Abstract
Although these authors sometimes resort to medical terminology, we strongly agree that addiction is not a disease and that the Brain Disease Model of Addiction (BDMA) captures only one part of the story and distorts the big picture. Yet Satel and Lilienfeld continue to conflate a neurobiological model (such as mine) with a disease model. They also complain that my modeling of addiction reveals a hidden “neurocentric” bias, despite my integration of multiple levels of analysis, exactly as they recommend.
Bibliography
Satel, Sally L., and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2017. If addiction is not best conceptualized a brain disease, then what kind of disease is it? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9287-2.
Lewis, Marc D. 2015. The biology of desire. Why addiction is not a disease. New York: Public Affairs.
Lewis, Marc. 2017. Addiction and the brain: Development, not disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.
Lewis, Marc D. 2011. Memoirs of an addicted brain. Brunswick: Scribe.
Henden, Edmund, and Olav Gjelsvik. 2017. What is wrong with the brains of addicts? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9285-4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, M. Neurocentrism and Name-Calling: Let’s Agree to Agree. Reply to Satel & Lilienfeld. Neuroethics 10, 25–27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9325-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9325-8