I offer a “responsibility without blame” framework that derives from reflection on forms of clinical practice that support change and recovery in patients who cause harm to themselves and others. This framework can be used to interrogate our own attitudes and responses, so that we can better see how to acknowledge the truth about choice and agency in addiction, while avoiding stigma and blame, and instead maintaining care and compassion alongside a commitment to working for social justice and good—Hanna Pickard, Reader in Philosophy, Birmingham University, UK
Source: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-016-9295-2
Note: This suggestion tallies closely with the compromise reached in Alcohol Companion. As is pointed out in this paper, it is important for our well-being to acknowledge that we continue to make choices after exposure to alcohol. But it is also important to acknowledge that alcohol exposure means, for a variety of reasons, our subsequent choices often become unreliable, often being heavily biased in favour of consuming more alcohol. Choices made when we are being coerced, disabled, bribed or deceived cannot be given the same treatment as ones we make without interference. In such circumstances it can be helpful to ignore the question of whether a choice is morally right or wrong, because there can be no reliable answer when our judgment is impaired. And moral answers rarely provide a solution for the person being judged. Luckily, however, it is often both possible and helpful to look at the factors which led to a choice and ask whether it was a good or bad one purely in terms of our happiness and well-being. ■