Progress thread for ne

[terryk]

What I do not see, or don't see with any regularity, are the people passing judgment about other, more traditional choices. There has always been, and will always be, a bit of divisiveness between those who attempt to moderate their drinking and those who insist that abstinence is the only way to freedom. (The medical research backs up that the majority of people with Alcohol Use Disorders can, in fact, drink normally again. It depends on the person and the level of disease. But that is beside the point for the moment.)

NE- I'd love a copy of that medical research- so if decide to have a nice cold beer someday soon I can show it to my wife and tell her to chill!

That may take me some time, lex. I'm just freakin' busy right now and sorting through what I've read to find that (factual) information could possibly take some focused hours. I should know better than to quote something as fact and not source it. I hate it when people do that because it so often leads to misinformation or misunderstanding.

I'm guessing Ne is referring to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

Here are 2 articles that unpack some of the data from 2001-2002 - first from the NIH:

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2001-2002-survey-finds-many-recover-alcoholism-researchers-identify

And another, from cleanslate.org:

http://www.thecleanslate.org/self-change/substance-dependence-recovery-rates-with-and-without-treatment/

-tk


EDIT: I'm going to point out that I think that the language in the 2nd article is a bit loaded at times... I did not include it in this post for the purpose of encouraging moderation, or denigrating 12 step programs.

[SKendall]

This has been a great few days being able to post like the mature adults we are. It's been grand.

[lex]

Here's a cite to the author's summary of his longitudinal study (which I hastily summarized the other day): Addiction, 2003 Aug;98(8):1043-51, A 60-year follow-up of alcoholic men. Please excuse citation format.

It is available in pdf by googling "60-year follow-up of alcoholic men."

[lex]

Ne, regarding doctors who are cautious about malpractice suits, there is now torte law in some states.
....

What say you Lex?

Hi SK- sorry I can't contribute much to the tort discussion, as I'm strictly a business litigator. But my general sense is that doctors (including my ER doc brother) are much more fearful about the prospect of being named as a defendant in a "meritless" malpractice suit than is warranted.

[Ne/Neva Eva]

Hi SK- sorry I can't contribute much to the tort discussion, as I'm strictly a business litigator. But my general sense is that doctors (including my ER doc brother) are much more fearful about the prospect of being named as a defendant in a "meritless" malpractice suit than is warranted.

I can tell you that going through nursing school really changed my perspective about doctors willingness and ability to prescribe medications off-label. Particularly for something as complicated, debilitating, and dangerous as alcoholism.

The short version is that if I was a doctor (especially a general practitioner) and a stranger came in, even with sound research, I would never prescribe baclofen. It's way too risky for the doctor, and from the doctor's limited perspective, way too risky for the patient! I mean, think about it. Baclofen is not something a GP would know much about. It's only used for pretty specific and debilitating illnesses. It's called a muscle relaxant. And people with alcoholism are known to be very difficult to treat. (Chronic, progressive disease, blah, blah, blah.)

The trouble isn't just with baclofen, or with GPs, though. And that's my main focus about this. It's the fact that GPs could easily prescribe other medications that are approved and they don't. And that a referral to a very expensive psychiatrist doesn't necessarily mean that someone with AUD, even really profound, or what used to be called late-stage-alcoholism, would get treatment with AUD medication. Much less baclofen. Which is absurd and outrageous and infuriating. THAT is what I intend to change. Single-handedly. Because I am a magician of some sort and can change the world with a wish and a wand. <heavy sigh>

Terryk, thanks for posting all of that information. I was kind of counting on you to back me up! (Sorry for the assumption and the imposition!) I've never read those before and will put them on Forums - The End of my Addiction.

From the article, in case people didn't take the time to click through and read:

...Those studies often find that people relapse quickly without continued treatment, leading to the erroneous assumptions that addicts can’t quit without treatment, or that addiction is a chronic disease, and especially that abstinence is necessary and that successful moderation is rarely attainable – among other nonsense. But what we find when we broaden our scope, like in this study, is that the majority of people with Substance Dependence (as defined in the APA’s DSM-IV) actually quit on their own without any sort of treatment or 12-step involvement.

I agree with you, too, Tk, about the article being a little heavy-handed. But a decent summation none-the-less. And again, thank you.

AF yesterday, and planning on another AF day today.

Hope it's a good day for you all out in MWO-land! :hug:

[SKendall]

Ne, good job on being AF.

[YouKayBee]

I can tell you that going through nursing school really changed my perspective about doctors willingness and ability to prescribe medications off-label. Particularly for something as complicated, debilitating, and dangerous as alcoholism.

