Addiction is a Disability, and it Matters

Previous discussions of addiction have often focused on the question of whether addiction is a disease. This discussion distinguishes that question - the disease question - from the question of whether addiction is a disability. I argue that, however one answers the disease question, and indeed on almost any credible account of addiction, addiction is a disability. I then consider the implications of this view, or why it matters that addiction is a disability. The disease model of addiction has led many to see addiction as primarily a medical problem, and to make medical treatment of the addicted person the first priority in addressing addiction. Once addiction is viewed as a disability (whether or not it is also a disease), different concerns are foregrounded. The problem of addiction resides not only in the addicted person, but also in the social environment in which the addicted person finds herself. The fundamental ethical question about addiction is not how addicted persons can be treated or otherwise changed, but how a just society can make reasonable accommodations for addicted persons.

Automated summary

The discussion distinguishes between whether addiction is a disease and whether it is a disability. Addiction is considered a disability regardless of the answer to the disease question. Viewing addiction as a disability shifts the focus to the social environment's role in addressing addiction, rather than solely on medical treatment of the addicted individual. The fundamental ethical question becomes how a just society can provide reasonable accommodations for addicted persons.