Moral Maze
I was dismayed to read ‘Tackling the
deficit’ (
DDN
, November, page 12).
The authors (Mark Gilman, Peter
Sheath and Peter McDermott, who
told me recently that the article did
not represent his views) referenced
the importance of asset-based
community development (ABCD)
principles but, ironically, the entire
piece was framed in divisive and
deficit-focused terms.
Having thought we’d moved on
from ‘moral’ narratives, with all their
accompanying blame, stigma and
discrimination, I read that ‘There are
right and wrong ways of living’ and
‘the right way is to get a job, pay your
rent and care for your friends and
family’. Many people, most on the
wrong side of the poverty/inequality
chasm in this country, are apparently
living the ‘wrong way’, described as
‘methadone, booze and benefits;
watching daytime TV while the state
takes care of your kids’. Try and find a
focus on strengths (ABCD principles?)
in that dehumanising and reductive
statement.
According to Gilman et al you can
reduce the huge diversity found
within services and communities to
‘two tribes’ – harm reductionists are
primarily concerned with a
Conservative ‘attack on the
entitlement to remain on long-term
sickness benefits’ and the
maintenance of a treatment system
that ‘has been living high on the hog
for much of the last 20 years’; while
those affiliated with the recovery
model (note the singular) are closely
linked (they make the link four times)
to Conservative values and policy.
This will be news to many people I
know that work in services,
desperately trying to offer support as
funding is slashed, and to the many
service users and recovery activists
that I meet as I travel the country.
The suggestion by Gilman et al
that these ‘right ways of living’ along
with ‘voluntarism…need to take
personal responsibility and building
community’ are somehow the sole
preserve of conservatives and in line
with Conservative policy is again
reductive, offensive and, in these
austere times, rather bizarre. Jobs,
friends and homes are central to
recovery, as is social justice, and there
is a huge amount of evidence that
Conservative policy is impacting
negatively on all these areas.
Conservative policy tore communities
apart in the 1980s, sowing the seeds
of poverty and dislocation that we
face today, and their current policy of
disinvestment and privatisation is
fuelling inequality and injustice at an
alarming rate.
A version of ‘recovery’ (there are
many) and ABCD is being promoted
and used by some recovery capitalists
for private gain, presumably in line
with their neo-liberal values. They are
providing cover, alongside those who
remain silent, for the dismantling of
a welfare state born out of a spirit of
collective responsibility and
community building in the 1940s.
However there are many people
who are resisting this, whether they
use the language of ‘recovery’ or not
and the article by Gilman et al does
them a great disservice. We can do
better. There’s a version of ‘recovery’
grounded in social justice and
empathy.
Alistair Sinclair, director, UKRF
Cavalier CoMMents
I found two aspects of 'Tackling the
Deficit' alarming.
Firstly, pitting harm reduction
against recovery reiterates divisive
and sterile arguments that very many
of us had hoped were put to bed
years ago. In addition, people who
see harm reduction as one of the
essential components of a
comprehensive approach, along with
many who are finding that ORT has
helped to improve their lives, may
well feel that the comment about
‘entitlement to remain on long-term
sickness benefit’ is offensive.
Even more concerning is the
apparent suggestion that people
dying is a price worth paying. No it is
not! Of course people choosing to
move on from methadone should be
supported to do so, but this must be
within a system that helps them
achieve this in as risk-free a way as
possible. Too many people continue
to die in the first weeks after coming
off ORT or being detoxed.
Each drug death is a life wasted
and a family devastated, and to make
somewhat cavalier remarks about
this issue is irresponsible.
George Allan, Ellon, Aberdeenshire
DeaD enD
Despite the governments of Scotland
and England being unanimous in the
benefits of promoting naloxone to
relatives and friends of people who
are at risk of overdosing, there seems
to be little attempt to get the
information out there.
Many people use the telephone
service FRANK [UK helpline] and
Know The Score [Scottish helpline]
for advice regarding substance use
and rely on quality information being
provided to them to help them to
navigate themselves through very
difficult situations.
They come through initially to a
tier 1 adviser who can give them
basic information regarding
substance/alcohol use and then they
will be put through to a more
specialised adviser to help with
further support, depending on the
nature of the call.
There are some very dedicated
advisers on both tiers but
unfortunately, tier 1 cannot inform
the caller about naloxone, either on
FRANK or Know The Score. They can’t
mention naloxone on web chat
Letters and Comment
‘Having thought
we’d moved on
from “moral”
narratives,
with all their
accompanying
blame, stigma and
discrimination,
I read that
“There are right
and wrong ways
of living” and
“the right way is
to get a job, pay
your rent and care
for your friends
and family”.’
16 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| December 2015
