| Course | MSW 535 Drugs and Addictive Behaviors |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Disease model critique |
| Length | About 540 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 535 Week 5
Disease Model Critique: The Brain Disease Model of Addiction Stated in Its Advocates' Terms, a Learning and Choice Account With Its Own Mechanism, What Each Forbids, the Awkward Remission Finding and a Decision With a Cost
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 535: Drugs and Addictive Behaviors
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Disease Model Critique: The Brain Disease Model of Addiction Stated in Its Advocates' Terms, a Learning and Choice Account With Its Own Mechanism, What Each Forbids, the Awkward Remission Finding and a Decision With a Cost
The Brain Disease Model, Stated as Its Advocates State It
Addiction is a chronic, relapsing disorder in which repeated drug use changes brain circuits for reward, stress and self-control. In this account, drugs produce surges of dopamine in reward circuits; with repetition, cues linked to drugs gain power, the reward system's response to ordinary rewards weakens, stress systems grow more active and prefrontal control over behavior weakens (Volkow et al., 2016). These changes help explain compulsive use and why relapse can occur long after use stops. Defenders argue that the model still matters because it supports treatment and reduces moral blame, while calling for integration with social and psychological science (Heilig et al., 2021).
A Rival With Its Own Engine
A learning and choice account holds that addiction is a pattern of behavior shaped by rewards and costs in a person's environment, and that people use less when the costs rise or alternatives become more rewarding. The brain changes are real, but on this account they are the changes that come with any deeply learned habit, not evidence of a disease that removes choice.
The choice account points to findings such as people reducing use when costs rise, when work or family offers something better, or when the setting changes. It does not deny the brain changes; it reads them as the traces of a deeply learned pattern.
What Each One Forbids
The disease model forbids, or at least makes unlikely, frequent recovery without treatment. The choice model forbids persistent use despite strong incentives to stop.
The Awkward Finding
A national survey of U.S. adults estimated that most people with a lifetime diagnosis of dependence eventually remit: about 91 percent for alcohol and 99 percent for cocaine over a lifetime, with half remitting within about 14 years for alcohol and five for cocaine, mostly without treatment (Lopez-Quintero et al., 2011). That is awkward for a model that stresses chronic relapse. The disease model's reply is that treatment samples, which it was built on, include the most severe cases, while population samples include many milder ones.
Evidence at the Right Depth
Brain imaging shows differences between people with and without addiction, but cannot by itself show whether those differences cause the behavior or follow from it.
Deciding, With a Cost
For practice at a harm reduction program, I take the disease model's account of severe, entrenched cases and the choice model's attention to incentives and alternatives. The cost of this decision is real: describing addiction partly as learned behavior may be heard as blame by clients who have been blamed for years. I will use it to design services, such as making treatment easier to reach, not to judge people.
References
Heilig, M., MacKillop, J., Martinez, D., Rehm, J., Leggio, L., & Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J. (2021). Addiction as a brain disease revised: Why it still matters, and the need for consilience. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(10), 1715-1723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00950-y
Lopez-Quintero, C., Hasin, D. S., de los Cobos, J. P., Pines, A., Wang, S., Grant, B. F., & Blanco, C. (2011). Probability and predictors of remission from life-time nicotine, alcohol, cannabis or cocaine dependence: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Addiction, 106(3), 657-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03194.x
Volkow, N. D., Koob, G. F., & McLellan, A. T. (2016). Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(4), 363-371. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1511480
Reading the MSW 535 Week 5 instructions
The disease model critique never argues that one account is kinder than the other. State the brain disease model in the terms its advocates use, with the evidence it rests on, especially reward circuitry and changes in control. Then state a rival, such as a learning, choice or social conditions account, with a mechanism of its own. Say what each account forbids, meaning what evidence would count against it. Bring in a finding that is awkward for the account you favor. Treat evidence at the right depth: imaging shows differences, not necessarily causes. Decide, and state the cost of your decision. Personal experience may appear briefly but should not replace evidence.