The short version is that if I was a doctor (especially a general practitioner) and a stranger came in, even with sound research, I would never prescribe baclofen. It's way too risky for the doctor, and from the doctor's limited perspective, way too risky for the patient! I mean, think about it. Baclofen is not something a GP would know much about. It's only used for pretty specific and debilitating illnesses. It's called a muscle relaxant. And people with alcoholism are known to be very difficult to treat. (Chronic, progressive disease, blah, blah, blah.)

The trouble isn't just with baclofen, or with GPs, though. And that's my main focus about this. It's the fact that GPs could easily prescribe other medications that are approved and they don't. And that a referral to a very expensive psychiatrist doesn't necessarily mean that someone with AUD, even really profound, or what used to be called late-stage-alcoholism, would get treatment with AUD medication. Much less baclofen. Which is absurd and outrageous and infuriating. THAT is what I intend to change. Single-handedly. Because I am a magician of some sort and can change the world with a wish and a wand. <heavy sigh>

Terryk, thanks for posting all of that information. I was kind of counting on you to back me up! (Sorry for the assumption and the imposition!) I've never read those before and will put them on Forums - The End of my Addiction.

From the article, in case people didn't take the time to click through and read:

...Those studies often find that people relapse quickly without continued treatment, leading to the erroneous assumptions that addicts can’t quit without treatment, or that addiction is a chronic disease, and especially that abstinence is necessary and that successful moderation is rarely attainable – among other nonsense. But what we find when we broaden our scope, like in this study, is that the majority of people with Substance Dependence (as defined in the APA’s DSM-IV) actually quit on their own without any sort of treatment or 12-step involvement.

I agree with you, too, Tk, about the article being a little heavy-handed. But a decent summation none-the-less. And again, thank you.

AF yesterday, and planning on another AF day today.

Hope it's a good day for you all out in MWO-land! :hug:

This has been my understanding for quite a few years now, I totally get why GPs will not prescribe - however as you know there are other 'safer' drugs that are approved (Selincro), or borderline approved (Naltrexone) which are not. Ok these might not be as wonderful as Baclofen but there are benefits to trying it, which includes the chance it might work - because it can work for some people, or at least get them on the way to managing their life a bit better.

I'm fairly cross at the way in which Selincro is being prescribed, with little understanding, but it's there and some people I know of have benefitted from it.

Abstenance or not?

I find that many people when they reduce their alcohol consumption, do start to look at alcohol with different eyes. I'm taking a qualification with a nutritional element and some other students who work in the health field can't seem to grasp that alcohol has no benefit to the human body. Do people experience other benefits from it?Many discover that it doesn't actually do a great deal, perhaps makes you think the situation is improved, but it hasn't really.

So quite a few decide that (a) It's not particularly beneficial to drink even a small amount, and (b) If it's been such a problem and/or struggle to get it under control, then why on earth continue.

Some people do go mostly AF, and occasionally have a drink.

Quite a few people are astounded that I simply stick to being AF. What about Christmas, what about birthdays, what about your wedding?Well what about it, no I don't have to have an alcoholic drink. I compete in a sport where alcohol just before the event is thought to bring performance benefits. Before I was totally AF I was trained not to use alcohol, and I certainly didn't lose out as a result - in fact it makes everything a lot simpler!

Anyhoo, to blame the Docs for not prescribing Baclofen isn't fair. To blame them for not prescribing approved treatments is fair. They are ignoring an important section of patients.

[Guitarista]

I compete in a sport where alcohol just before the event is thought to bring performance benefits.

Darts?

[time2quit]

darts?

lol

[Ne/Neva Eva]

Darts?

lol, x2

[Otter]

[Ne/Neva Eva]

Tired, tired, tired today. And looking forward to a day of drudgery.
Hope you guys are faring better.

Peace out.

[treetops]

Ne - I think this is your thread isn't it - so comments directed to you mainly. I haven't been posting much lately due to work commitments but I sometimes flick my eyes over the site. Anyway, I am glad you made that remark on another thread about how one person does not speak for all Americans. I dont like to see MWO threads descend into a slinging match about gun control (even if its in a sort of 'macho' playful'' way - I am being generous in my choice of words). And as you know, and I am sure many others on MWO do as well, MWO has been in the best intentions a global and international support network. Many people on this site are very much against violence and war and we are thankful that we live in places where there are strict regulations against guns. So once again, thank you for reiterating that there are many voices and points of view among Americans.
Lets keep MWO a global site dedicated to what it was set out for. I know you have set up the other site (and congratulations for that).
Now I better post on my usual thread! Hope you are less tired.

[SKendall]

Great post, Treetops.

[Spiritfree]

Hi Ne -above all else, I do believe that we need to continue to point out that AUD (alcoholism) is a symptom driven brain disorder.

TreeTops, thank you for your opinion and comment. Very helpful.

--sf--