ABSTRACT
There has been renewed advocacy in Australia and the USA for coerced treatment of addiction. Leading neuroscientists have argued that the chronic use of addictive substances causes long-lasting changes in the brain that hijack a person’s ability to refrain from drug use. This has been referred to as the brain disease model of addiction. Some clinicians and ethicists have argued that this model of addiction provides a moral and legal warrant for coercively treating severely addicted persons in their own best interests. We critically examine the research that has been used to support the claim that addiction is a brain disease that hijacks an individual’s decisions around drug use. Based on this analysis, we consider whether, and if so under what conditions, it would be ethical to legally coerced someone into addiction treatment. We conclude with an analysis of the most extreme case of coercion, compulsory addiction treatment, arguing that this proposal is not supported by the neuroscience, is unlikely to be effective and may have negative consequences for addiction treatment services.
