Conceptualizing Addiction Paper Essay

IntroductionFor many years, single(a)s throw away battled substance ab physical exertion and colony. My position comes from hearing about it, having seeing results from it, and recitation about it, also developing my own thoughts about addiction. Weil and Rosen (1993) believe that a do drugs use (and addiction) results from humans longing for a sense of completeness and wholeness, and search for satisf sue outside of themselves. McNeece and DiNitto (2012) says the reason why people continue to use drugs to the point of becoming a physically and/ or psychologically subject on them are more complex, some have tried to let off this phenomenon as a deficit in incorrupt values, a infirmity, teach or learned behavior, or as a genetic prosperity. liquid some see it as a rewiring of the brain (Mc Neece & DiNitto, 2012).At this point, there is no one single theory that adequately explains addiction (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). addiction is not easily defined. For some, it involve s the continued, self-administered use of a substance despite substance- related problems, and it results in tolerance for the substance, withdrawal from the substance, and compulsive drug- taking behavior delinquent to cravings or drives to use the substance (Schuckit, 1992, p. 182). No single theory adequately describes the aetiology of addiction or dependence (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Most prototypes of addiction is an addictive disorder (Washton, 1989, p.55). In this paper will compare and contrast the moral sit and the complaint present conceptualizing addiction. Describe the two on how they allot competing views on addiction, and a summary on a theory that fag be to the highest degree useful in helping to intervene on addiction.The Moral ModelOne of earliest theories offered to explain the etiology of addiction is humankinds sinful nature (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Since it is difficultto show empirical evidence of a sinful nature, the moral type of addiction has been for the most part discredited by modern scholars. However, the legacy of treating alcoholism and drug addiction as sin or moral weakness continues to influence national policies regarding alcohol and drug abuse (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Competing ViewsThe model appeals to our common sense because it is pursuant(predicate) with liberal views. In a liberal society, free will and individual autonomy are highly 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 right likely to use drugs such as alcohol or marijuana. If this is the illustration other factors are present. In the face of reality, the moral model is lacking(p) to capture the phenomenon of drug addiction (Wilbanks, 1989).The Disease ModelThe disease model of addiction rests on three primary assumptions predisposition to use a drug, l oss of control over use, and progression (Krivanek, 1988, p.202). These physiological alterations cause an unavoid able-bodied desire to take more drugs (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Addicts are viewed as individuals with an incurable disease 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 scarcely treatments available aims to reduce or suppress the urge to use drugs (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Firstly, addicts are encouraged to acknowledge that they have a sickness that cannot be dealt with merely and to seek help from professionals such as counselors and therapist (Schaler, 1991). For instance, Narcotics Anonymous uses twelve step program where addicts must first admit that they are nerveless over their addictions and must appeal to a power greater that themselves to chasten addictions. Critics of the disease mode l believes that it takes responsibility away from the addicts and instead characterizes them as victims (Schaler, 1991, Wilbanks 1989). equation and ContrastThe moral model describes addiction as exclusively a matter 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 really 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 reception within this frame fake is naturally one where the only appropriate action is a corrective or punitive one (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012).Theory most helpful to intervene on AddictionThe two models are rattling different, with the moral model essentially discounting most of what hard sciences offers, and the disease model embracing it to a large degree (Miller & golden, 1990). Morality concept in addiction offer the counselor, and client genuinely little to build on in terms 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 salutary as in terms of how an individual has certain obligations inside the ameliorate process (Comer, 2004).ConclusionIn conclusion writing this paper was very interesting, and informational learning about the different models they have to help with drug or alcohol addiction. Comparing and contrasting the moral model and the disease model was helpful in understanding the differences they both had to offer, and competing views. Also being able to choose one model to which would be helpfu l in disturbance 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.). swiftness Saddle River, NJ Pearson. Krivanek, J. (1988). Heroin Myths and realities Sydney Allen & Unwin. Schaler, J. A. (2000). Addiction is a choice. Chicago unfold court. Schuckit, M. A. (1992). Advances in understanding the vulnerability to alcoholism. In C.P. OBrien & J. H. Jaffe (Eds.). Addiction states (pp.93-108). clean York Raven Press Wahshton, A. M. (1988). Cocaine addiction Treatment, recovery, and relapse prevention. New York W. W. Norton. Wilbanks, W. (1989). The risk of exposure in viewing addicts as victims A critique of the disease model of addiction. Criminal Justice Policy. Comer, R. J. (2009). Fundam entals of abnormal psychology. New York Worth Miller, N. S., Gold M. (1990).The disease and the adaptive models of addiction. A re-evaluation Journal of Drug Issues, 20(1), 29-30