Basic HTML Version
Veteran support
I read with interest
DDN
's recent article
about veterans in treatment (
DDN
,
December, page 6). Firstly, I was
wondering where you found the
statistical data to back up the quote
that ‘military veterans do not tend to do
well in traditional treatment settings.’
I work for Veterans Aid, a UK
charity that assists ex-service
personnel in crisis. I'm responsible for
coordinating all of the drug, alcohol
and/or gambling treatment services
for veterans who present to the
charity. For the past six years we've
supported around 40 veterans per
year into treatment and, as far as I’m
aware, this is the only service in the
country tasked with specifically doing
this. I don’t know of any other service
that holds data relating to ex-
servicemen and women in treatment
(average age, verified service, length
of service, time spent since leaving
HM armed forces, substances used,
treatment completion, etc).
Rather than sending all of our clients
to one veteran-specific treatment
centre, our approach is to match the
most appropriate programme with
clients who’re suitably motivated. This
ethos appears to be absolutely the right
way forward, as our statistics tell us
that veterans actually do even better
than civvies in treatment in terms of
completion.
While I understand the writer
Jacquie Johnston-Lynch wanting to
promote her service, I think it’s crucial
that we challenge the media perception
of veterans as ‘damaged goods’, and the
claim that they’re more likely to fail in
treatment does the community no
favours whatsoever. Indeed, such claims
could dissuade people from coming
forward to access help, or for care
managers across the country to rethink
their help offered.
Veterans Aid has seen a great
number of people complete treatment
and go on to rebuild their lives. It’s really
important that veterans are given as
much support and encouragement to
access treatment as possible.
Phil Rogers, Veterans Aid, London
Debilitating stigma
Given your recent conference report,
Community chest
(
DDN
, November,
page 9) and the subsequent letter from
Laurie Andrews (
DDN
, December, page
18), it may be appropriate to clarify here
precisely the point I was making at the
RiTC conference. My point was not
whether we call addiction a ‘disease’ or
a ‘disorder’ or an ‘anti-social behaviour’.
I’m not terribly concerned about that.
What does worry me is the promotion
by some of the idea that this is a
problem which is intrinsically incurable.
It isn’t. Hundreds upon hundreds of
addicts every year get out from under
their addiction. Some will do so by
completing a programme in a
therapeutic community. Some will
attend mutual aid meetings. Some will
simply stop. All will be hampered by a
stigma that says, ‘I won’t employ this
ex-alcoholic because sooner or later he
will start drinking again and give me
major problems.’ Or, ‘I don't want this
ex-heroin addict living next to me
because she'll start using again and be
a danger to my children.’
How do I know this as an employer
or a neighbour? Well, all the treatment
professionals tell me that this is
incurable. And this is the root of the
stigma. Try applying as an ex-addict for
a job as a policeman, or a nursery nurse,
or a teacher. Can’t be done. The stigma
is all-pervasive and debilitating. And it’s
based on a belief that addicts never
change and will always go back to their
bad old ways.
Now it’s always convenient to blame
the media for this stigma but in truth,
significant numbers within the
treatment and fellowship camps are
promoting the same message. ‘This is
incurable,’ they say. ‘The best we can do
is to manage it with medication.’ Or,
‘This is incurable. The best we can do is
to manage it with regular attendance at
meetings.’ Both messages encourage a
view of addiction that supports a belief
within the general population that
recovery is a chimera.
I’m not attacking any particular type
of intervention here. Nor am I arguing
that addiction isn’t a serious problem,
often with serious physiological
complications. But I am saying that it
behoves us as treatment providers or
supporters or recovery advocates, to
celebrate recovery wherever we find it.
To hunt it down where we can’t find it.
And to abandon forever the defeatist
mantra of the ‘incurable disease’ (or
‘disorder’ or ‘anti-social behaviour’).
Rowdy Yates, president, European
Federation of Therapeutic Communities;
senior research fellow, Scottish Addiction
Studies, University of Stirling.
nice little earner
Of course addiction isn’t a disease
(Laurie Andrews,
DDN
letters, page 18),
and is only generally speaking an
illness, malady or sickness.
Furthermore, it is because its true
nature has not been widely identified
and admitted that progress in curing
addiction has been slow.
It is vital to recognise the absurdly
obvious – that if an individual never
uses a particular addictive substance,
he or she will never become addicted
to that substance. They cannot,
because it is the addictive substance
itself that generates the addiction.
Not ‘blame the user’, ‘abuse’ or
‘misuse’, but straightforward ‘usage’
on two or more occasions.
Twenty-five to 30 per cent of users
are more susceptible to intense
addiction than others, but in all cases it
is the actual fact of ‘usage’ which
initiates and holds in place the
addictive condition the drug generates.
Letters and Comment
‘It’s crucial that
we challenge the
media perception
of veterans as
“damaged goods”,
and the claim
that they’re more
likely to fail in
treatment does
the community
no favours
whatsoever.’
14 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| February 2015
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
‘My point was
not whether we
call addiction a
‘disease’ or a
‘disorder’ or an
‘anti-social
behaviour’...
What does
worry me is the
promotion by
some of the idea
that this is a
problem which
is intrinsically
incurable.’