Recently, the scientific and medical consensus regarding alcoholism has shifted as the understanding of the underlying causes of the condition has improved. It can be caused by a variety of environmental and genetic factors and is generally dependent on a set of biological factors (Levinthal, 2014). As such, the view of alcoholism as a disease to be cured rather than a moral wrong to punish has become popular. However, the approach receives substantial criticism due to its variety of failings. As such, a question for critical reflection arises: should alcoholism be considered a disease or something closer to self-inflicted harm?
On the one hand, there is substantial theoretical support for the former position. Studies show that a variety of biological factors, including genetic ones, can predispose one toward alcoholism (Levinthal, 2014). Moreover, alcoholics frequently struggle to stop even if they recognize the danger and no longer want to indulge in alcohol. The effective treatments for the condition are mostly biological, with initiatives such as controlled drinking creating more dubious results. With the usage of the holistic model of care, it is possible to argue that, when viewed as a disease, alcoholism can be prevented and treated.
However, the disease interpretation implies that the person has no choice in the matter of becoming addicted to alcohol. Levinthal (2014) highlights concerns such as the model’s encouragement of overreliance on medicine and passivity as well as the marginalization of alcoholics and the restriction of their freedom. By ignoring the agency of the population’s members, the disease framework ignores critical reasons why people may overly indulge in drinking. As such, the question can be worded differently: do the benefits of viewing alcoholism as an illness justify the potential collateral damage that it may cause?
References
Levinthal, C. F. (2014). Drugs, behavior, and modern society (8th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.