This article has been forwarded to me by several people. Its author has been writing a series of articles that seek to redefine addiction and recovery.
“The addiction field has struggled with defining recovery at least as long and as fiercely as it has with defining addiction: Since we can’t even agree on whether it’s a disease, a learning disorder or a criminal choice, it becomes even harder to figure out what it means when we say someone has overcome an addiction problem.”
But are “we” really unable to agree that addiction is a disease? Who’s “we”?
It’s not unlike suggestions that there’s wide disagreement on climate change.
To be sure, there are people who don’t accept the disease model, some very smart people, but they represent a small minority of the experts. (The frequent casting as David vs. Goliath should be a clue.) And, if you look at their arguments, you’ll find other motives (I’m not suggesting nefarious motives) like protecting stigmatization, defending free will from “attacks”, discrediting AA and advancing psychodynamic approaches, resisting stigma and emphasizing environmental factors.
Attending to some of their concerns makes the disease model and treatment stronger, not weaker. Lots of diseases have failed to do things like adequately acknowledge environmental factors. And, one takeaway from these critics is the importance of being careful about who we characterize as having a disease/disorder explicitly or implicitly (by characterizing them as being in recovery).
Jason Schwartz is Clinical Director of Dawn Farm, a Michigan addiction treatment centre with an emphasis on the recovering community as the most important source of healing and recovery support for their clients. This blog is reproduced here with permission. More blogs by Jason can be found at Addiction and Recovery News.