Heroin better for addicts in recovery. Really? Recovery? Really?
Here's the abstract.
Raises some interesting questions about the future of the word recovery.
There's been discussion in recent years about being more inclusive with concept of recovery to make room for medication-assisted recovery, serial recovery, partial recovery, 12-step, faith based, secular, solo, etc. To be sure, many had defined it too narrowly. But, at what point does it lose its meaning? Could we get to the point where people using their drug of choice under medical supervision are considered to be in recovery? Is this headline an indication that it is already losing its meaning?
Time magazine had a piece a while ago on Baclofen and the possibility of it turning some problem drinkers into "normal" (nonproblem) drinkers. If it lives up to the hype, (I'm skeptical.) it will be a good thing. But, are those people "in recovery"? They're well, they're better, etc.
This is bound to be a woefully incomplete discussion of the concept (I'm trying to get out of the house.), but I'll get the ball rolling. "In recovery" has taken on a certain cultural meaning for people in and out of recovery--that a person had experienced the devastating and consuming effects of addiction to drugs and/or alcohol and has now organized multiple dimensions of their life around recovering from the illness and the devastation caused by the illness. (Like, say, someone who suffers a heart attack and changes their diet, starts to exercise, takes meds, takes responsibility for monitoring their health, etc.) Does someone who's problem is solved by simply taking a pill qualify? Is it important that there be a label and a distinction?
Technorati Tags:
heroin,
baclofen,
recovery,
addiction,
alcoholism 
Here's the abstract.
Raises some interesting questions about the future of the word recovery.
There's been discussion in recent years about being more inclusive with concept of recovery to make room for medication-assisted recovery, serial recovery, partial recovery, 12-step, faith based, secular, solo, etc. To be sure, many had defined it too narrowly. But, at what point does it lose its meaning? Could we get to the point where people using their drug of choice under medical supervision are considered to be in recovery? Is this headline an indication that it is already losing its meaning?
Time magazine had a piece a while ago on Baclofen and the possibility of it turning some problem drinkers into "normal" (nonproblem) drinkers. If it lives up to the hype, (I'm skeptical.) it will be a good thing. But, are those people "in recovery"? They're well, they're better, etc.
This is bound to be a woefully incomplete discussion of the concept (I'm trying to get out of the house.), but I'll get the ball rolling. "In recovery" has taken on a certain cultural meaning for people in and out of recovery--that a person had experienced the devastating and consuming effects of addiction to drugs and/or alcohol and has now organized multiple dimensions of their life around recovering from the illness and the devastation caused by the illness. (Like, say, someone who suffers a heart attack and changes their diet, starts to exercise, takes meds, takes responsibility for monitoring their health, etc.) Does someone who's problem is solved by simply taking a pill qualify? Is it important that there be a label and a distinction?
Technorati Tags: heroin, baclofen, recovery, addiction, alcoholism