Inside the MSW 535 Week 5 example
The first section states the model through Volkow et al. (2016): dopamine surges, cue learning, blunted reward, stress system activation and weakened prefrontal control, and adds the defense in Heilig et al. (2021). The rival section describes behavior shaped by rewards, costs and alternatives. A section says the disease model makes frequent untreated recovery unlikely and the choice model makes persistent use despite incentives unlikely. The awkward finding section reports lifetime remission near 91 percent for alcohol and 99 percent for cocaine in Lopez-Quintero et al. (2011), with the disease model's reply about severity. A section limits imaging claims, and the decision combines both accounts at a stated cost.
Reading the MSW 535 Week 5 grading rubric
The critique loses most when it argues about compassion instead of claims, or when it rejects the disease model as a strawman. Faculty credit the model stated fairly, with its evidence, a rival with its own mechanism and a clear statement of what each would forbid. The awkward finding, presented honestly with the favored model's reply, earns substantial credit. Evidence should be treated at the right depth, with correlational imaging not presented as proof of cause. The decision must name its cost. Sources should be primary and cited in APA. Neuroscience should be explained only as far as the argument needs. A rival account stated as carefully as the favored one earns credit even if it loses.
MSW 535 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Critiques most often lose points by setting a caricature of the disease model against a sympathetic alternative. Another common slip is treating brain scans as proof that addiction is or is not a disease. Some papers never mention the high rate of remission without treatment, which is the most important finding for this debate. Others decide without saying what the decision costs clients. The critique does not have to reject the disease model; many strong papers keep it for severe cases. Whichever rival you set against it, give that account its own engine and a finding it struggles with too. Keep the neuroscience to what the claim needs.
Get a MSW-535 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 5 instructions with the rival account your section named and any required element list, and a custom example is written to them and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If your classroom assigned readings for each side, include the citations, because a critique built on the sources your section set reads differently from a general one.
More MSW 535 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 535 Week 1: Craving Criterion Test Post
- MSW 535 Week 2: Fentanyl Substance Profile
- MSW 535 Week 3: Tolerance and Withdrawal Write-Up
- MSW 535 Week 4: Overdose Response Brief for Staff
- MSW 535 Week 6: Behavioral Addiction Paper
- MSW 535 Week 7: Harm Reduction Brief
- MSW 535 Week 8: Recovery Pathway Paper
- MSW 533 Week 5: Survivor Benefits Write-Up
- MSW 532 Week 5: Where E. Lives Conflict Case
- MSW 531 Week 5: Normal Aging Evidence Brief
- MSW 529 Week 5: Transplant Psychosocial Write-Up
MSW 535 Week 5 questions, answered
Does the critique have to reject the disease model?
No, and papers defending it score just as well when the defense is argued rather than assumed. What the assignment is testing is whether you can state what the model commits you to and hold it against something that might not fit. A defense that names the strongest finding against it and explains why the model survives anyway is a stronger paper than a rejection built on distaste for the language.
Can I bring in my own experience or somebody else's?
Sections differ, and where personal material is invited it works best as one illustration inside an argument built on published sources. A single case cannot settle a question about mechanism, and a paper resting on one reads as testimony. Nothing about anyone identifiable belongs in a submitted paper regardless of what the instructions allow, so keep any illustration general enough that it points at nobody.
How much neuroscience does the paper actually need?
Enough that the reader can see what the model claims and no more. The reward pathway appears because the argument depends on it, described at the level the source described it, and then the paper moves to what follows. Pages of neuroanatomy in a critique signal reading rather than analysis, and they usually arrive with the rival account compressed into a paragraph at the end.
Where can I find a free MSW 535 Week 5 sample paper?
The full MSW 535 Week 5 critique of the brain disease model of addiction is published below, with margin notes on the awkward remission finding.
What finding is awkward for the disease model in the MSW 535 Week 5 sample?
A national survey estimating that most people with lifetime dependence eventually remit, often without treatment, which sits uneasily with a model built on chronic relapse.