Revisiting recovery-oriented harm reduction (part 2)

Yesterday, we began to revisit the concept of recovery-oriented harm reduction. Why recovery-oriented harm reduction and not just recovery? 13 years ago, recovery-oriented harm reduction was thought of as a bridge between harm reduction and treatment or recovery. Today, in some circles, it might invite questions about why one would want to maintain a distinction … Continue reading Revisiting recovery-oriented harm reduction (part 2)

“full recovery or amplified recovery” — toward typologies of recovery?

Recently proposed definitions of recovery could be characterized as defining it downward (or expanding the boundaries outward). I’ve expressed concern that these proposed boundaries are so broad that most people who currently self-identify as in recovery will not feel a shared identity with the people that advocates are trying to expand the boundaries to include. … Continue reading “full recovery or amplified recovery” — toward typologies of recovery?

How do we know if we do not ask?

  Recovery Science shared a couple of qualitative studies on the experiences of MAT patients. The first identified 7 themes: Patients may not be aware of treatment alternatives Treatment expectations and goals may differ between clinicians and patients Prior experiences with buprenorphine or methadone influence treatment decisions and expectations Accountability and structure facilitate treatment engagement … Continue reading How do we know if we do not ask?

Toward a “Conspiracy of Hope” (Bill White and Jason Schwartz)

This is being cross-posted from Please visit and subscribe. (You won’t regret it!) So it is not our job to pass judgment on who will and will not recover from mental illness and the spirit breaking effects of poverty, stigma, dehumanization, degradation and learned helplessness. Rather, our job is to participate in a conspiracy of … Continue reading Toward a “Conspiracy of Hope” (Bill White and Jason Schwartz)