I’ve written often about the subtle bigotry of low expectations, these two posts illustrate that concern. (I like my reference to “pessimistic paternalism disguised as compassionate pragmatism.”)
A horrifying excerpt from a debate in a British treatment provider magazine. (It’s at the bottom of both pages.) I don’t completely understand the context–whether they are debating a “motion” in a binding way for the specialty society that publishes the magazine or if it’s a devise for a magazine column.
One of the participants proposed that detox is dangerous due to the possibility of reduced tolerance and unintentional overdose in the event of a relapse. Harm reduction advocates used to argue that they represented a needed choice philosophy in working with addicts. The is the worst kind of pessimistic paternalism disguised as compassionate pragmatism–and there’s nothing representing real choice.
…Detox can be dangerous and is not very often successful. Death rates are higher in recently detoxed patients.
Many people request detox but we need to recognise that maintenance is a very worthwhile option. Maintenance patients need our support – including psychological support – and harm reduction has to be our goal.
The NTA says rehab providers have to provide mechanisms for rapid referral into maintenance programmes. Getting people off drugs is dangerous.
Bill Nelles,founder of The Alliance,said: ‘Let’s take the morality out of drug treatment and put the humanity back in’. Judy Bury [GP] said it is our job as GPs to keep people alive until they are ready to change.
There’s not much evidence for long-term effectiveness of detox,but it can reduce tolerance. People cannot do abstinence when they walk in the service. The move toward abstinence-based treatment is dangerous and will increase drug-related deaths.
Let’s hope that the concept of “recovery impatience” does not catch on. Keep in mind that this is in the context of a country with a big emphasis on methadone and 60% of the methadone recipients have expressed a preference for abstinence based treatment.
“We are now seeing the emergence of a culture of “recovery impatience”: the demand for people to move quickly to a drug-free lifestyle while denying the signiﬁcance of other factors – such as low income and life in neglected communities – which make rapid achievement to a drug-free life impossible for the majority,” she said.
“The combination of totally unrealistic expectations, along with the demonisation of drug users, is having a trickle-down effect on practice, with “ﬁrmer” responses becoming more acceptable.
“We are in danger of harking back to the days when those seeking treatment were labelled as feckless and chaotic, deemed as having given up their right to be involved in their own treatment or to be treated with the dignity, respect and quality of care afforded other vulnerable groups in society.”