In response to a recent article (RSA Journal Oct 2007), I wrote this response, which in turn has elicited further comments by email that I have posted below, not in chronological order.
Hi Susie
Does the article in the latest edition of the Journal mean that the RSA has abandoned any interest in an Unhooked exploration of the very notion of addiction?
The route you lay out is exemplary as a rejig of what’s there already – I particularly like “treat the person not the drug”, but underlying the whole approach is the acceptance of the myth that addiction is an illness, an illness that must be dealt with – if differently – in its own mythical terms.
OK you want to make “users” the centre of your plans, but they are still victims being treated for their illness. Look at the recent NTA confession that users are rewarded with larger doses of methadone if they stay off heroin – would your user-centred model stop that absurdity. Yes, it’s absolutely correct that it’s not the drugs, but the person – but surely if you go that far you should include some deep questioning of the very notion of addiction and of what function it serves for users, government, law enforcement and treatment industry?
Am I shouting into the wind?
Regards
William
October 23, 2007 at 1:43 pm
FROM Andrew Detman:
Susie
William Pryor kindly copied me into the letter that he wrote to you, he seems to be a little stuck around his reaction to the illness conception of addiction … your approach seems to harmonise very much with my approach in my private practice http://www.addictionresolution.com
Addiction is a spectrum of diction dysfunction that is pregnant with solutions not only for specific substance and behaviour based individual problems, but also for the overarching social and geopolitical problems facing us all today. Terrorism is a form of addiction in its obsessive and compulsive fanatacism. All of us are addicted to oil for our daily fix.
As individual inner worlds are examined and encouraged to reconstitute, whatever recovery dynamic works well inside the human personality microcosm to transform internal addicted behaviours can, in principle, be incorporated into macrocosmic planning and support for whole collections of individuals in communities that will have to navigate through great external change over the next 40 years as oil supplies diminish.
Kind regards,
Andrew
October 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm
FROM Richard Ives:
Dear Susie (and All)
Yes, I agree with your analysis. You are toiling in a different field.
And just in case people want more about the NTA item, I’m appending the DrugScope piece on it – Martin Barnes explains it very well, I think.
Best wishes
Richard Ives
educari
October 23, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Susie Harris’ response:
Hi William – I don’t think you’re necessarily shouting into the wind, but I do think you’re shouting something different from the RSA. You’re interested in a philosophical exploration of the nature of addiction – which could ultimately have practical consequences for the nature of treatment, if you were able to persuade enough people of the correctness of your findings. But the RSA is interested in a more immediate exploration of the practical implications for drug services of an approach which treats drug users like any other users of public services, whether these be health services, housing, family support etc etc.
If you’re saying that you don’t think drug users need these services, then I think we do have a real difference of opinion.
Incidentally, I don’t agree with your interpretation of the NTA/ methadone ‘bribe’ story. I think the story was over-simplified by the BBC and then unnecessarily complicated by the NTA’s response. I think what the NTA should have said was ‘if this were true, it would be unethical’, and that the situation with the prescription of ‘extra’ methadone is far more complicated than was made out by either side.
Best
S
October 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm
FROM Harry Shapiro:
DrugScope has just sent in its response to the government drug strategy consultation and it should be up on the DS website sometime this week. It’s about 80 pages long, but one of the key points we make is that specialised clinical drug treatment is by no means the whole story – that we should have a much broader definition of ‘treatment’ that is really any intervention which helps people with drug problems – and it could be that they need secure accommodation before they need a clinical intervention and there is some US research to back that up.
On the drug bribe ’scandal’ – DS did put up a press notice about this on our site, but we also covered it from a slightly different angle on the second part of our latest Druglink blog http://www.druglink.blogspot.com/
Harry Shapiro
October 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm
FROM Alan Rayner:
Dear Susie, William and all,
To my mind, ‘unhooked thinking’ isn’t anything to do with persuading people about the correctness of its findings – it is hooked thinking that tries to do that.
Unhooked thinking is about removing a mental block that lies at the root of human suffering and leads to hooked thinking – otherwise known as objective rationality – the practice of unrealistically objectifying nature and human nature in ways that dislocate content from context and so can never escape the loop of trying to ‘fix problems’ (locally fixing fixing).
My feeling is that the RSA is missing a great opportunity to help us out of the loop.
As Louis Pasteur recognised as he was dying ‘the microbe is nothing, the terrain is all’. The addiction, whatever local form it might take, is what could draw our attention to a much deeper question. Sure, ways need to be found to ease suffering through provision of local services. But that is only the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’. Important in its own way, but only a superficial appearance.
More about liberating ourselves from fixing things can now be found at http://www.inclusional-research.org.
Warmest
Alan
October 23, 2007 at 1:56 pm
[...] Find the link to this great post here [...]