Addictions Theory - Theoretical Conceptualization - Essay Example

Addiction Theory-Theoretical Conceptualization There is simply no one clear way of defining addiction. This is because it is a complex condition which arises from several pathways and it also manifests itself in different ways. This makes it quite difficult to give an absolute and definite definition to this condition. However, addiction appears to be as a result of the personal choices an individual makes. This essay formulates a theory of explaining addiction – choice theory- and furthermore, it criticizes the brain disease theory in an effort of highlighting the strengths and validity of addiction as a choice. Addiction Theory- Theoretical Conceptualization Many theories have been developed to explain why people become addicted. Key among them is the disease theory of drug addiction. As aforementioned in the abstract, the key reason why people become addicted is related to the personal choices one makes. It is not by any means as a result of any kind of disease. It is worth noting that in a real disease, there are parts of the body which are usually in a state of physiological dysfunction, and this then causes symptoms which are not desirable. For instance, when it comes to cancer, the mutated cells would be the proof of a physiological abnormality. Looking at diabetes, low insulin production or failure of cells to use the insulin in the right way can be pointed as the physiological malfunctioning that is behind the harmful symptoms. If one has either or both of the aforementioned diseases, one cannot decide to make a choice of stopping the symptoms or opt to end the physiological malfunctioning which generates the symptoms. Such patients can only opt to end the physiological malfunctioning in the body through taking medicine, and in the diabetes case, treatment measures indirectly stops the symptoms. In addiction, there is no existence of physiological dysfunction of the body. The best physical proof fronted by proponents of the disease theory falls completely off the representing measure of a physiological malfunction. This is the widely touted brain scan. The National Institution of Addiction and Drug Abuse (NIDA) is the organization behind fronting the brain cells. NIDA defines addiction as a chronic brain disease which includes compulsive drug use and seeking, inspite of the obvious harmful consequences (NIH Medicine Plus, 2007). That it is regarded as a brain disease since drugs normally alter the brain structure and the way it operates. Such changes to the brain can last for a long time and often lead to the damaging behaviors observed in those people who abuse drugs. NIDA gives an outright statement that the key reason as to why addiction is seen to be a disease is due to the changes in the brain which is shown by the brain scans that they have revealed, and that such alterations is the main reason for the addictive behavior, which they term it as a “compulsive drug use and seeking,” (NIH Medicine Plus, 2007). There are a number of ways in which this disease theory falls apart: The brain changes that they claim are not out of the norm at all People usually change the way they behave despot the fact that their brain has undergone changes in response to continuous substance use Little evidence exists that shows that the behavior of those people with addiction is compulsive or involuntary. This is also true to alcoholism as well. On the first count, the alterations in the brain proved by brain scans of users of heavy substances or “addicts” do not necessarily embody a brain malfunction. They are generally normal, just as neuroplasticiy research has shown. Whenever one thinks of doing something or practice doing something, the brain usually changes – several neuron pathways and regions are strengthened or grown, and fresh connections are created; some brain areas tend to become less or more active depending on how much is used, and this grows to be the normalcy in the brain – but it can alter again as one adjusts the level of use of such brain areas depending on what one decides to do or think (Thombs & Osborn, 1994). This is a continuous process throughout life and there is really nothing which is abnormal about it. Therefore, when the proponents of the brain disease theory show people the brain changes of a substance user in comparison to those who do not use, the difference is not as new as they claim it to be. Basically, they are demonstrating custom neuroplastic alterations that every person, who has a healthy brain, undergoes naturally. The brain changes phenomenon is not limited to addicts alone on any other individual having the so-called brain disease. A given area of the hippocampus of the brain is linked with creation of mental maps and directional memories of a given environment. There is usually a very significant difference between the brain of taxi drivers as well as the non-taxi drivers. According to research, the more number of years that a man has been behind the wheels of a taxi, the smaller his hippocampus front as well as the posterior. When one acquires navigational skills, the gray matter found in the hippocampus is redistributed, as the mental map of a driver increases and becomes more detailed as a result of experience. Therefore, the longer one uses a cab in a given town, the more the brain changes physically. The longer one uses drugs, the more the person’s brain changes. Indeed, the more intensely and the longer one applies himself/herself to any activity, thought, or skill – the more the brain will change, and there will be more visibility between an individual who has not been focused on such a skill and one who has. Therefore, if one can follow the NIDA logic, then