Heroin better for addicts in recovery. Really? Recovery? Really?
Here's the abstract.
Raises some interesting questions about the future of the word recovery.
There's been discussion in recent years about being more inclusive with concept of recovery to make room for medication-assisted recovery, serial recovery, partial recovery, 12-step, faith based, secular, solo, etc. To be sure, many had defined it too narrowly. But, at what point does it lose its meaning? Could we get to the point where people using their drug of choice under medical supervision are considered to be in recovery? Is this headline an indication that it is already losing its meaning?
Time magazine had a piece a while ago on Baclofen and the possibility of it turning some problem drinkers into "normal" (nonproblem) drinkers. If it lives up to the hype, (I'm skeptical.) it will be a good thing. But, are those people "in recovery"? They're well, they're better, etc.
This is bound to be a woefully incomplete discussion of the concept (I'm trying to get out of the house.), but I'll get the ball rolling. "In recovery" has taken on a certain cultural meaning for people in and out of recovery--that a person had experienced the devastating and consuming effects of addiction to drugs and/or alcohol and has now organized multiple dimensions of their life around recovering from the illness and the devastation caused by the illness. (Like, say, someone who suffers a heart attack and changes their diet, starts to exercise, takes meds, takes responsibility for monitoring their health, etc.) Does someone who's problem is solved by simply taking a pill qualify? Is it important that there be a label and a distinction?
Technorati Tags: heroin, baclofen, recovery, addiction, alcoholism
Here's the abstract.
Raises some interesting questions about the future of the word recovery.
There's been discussion in recent years about being more inclusive with concept of recovery to make room for medication-assisted recovery, serial recovery, partial recovery, 12-step, faith based, secular, solo, etc. To be sure, many had defined it too narrowly. But, at what point does it lose its meaning? Could we get to the point where people using their drug of choice under medical supervision are considered to be in recovery? Is this headline an indication that it is already losing its meaning?
Time magazine had a piece a while ago on Baclofen and the possibility of it turning some problem drinkers into "normal" (nonproblem) drinkers. If it lives up to the hype, (I'm skeptical.) it will be a good thing. But, are those people "in recovery"? They're well, they're better, etc.
This is bound to be a woefully incomplete discussion of the concept (I'm trying to get out of the house.), but I'll get the ball rolling. "In recovery" has taken on a certain cultural meaning for people in and out of recovery--that a person had experienced the devastating and consuming effects of addiction to drugs and/or alcohol and has now organized multiple dimensions of their life around recovering from the illness and the devastation caused by the illness. (Like, say, someone who suffers a heart attack and changes their diet, starts to exercise, takes meds, takes responsibility for monitoring their health, etc.) Does someone who's problem is solved by simply taking a pill qualify? Is it important that there be a label and a distinction?
Technorati Tags: heroin, baclofen, recovery, addiction, alcoholism
3 comments:
In some communities of recovery people on methadone and suboxone maintenence are "in recovery" in other communities anti depressants are taboo. The idea of researchers defining "recovery" is not good.
many people who talk about the term recovery are people in 12 step programs who say that anyone who isn't working a 12 step program is not in recovery or is a dry drunk. some people maybe most people who used to have a problem but do not use any more have organized their life around not using drugs and alcohol and no longer need to focus so much on it, not using has become who they are and what they do and they don't need a 12 step program to stay clean and sober. maybe they should be called recovered since teh word recovery seems to be reserved for people in programs, which maybe isn't really recovery either if they need a program forever to stay clean and sober. they're OK, why label them negatively.
It seems to me that people who are "in recovery" are people who are actively working on making positive changes in their lives and are moving away from their use of alcohol, drugs etc.. As the previous comment noted, the majority of ex- problem users are not in 12 step programs and many are living productive lives without the need to maintain a program of "recovery" as defined by 12 step members. "Recovery" is a lay term, you are in recovery if you say you are. Remission can be diagnosed. Should we be worried if the term recovery is thrown around loosely in the media or among researchers? Maybe, public perception of people with alcohol and drug addictions and their ability to change influences policy and effects a lot of people. Maybe not though.
Post a Comment