Introduction

For many old ages. persons have battled substance maltreatment and dependence. My place comes from hearing about it. holding seeing consequences from it. and reading about it. besides developing my ain ideas about dependence. Weil and Rosen ( 1993 ) believe that a drug usage ( and dependence ) consequences from worlds hankering for a sense of completeness and integrity. and seeking for satisfaction outside of themselves. McNeece and DiNitto ( 2012 ) says the ground why people continue to utilize drugs to the point of going a physically and/ or psychologically dependent on them are more complex. some have tried to explicate this phenomenon as a shortage in moral values. a disease. conditioning or learned behaviour. or as a familial prosperity. Still some see it as a “rewiring” of the encephalon ( Mc Neece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) .

At this point. there is no 1 individual theory that adequately explains dependence ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) . Addiction is non easy defined. For some. it involves the “continued. self-administered usage of a substance despite substance- related jobs. and it consequences in tolerance for the substance. backdown from the substance. and compulsive drug- taking behavior due to cravings” or thrusts to utilize the substance ( Schuckit. 1992. p. 182 ) . No individual theory adequately describes the etiology of dependence or dependance ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) . Most theoretical accounts of dependence is an “addictive disease” ( Washton. 1989. p. 55 ) . In this paper will compare and contrast the moral theoretical account and the disease theoretical account gestating dependence. Describe the two on how they take viing positions on dependence. and a sum-up on a theory that can be most utile in assisting to step in on dependence.

The Moral Model

One of earliest theories offered to explicate the etiology of dependence is humankind’s iniquitous nature ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) . Since it is hard to demo empirical grounds of a iniquitous nature. the moral theoretical account of dependence has been by and large discredited by modern bookmans. However. the bequest of handling alcohol addiction and drug dependence as wickedness or moral failing continues to act upon public policies sing intoxicant and drug maltreatment ( McNeece & A ; DiNitt

O. 2012 ) . Competing Positions

The theoretical account entreaties to our common sense because it is consistent with broad positions. In a broad society. free will and single liberty are extremely emphasized and valued ideals ( Wilbanks. 1989 ) . Addicts are conceived as free willed persons doing rational picks and the ground they engage in drug usage is because they have bad ethical motives. However. persons with “good” ethical motives are merely probably to utilize drugs such as intoxicant or marihuana. If this is the instance other factors are present. In the face of world. the moral theoretical account is deficient to capture the phenomenon of drug dependence ( Wilbanks. 1989 ) .

The Disease Model

The disease theoretical account of dependence remainders on three primary premises sensitivity to utilize a drug. loss of control over usage. and patterned advance ( Krivanek. 1988. p. 202 ) . These physiological changes cause an undeniable desire to take more drugs ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) . Addicts are viewed as persons with an incurable disease with drug dependence as the symptom. The disease theoretical account argues users can non be held accountable for their dependences ( Kirvanek. 1988 ) .

Competing Positions

As the disease theoretical account argues that there is no remedy for dependence. the lone interventions available purposes to cut down or stamp down the impulse to utilize drugs ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) . First. nuts are encouraged to admit that they have a illness that can non be dealt with entirely and to seek aid from professionals such as counsellors and healer ( Schaler. 1991 ) . For case. Narcotics Anonymous utilizations twelve measure plan where nuts must first admit that they are “powerless” over their dependences and must appeal to a “power greater” that themselves to get the better of dependences. Critics of the disease theoretical account believes that it takes duty off from the nuts and alternatively qualify them as victims ( Schaler. 1991. Wilbanks 1989 ) .

Compare and Contrast

The moral theoretical account describes dependence as entirely a affair of pick. where the disease theoretical account illustrates it as something that is beyond the control of the person. With the disease theoretical account pick is a factor merely in so far as a individual really chooses to handle their disease. non in really feeding of holding the dependence to get down with ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) . For case. where the moral theoretical account conceptualizes dependence as a affair or failing or wickedness. the public response within this model is of course one where the lone appropriate action is a disciplinary or punitory one ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) .

Theory most helpful to step in on Addiction

The two theoretical accounts are really different. with the moral theoretical account basically dismissing most of what difficult sciences offers. and the disease theoretical account encompassing it to a big grade ( Miller & A ; Gold. 1990 ) . Morality construct in dependence offer the counsellor. and client really small to construct on in footings of congruity. because they besides dismiss physiological. and neurobiological factors as a cause of dependence ( McNeece & A ; DiNitto. 2012 ) . So with that been said the disease theoretical account would be most utile assisting to step in on dependence. Conversely the disease theoretical account allows the counsellor to exemplify an individual’s dependence as something that can be explained in footings of difficult scientific discipline. every bit good as in footings of how an person has certain duties inside the healing procedure ( Comer. 2004 ) .

Decision

In decision authorship this paper was really interesting. and informational acquisition about the different theoretical accounts they have to assist with drug or intoxicant dependence. Comparing and contrasting the moral theoretical account and the disease theoretical account was helpful in understanding the differences they both had to offer. and viing positions. Besides being able to take one theoretical account to which would be helpful in intercession of dependence was reasonably interesting making research. and larning that the disease theoretical account would work good for intercession intents. Last. McNeece & A ; DiNitto ( 2012 ) . says no individual theory adequately describes the etiology of dependence or dependance.

Mentions
McNeece. C. A. . & A ; DiNitto. D. M. ( 2012 ) . Chemical dependence: A systems
attack ( 4th ed. ) . Upper Saddle River. New jersey: Pearson. Krivanek. J. ( 1988 ) . Heroin: Myths and worlds Sydney: Allen & A ; Unwin. Schaler. J. A. ( 2000 ) . Addiction is a pick. Chicago: Open tribunal. Schuckit. M. A. ( 1992 ) . Progresss in understanding the exposure to alcohol addiction. In C. P. O’Brien & A ; J. H. Jaffe ( Eds. ) . Addiction provinces ( pp. 93-108 ) . New York: Raven Press Wahshton. A. M. ( 1988 ) . Cocaine dependence: Treatment. recovery. and relapse bar. New York: W. W. Norton. Wilbanks. W. ( 1989 ) . The danger in sing nuts as victims: A review of the disease theoretical account of dependence. Condemnable Justice Policy. Comer. R. J. ( 2009 ) . Fundamentalss of unnatural psychological science. New York: Deserving Miller. N. S. . Gold M. ( 1990 ) . The disease and the adaptative theoretical accounts of dependence. A re-evaluation Journal of Drug Issues. 20 ( 1 ) . 29-30