From years of research, the prevalent medical view is that addiction is a disease that affects both brain and behaviour.\u00a0 But is it? \u00a0And, does this view further enable the addict to continue their destructive behaviour?<\/p>\n
Dr Gene M. Heyman, a Harvard Medical School lecturer, has recently concluded his research and published\u00a0a book,\u00a0 Addiction: A\u00a0Disorder of Choice,<\/em>\u00a0which casts a different perspective on addiction.\u00a0 Dr Heyman argues that addiction is governed by personal and lifestyle choice.\u00a0 Dr. Heyman’s research concludes addicts will cease their self-destructive behaviour if the consequences are significant and dire.\u00a0\u00a0 Addiction, according to Dr. Heyman, is therefore not an involuntary illness or disease. (Dr Heyman\u2019s interview with CTV can be seen here: Interview<\/a>)<\/p>\n You have to wonder about the implications of Dr. Heyman\u2019s position upon public policy should his position gain significant medical, social or politically support.\u00a0 Because addiction is considered a disability,\u00a0 the Human Rights Act<\/em> imposes a duty to accommodate onto the employer up to the point of undue hardship.\u00a0 However, Dr. Heyman’s assertion that addiction is a personal and lifestyle choice could drastically affect the way employers deal with employees who are addicted.\u00a0 The duty to accommodate an addict could possibly become a policy of the past.\u00a0\u00a0Employers would have much greater freedom to dismiss employees who have shown behavioural issues (eg. poor attendance, poor performance, etc) as a result of their addiction.<\/p>\n Tell us what you think.\u00a0 Do you think addiction is a disease and should\u00a0be accomodated by the employer or is addiction a personal and lifestyle behaviour and is therefore outside of the protection of the Human Rights Act?<\/p>\n For anyone requiring more information on addiction, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health<\/a> is an excellent resource.<\/p>\n