Morse Stephen J
Law School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6204, USA.
Subst Use Misuse. 2004 Feb;39(3):437-60. doi: 10.1081/ja-120029985.
Thinking about addictions has been dominated by two models: the medical model, which treats addiction as a disease and related behaviors as signs and symptoms, and the moral model, which views addiction and related behaviors as indications of moral failure. This article describes both models and their implications, with special emphasis on the moral model. The meaning of compulsion or coercion caused by internal psychological states, such as craving, is explored to determine if addicts may fairly be held morally and legally responsible for their behavior, such as seeking and using substances. It is argued that diminished rationality better explains than compulsion why addicts might be excused for their behavior, but it is concluded that most addicts can be held responsible for most addiction-related behavior. Nonetheless, both models have desirable characteristics, and sound public policy should not be based solely on either. The implications for criminal justice of employing both models to guide policy are explored.
医学模式,将成瘾视为一种疾病,把相关行为视为体征和症状;以及道德模式,将成瘾及相关行为视为道德失败的表现。本文描述了这两种模式及其影响,特别强调了道德模式。探讨了由诸如渴望等内在心理状态导致的强迫或强制的含义,以确定成瘾者是否应对其行为(如寻找和使用药物)承担道德和法律责任。有人认为,与强迫相比,理性减弱能更好地解释为何成瘾者的行为可被原谅,但结论是大多数成瘾者应对大多数与成瘾相关的行为负责。尽管如此,两种模式都有可取之处,健全的公共政策不应仅基于其中任何一种。本文还探讨了运用这两种模式指导政策对刑事司法的影响。