Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Substance Abuse
2nd NY Times Article in Substance Abuse series
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rejectedmom" data-source="post: 579543" data-attributes="member: 2315"><p>I also found this article confusing.</p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: #0000cd">"Nor does treatment have as good a chance at succeeding if it is forced upon a person who is not ready to recover. 'Treatment does work, but only if the person wants it to,' Mr. Moyers said."</span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #0000cd"></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #0000cd"></span></em>That statement contradicts itself. If a forced treatment doesn't have as good a chance then it indeed has a chance. But then he says it only works if the addict wants it. So which is it?</p><p></p><p>and later in the article:</p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080">"Rather, he urged families to remain engaged, to keep open the lines of communication and regularly remind the addict of their love and willingness to help if and when help is wanted. But, he added, families must also set firm boundaries &#8212; no money, no car, nothing that can be quickly converted into the substance of abuse.Whether or not the addict ever gets well, Mr. Moyers said, 'families have to take care of themselves. They can't let the addict walk over their lives.'</span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"></span></em>He says to not giving them anything that can be sold for money for drugs/alcohol and to set firm boundries which many of us found often had to include not allowing them under our roof. How is that not letting them reach bottom? I do not think any of us ever cut their kids off completely and all of us were willing to help when they wanted help. So I guess what is confusing is that he never defines what exactly he considers "rock bottom" only states that it can lead to death. Just what exactly is it that the family is supposed to do when multiple attemps at treatment fail and the addict only asks for help to get off the streets or to get medications etc? Are they supposed to continue to finance treatment when the history is that the family has spent much time and money in repeated attempts and the addict never follows through? </p><p></p><p>Is his lack of bottom merely the addicts' knowledge that there are people who care about them? And really what addict truly knows that when they are caught up in the throws of their addictions and their families are witholding the things they want? </p><p></p><p>And as for not putting guilt on the addict. Well it can be said that just defining boundries and telling an addict why you have put those boundries in place is often interpreted as a laying on of guilt by the addict.-RM</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rejectedmom, post: 579543, member: 2315"] I also found this article confusing. [I][COLOR=#0000cd]"Nor does treatment have as good a chance at succeeding if it is forced upon a person who is not ready to recover. 'Treatment does work, but only if the person wants it to,' Mr. Moyers said." [/COLOR][/I]That statement contradicts itself. If a forced treatment doesn't have as good a chance then it indeed has a chance. But then he says it only works if the addict wants it. So which is it? and later in the article: [I][COLOR=#000080]"Rather, he urged families to remain engaged, to keep open the lines of communication and regularly remind the addict of their love and willingness to help if and when help is wanted. But, he added, families must also set firm boundaries — no money, no car, nothing that can be quickly converted into the substance of abuse.Whether or not the addict ever gets well, Mr. Moyers said, 'families have to take care of themselves. They can't let the addict walk over their lives.' [/COLOR][/I]He says to not giving them anything that can be sold for money for drugs/alcohol and to set firm boundries which many of us found often had to include not allowing them under our roof. How is that not letting them reach bottom? I do not think any of us ever cut their kids off completely and all of us were willing to help when they wanted help. So I guess what is confusing is that he never defines what exactly he considers "rock bottom" only states that it can lead to death. Just what exactly is it that the family is supposed to do when multiple attemps at treatment fail and the addict only asks for help to get off the streets or to get medications etc? Are they supposed to continue to finance treatment when the history is that the family has spent much time and money in repeated attempts and the addict never follows through? Is his lack of bottom merely the addicts' knowledge that there are people who care about them? And really what addict truly knows that when they are caught up in the throws of their addictions and their families are witholding the things they want? And as for not putting guilt on the addict. Well it can be said that just defining boundries and telling an addict why you have put those boundries in place is often interpreted as a laying on of guilt by the addict.-RM [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Substance Abuse
2nd NY Times Article in Substance Abuse series
Top