taxi drivers would have a physiological condition, perhaps known as “taxi-ism.” Similarly, learning how to play a piano well will definitely alter one’s brain. If brain scans were to be done on a non-piano player and a person who frequently plays the piano, there would be significant differences. So, does this mean that a person who is playing the piano has a disease known as “Pianism”? Likewise, when a person learns another language, the brain is also altered. Does this mean that all bilinguals are diseased? The brains of athletes will change due to vigorous and intense practice- is playing basketball then a disease? Are all soccer players unable to go into a store dealing with sport goods without kicking any ball sight? The point here is, when one practices something, with time, the individual gets better at it, since the brain changes physiologically- and it is quite a normal progress. In the event that one dedicated a significant portion of their life using and seeking drugs, ant his/her brain does not undergo any significant change, then this would then be a real abnormality. Something would definitely be seriously amiss with their brain. It is worth noting that it is not just pure physical activity which alters the brains of people. Thoughts can also create a huge effect (Berger, 1992). More so, whether changes to the brain occur or not, plenty of researches exist which point that the brain is enslaved by the mind. Thoughts alone tend to develop some activity of the brain which would occur by doing certain things. By use of practiced thinking on compassion, monks usually make permanent alterations in the activities of the brain (Begley, 2004). Purely mental activity can alter the brain in significant manners physiologically. If one can change his/her thoughts, the brain typically changes physically and it is voluntary. It is important to note that this is outside the sphere of disease. This points out to the fact that a brain that undergoes changes due to normality, can also change, depending on what people practice to choose to think. It is of special concern to realize that there is nothing unusual about brain changes. Furthermore, the types of changes in question are not necessarily permanent, since they are typified to belong to the brain disease addiction theory. Such brain changes do not have to be caused by chemical exposure. Thoughts alone can rewire the same circuits in the human brain which rewards as well as other encouraging emotions which substance use and other “addictive” behaviors are connected with. The proponents of the claim that addiction is usually a disease of the brain admit readily that changes in the brain in evidence are achieved via repeated choices of using substances as well as focus on using such addictive substances. Here, they are actually claiming that the disease is a result of everyday neuroplastic processes. Furthermore, they claim that such alterations in the brain cannot be remedied and only medical treatment, as an outside means can be the solution. When this is broken down and examined step by step, one realizes that the brain disease theory relies on an argument identical to the “stolen concept”. This is an argument whereby it denies a fact in which I rests on simultaneously. For instance, the philosophical claim that “reality is unknowable” presumes that the speaker would know a reality fact; it assumes that one would have an idea that reality is unknowable- whereby one could not, in the event that reality was unknowable. Therefore, the statement that “reality is unknowable” makes itself invalid. Similarly, the proponents of the brain disease are basically claiming that the processes of neuroplasticticity develop an addiction state which can never be changed by choices or thoughts. If looked at closely, this assertion can be quite invalidating, since it banks on neuroplacticity and yet is seeks to invalidate it. In the event that neuroplasticity is involved, and it serves as a true explanation for how people become addicted, then one cannot act as if the very process does not exist when it is time to concentrate on becoming un-addicted. This ultimately means that is the brain can be altered into the state of addiction through choices and thoughts; it can also be changed back into its usual form through choices and thoughts. Any condition which can be solved by thoughts that are chosen freely as well as behaviors, do not fit into the wide understanding of disease. Basically, of one can regard addiction as a disease, then it can be such a unique disease that it probably has to be named completely differently. In the above discussion, the essay highlights some analogous instances of changes to the brain to examine how normal and routine such alterations are. It is worth noting that even when brains do change, individuals are still capable of opting to change their addictive habits. One can opt to stop the use of drugs and the brain activity would follow this choice. It the brain alterations as a result of the addictive behavior, for instance id it was the opposite, then a real medical intervention would be necessary. Apparently there is no evidence which shows that addiction is involuntary. In fact, the evidences which exist actually show the opposite. Yet, when the disease case is presented, the notion that use of substance is not voluntary is normally assumed to be true. No evidence exist which supports this premise, therefore, there is not much to be explored except to emphasize on the aforementioned point- is a person who plays a piano completely unable to resist playing it? Such a person can love the piano, and would want to play it as often as possible; they can even appear to be quite obsessed by it. However, it