Tag Archives: recovery oriented harm reduction

Harm Reduction and 12 Step Approaches Complimentary?

PeaPod has a great post on harm reduction and 12 step oriented treatment. He reviews an article that suggests that they can be complimentary.

I’m more and more convinced that this is true. However, the big question is, what values and beliefs animate the intervention?

Can the harm reduction provider embrace beliefs like:

  • for addicts, abstinence (a foundation for full recovery) is the best outcome,
  • most addicts are capable of achieving full recovery if they are given the proper treatment and support,
  • we workers can’t pick the winners and losers,
  • drug use by addicts is a bad thing (a symptom of an illness),
  • meeting people where they are at is great, but shouldn’t leave them there—it is the responsibility of all providers to look for opportunities to move the addict toward full recovery.

Can drug-free treatment providers embrace beliefs like:

  • gradual improvement is good and something to be affirmed,
  • self-determination is important,
  • choices are not a threat,
  • support of the addict should be unconditional—it should continue whether the addict is using or not,
  • dead addicts can’t recover.

Where this gets sticky is establishing priorities in the context of scarce resources.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Treatment-oriented harm reduction

It’s good to see a harm reduction message that also encourages seeking treatment.

It’s too bad that the treatment that is likely to be available will not be recovery-oriented.

2 Comments

Filed under Harm Reduction, Policy

Where’s your evidence?

PeaPod has a great post challenging evidence-based practices as a basis for harm reduction

Now I’m pretty convinced by the wealth of evidence on methadone prescribing. It saves lives. But I’m always asking compared to what? No treatment? Of course. Stand alone detox? I shudder at the thought. But has anyone designed a study comparing standard methadone prescribing as we generally do it on these shores (“script and go”) with treatment in a recovery oriented integrated treatment system?

By that I mean that an individual gets treatment of sufficient intensity (dose) and duration, using evidenced psychosocial interventions, with attention being paid to housing, education, and employability? Such systems will have a solid concept of the protective power of assertive referral to recovery communities including mutual aid and will provide aftercare and peer-support systems.

Of course, it would help if we weren’t fighting for the same scraps. Personally, I’m convinced that, if comprehensive and high quality harm reduction and recovery-oriented services were readily available, addicts would migrate toward the recovery-oriented service system. Of course, it would be even better if we had both and the harm reduction services engaged addicts and sought to move them into recovery-oriented services. Wait! That would be recovery-oriented harm reduction!

I’ve been thinking about a model of recovery-oriented harm reduction that would address the historic failings of abstinence-oriented and harm reduction services. The idea is that it would provide recovery (for addicts only) as an organizing and unifying construct for treatment and harm reduction services. Admittedly, these judgments of the historic failings are my own and represent the perspective of a Midwestern U.S. recovery-oriented provider:

  • an emphasis on client choice–no coercion
  • all drug use is not addiction
  • addiction is an illness characterized by loss of control
  • for those with addiction, full recovery is the ideal outcome
  • the concept of recovery is inclusive — can include partial, serial, etc.
  • recovery is possible for any addict
  • all services should communicate hope for recovery–recognizing that hope-based interventions are essential for enhancing motivation to recover
  • incremental and radical change should be supported and affirmed
  • while incremental changes are validated and supported, they are not to be treated as an end-point
  • such a system would aggressively deal with countertransference–some people may impose their own recovery path on clients, others might enjoy vicarious nonconformity through clients

Today, I’d go further and add that it has to recognize drug use by addicts as oppressive and harmful to the addict.

Comments Off on Where’s your evidence?

Filed under Controversies, Harm Reduction, Policy

Heroin for dummies

Responses to this will be interesting to watch. I’m certain that people who object will be accused of moral panic or something like it.

I’m open to non-judgmental outreach harm reduction for the purpose of building relationships and gradually engaging people into recovery.
I’d like to know how these materials are being used. Are they in the hands of hopeful recovery-informed outreach workers who are building relationships and building motivation to recover? Or, something else?
I’ve posted about gradualism and recovery-oriented harm reduction before.

I’ve been thinking about a model of recovery-oriented harm reductionthat would address the historic failings of abstinence-oriented and harm reduction services. The idea is that it would provide recovery (for addicts only) as an organizing and unifying construct for treatment and harm reduction services. Admittedly, these judgments of the historic failings are my own and represent the perspective of a Midwestern U.S. recovery-oriented provider:

  • an emphasis on client choice–no coercion
  • all drug use is not addiction
  • addiction is an illness characterized by loss of control
  • for those with addiction, full recovery is the ideal outcome
  • the concept of recovery is inclusive — can include partial, serial, etc.
  • recovery is possible for any addict
  • all services should communicate hope for recovery–recognizing that hope-based interventions are essential for enhancing motivation to recover
  • incremental and radical change should be supported and affirmed
  • while incremental changes are validated and supported, they are not to be treated as an end-point
  • such a system would aggressively deal with countertransference–some people may impose their own recovery path on clients, others might enjoy vicarious nonconformity through clients

5 Comments

Filed under Policy