiatric medication: the elephant in the room. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 45: 409–415. doi:10.1080/02791072.2013.845328.
Hari, Johann. 2015. Chasing the scream: the first and last days of the war on drugs. New York: Bloomsbury USA.
Pickard, Hanna. 2017. Responsibility without blame for addiction. Neuroethics 10. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9295-2.
Post, Robert M. 1992. Transduction of psychosocial stress into the neurobiology of recurrent affective disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry. doi:10.1176/ajp.149.8.999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, M. Resetting the Brain as Well as the Nomenclature. Reply to Szalavitz. Neuroethics 10, 87–89 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9323-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9323-x