Hard Disease View

When making a decision to act in any way, one must evaluate the consequences of that action by deciding whether or not that the actions positive outcomes outweigh the negative outcomes, by their own standards of good or bad. A ‘liberal account’ of addiction may use this final premise in order to claim that an addict is procedurally autonomous and therefore their actions have no difference from ordinary human actions. However, I aim dispute this claim on the grounds that an addict’s capacity to process and rationalise information is weakened. Although I acknowledge that a hard disease view, such as Leshner’s, goes too far in asserting that actions, for addicts, become mere reflexes, to deny the importance of the lack of stimulation in regard to the planning and
Throughout this essay, I aim to prove that a soft disease view, such as Hyman’s is most appropriate in talking about addiction. In order to do this, I shall first assess and criticise Leshner’s view through criticisms asserted by a liberal account; secondly, I aim to display how these criticisms also go too far in their assertions. Following from this, I aim to assert that the lack of stimulation of the planning and motor systems is sufficient enough to prove a soft disease view, accordingly proving that there is a difference between actions that an addict performs and ordinary human actions. One who believes a hard disease view will assert that the fundamental difference between an action an addict performs and an ordinary human action, is that an addict’s actions are non-voluntary. Consequently, actions become mere reflexes as opposed to rational behaviour. In order to assert that addiction is a “chronic recurring illness”, Leshner uses the premises that drug use “acutely modify mood, memory, perception, and emotional