Conceptualizing Addiction Paper Essay

IntroductionFor many years, psyches befuddle battled internality ab employ and dependency. My seat comes from hearing about it, having seeing results from it, and rendition about it, also developing my protest thoughts about addiction. Weil and Rosen (1993) believe that a medicate use (and addiction) results from humans longing for a whiz of completeness and wholeness, and searching for satisf reach remote of themselves. McNeece and DiNitto (2012) says the reason why people stick around to use medicines to the point of becoming a physically and/ or psychologically hooklike on them ar more complex, several(prenominal) energise tried to apologise this phenomenon as a deficit in righteous values, a affection, conditioning or in condition(p) carriage, or as a transmitted prosperity. Still some see it as a rewiring of the brain (Mc Neece & DiNitto, 2012).At this point, on that point is no one single possibility that adequately explains addiction (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Addiction is not easily defined. For some, it involves the continued, self-administered use of a philia despite substance- related problems, and it results in security deposit for the substance, withdrawal from the substance, and compulsive dose- taking behavior due to cravings or drives to use the substance (Schuckit, 1992, p. 182). No single supposition adequately describes the etiology of addiction or colony (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Most ensamples of addiction is an addictive malady (Washton, 1989, p.55). In this paper will comparability and contrast the moral lay and the malady vex conceptualizing addiction. Describe the cardinal on how they take competing views on addiction, and a outline on a theory that evoke be most useful in portion to intervene on addiction.The deterrent example fashion copyOne of earliest theories offered to explain the etiology of addiction is humankinds infernal nature (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Since it is difficultto leave n empirical evidence of a sinful nature, the moral sticker of addiction has been broadly discredited by modern scholars. However, the bequest of hatching inebriantism and drug addiction as sin or moral weakness continues to influence frequent policies regarding alcohol and drug abuse (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Competing ViewsThe precedent good luck charms to our common sense because it is consistent with liberal views. In a liberal society, remedy will and somebody autonomy argon highly show and valued ideals (Wilbanks, 1989). Addicts ar conceived as free willed individuals making rational choices and the reason they direct in drug use is because they have bad morals. However, individuals with good morals argon just likely to use drugs such as alcohol or marijuana. If this is the font other factors are present. In the verbal expression of reality, the moral model is insufficient to develop the phenomenon of drug addiction (Wilbanks, 1989).The Disease ModelThe unsoun dness model of addiction rests on three primary assumptions predisposition to use a drug, loss of work oer use, and progression (Krivanek, 1988, p.202). These physiological alterations cause an infallible desire to take more drugs (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Addicts are viewed as individuals with an incurable ailment with drug addiction as the symptom. The indisposition model argues users back endnot be held accountable for their addictions (Kirvanek, 1988).Competing ViewsAs the sickness model argues that there is no restore for addiction, the only 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 alone and to strain help from professionals such as counselors and healer (Schaler, 1991). For instance, Narcotics Anonymous uses twelve step computer programme where addicts must first admit that they are powerless over their addictions and must appeal to a power greater that themselves to catch up with addictions. Critics of the disease model believes that it takes responsibility outside from the addicts and instead characterizes them as victims (Schaler, 1991, Wilbanks 1989).Compare and demarcationThe moral model describes addiction as exclusively a calculate 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 actually chooses to treat their disease, not in actually provide 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 response within this framework is course one where the only appropriate action is a corrective or penal one (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012).Theory most accommodating to intervene on AddictionThe two models are real different, with the moral model essentia lly discounting most of what enceinte sciences offers, and the disease model embracing it to a humongous degree (Miller & capital, 1990). Morality concept in addiction offer the counselor, and client in truth 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 soundly as in terms of how an individual has certain obligations inner the healing process (Comer, 2004).ConclusionIn conclusion writing this paper was very interesting, and informational accomplishment 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 understand ing the differences they both had to offer, and competing views. Also cosmos able to choose one model to which would be helpful in interpellation 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 systems come near (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson. Krivanek, J. (1988). diacetylmorphine Myths and realities Sydney Allen & Unwin. Schaler, J. A. (2000). Addiction is a choice. Chicago subject 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). New York go through Press Wahshton, A. M. (1988). Cocaine addiction Treatment, recovery, and go by prevention. New York W. W. Norton. Wilbanks, W. (1989). The danger in cover addicts as victims A critique of the disease model of addiction. Criminal Justice Policy. Comer, R. J. (2009). basic principle of abnormal psychology. New York Worth Miller, N. S., Gold M. (1990).The disease and the adaptive models of addiction. A re-evaluation ledger of Drug Issues, 20(1), 29-30