would be difficult to claim that that at the piano sight they are driven involuntarily by their brains to put aside everything else which is important to get an opportunity of playing the piano. However, there is a second approach to the second assertion. Gene Heyman, in his book Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, recounts the studies where cocaine abusers were exposed to conventional addiction counseling and were offered vouchers where they could trade in for self-effacing rewards for example sports equipment of movie tickets- only if their urine tested positive that they were not using drugs. During the opening stages of the study, seventy percent of those who were in the voucher program were largely abstinent, whereas only twenty percent were abstinent in the control group that did not get the voucher incentives. This demonstrates that uses addictive substances is not involuntary or compulsive. It is rather a personal choice. This is quite evident since when the addictive group were given a suitable alternative to the substances that they were using, they chose willingly to stay clear any use of drugs. However, the group having no alternatives still continued to use the drugs. Follow up studies revealed that this ultimately led to permanent changes. This shows that when you practice something, you tend to be good at it. The abusers of cocaine seen in the voucher group put into practice replacing their addiction with other activities and thus they found alternatives of amusing themselves which possibly altered their brains and the novel habits became part of them (Heyman, 2009). In essence, no persuasive evidence exists to show that addiction is compulsive. The only evidence is proclamations from the drug users that they “cannot stop”, as well as claims from the treatment professionals that the addictive behavior is involuntary due to the brain changes. However, it the assurance of getting a ticket to a movie could change the addictive behaviors of so called “addicts”, then it would be difficult to logically claim that addicts cannot control themselves, they choose not to control themselves. it is jut that thy happen to regard the addiction as the best alternative for happiness which is available. They will simply make different choices when the alternative appears to be better. Quitting Addiction Typically, the early stage where one has to stop using the addictive substance and yet a craving for it exists is the hardest stage ever. It can last for just a few days to months. However, people do it on their own regularly with no formal aid. A smaller percentage of people normally do it while going to a ninety meetings in ninety days schedule of 12-step meetings. An interesting thing about the twelve step meeting is that the key advice is that “go to meetings and do not drink”. Here, they deny one the ability to choose but concurrently one is allowed to choose whether to drink or opt not to. There is also a twenty eight-day programme where one’s power of choice is completely denied, but at the same time, a person can choose to be sober in a rehab as opposed to leaving and getting drunk. In each case, one is allowed to make a choice of changing their habits of addiction The only thing which makes the first stage of quitting so hard is that the addictive behavior is the solitary obsession that an addict knows which gives him/her the best form of happiness. Therefore, in essence, one feels like he is being denied the best form of happiness ever. A huge internal conflict emerges but one has to hold on to it since one intends to end the negativities that accompany the pleasure of addiction. For anyone to decide on a different alternative, they have to change the manner in which they consider their options. This means that they have to judge the choices they are to make quite differently. One has to believe that there is indeed a better lifestyle different from the one that they currently think is the best. Such thinking tends to reflect a change in perspective and in the process, an addict would no longer consider addiction as a valuable alternative. Once an addict emerges out of the woods of the addictive habit, withdrawal symptoms would become the next issue. However, one has to focus on how to make the changes last. If one can change his/her perspectives, the changes will be lasting. When an addict can focus on a way of life that he/she believes that it will bring more happiness, cementing the short term changes and converting it into long term would appear to be almost effortless. Here, it is important to realize that willpower is not a defining issue. It is the will itself. For one to alter an addictive habit, one has to believe that the other alternative lifestyle is much better and also practical for them than the addictive lifestyle. This is the point that support groups and formal addiction treatment typically fail these people. They present no way of growing past this obsession and change their gaze to better lifestyles. In essence, the key solution to quit an addiction is for an addict to change his mind-set. References Begley, S. (2004, November 5). Meditation Alters Brain Structure, Functioning. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/News/Meditation_Alters_Brain_WSJ_11-04.htm Berger, G. (1992). Addiction (Rev. ed.). New York: F. Watts. Heyman, G. M. (2009). Addiction a disorder of choice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. NIH Medicine Plus. (n.d.). The Science of Addiction: Drugs, Brains, and Behavior. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/spring07/articles/spring07pg14-17.html Thombs, D. L., & Osborn, C. J. (1994).Introduction to addictive behaviors. New York: Guilford Press. Read More