Anna David vents her frustration about recent distortions of 12 step groups in coverage of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death:
…I grow concerned about factually inaccurate information being spread in ways that are truly dangerous. That happened when I stumbled upon this io9 post which states, about 12-step, both that “the problem is that the sponsor system doesn’t fit with current scientific understandings of how addiction recovery works” and that “most NA groups frown on taking meds and forbid sponsors from doing it or advocating for it.”
I’m no expert but here’s what I understand:
- The “sponsor system” has nothing to do with “scientific understandings”
- A 12-step group doesn’t “frown on taking meds.” The literature directly states, in fact that “some A.A. members must take prescribed medication for serious medical problems.”
- Sponsors are not “forbidden” from doing anything. Sponsors are not, in fact, mentioned in the Big Book. As the literature about medication says: “No A.A. member should ‘play doctor’; all medical advice and treatment should come from a qualified physician.”
Here’s what I don’t understand:
- Why people blatantly lie when arguing against something when the facts are so clearly easy to find.
Here’s what I think helps:
- Articles that offer unbiased explanations of alternatives to standard AA, like this one from yesterday’s Times.