Posted on 03/17/2015 9:25:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[SNIP]
The 12 steps are so deeply ingrained in the United States that many people, including doctors and therapists, believe attending meetings, earning one’s sobriety chips, and never taking another sip of alcohol is the only way to get better. Hospitals, outpatient clinics, and rehab centers use the 12 steps as the basis for treatment. But although few people seem to realize it, there are alternatives, including prescription drugs and therapies that aim to help patients learn to drink in moderation. Unlike Alcoholics Anonymous, these methods are based on modern science and have been proved, in randomized, controlled studies, to work.
[SNIP]
The debate over the efficacy of 12-step programs has been quietly bubbling for decades among addiction specialists. But it has taken on new urgency with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which requires all insurers and state Medicaid programs to pay for alcohol- and substance-abuse treatment, extending coverage to 32 million Americans who did not previously have it and providing a higher level of coverage for an additional 30 million.
Nowhere in the field of medicine is treatment less grounded in modern science. A 2012 report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University compared the current state of addiction medicine to general medicine in the early 1900s, when quacks worked alongside graduates of leading medical schools. The American Medical Association estimates that out of nearly 1 million doctors in the United States, only 582 identify themselves as addiction specialists. (The Columbia report notes that there may be additional doctors who have a subspecialty in addiction.) Most treatment providers carry the credential of addiction counselor or substance-abuse counselor, for which many states require little more than a high-school diploma or a GED. Many counselors are in recovery themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Perhaps.
That being said, and with full appreciation of how many people passionately love and appreciate what AA has legitimately done for them, I’m not a big fan of the program...and it damn sure ain’t because of what HE said!
It’s far more than my “personal” experience but, rather my many experiences over the years with virtually thousands of alcoholics.
And I have NEVER known a bonafide alcoholic to be able to return to “normal” drinking. It just never happens.
Your breathing analogy is totally specious. An alcoholic can no more return to normal drinking than a person with a completely severed spinal cord can return to normal walking.
And just because something is “non-disprovable” doesn’t mean it isn’t completely accurate.
Anyone who recommends that a bonafide alcoholic attempt to return to normal drinking is gambling with their lives and at astromically high odds.
“Unlike Alcoholics Anonymous, these methods are based on modern science and have been proved, in randomized, controlled studies”
Proved just like global warming, peak oil climate ice ages eggs are bad for you etc. No, AA has been proven by experience and that is what counts.
How would you know? It's not like drinkers return to meetings to tell others their doctrine is wrong.
Furthermore, if one told you they were an alcoholic and got "cured," the first thing you'd tell them would be "then you weren't a true alcoholic." (I.e. Heads I win, tails you lose)
And just because something is “non-disprovable” doesn’t mean it isn’t completely accurate.
True, but it does make being dogmatic about it a matter of faith and not of fact, which in turn makes one look rather foolish in denying same.
Oh, and by the way, I am not aware of ANY reputable alcoholic or drug recovery program with even a modest track record of success that would boast that they can return an alcoholic to a “normal” drinker.
You?
No, but that has never been my focus.
My focus has been on the AA program itself, not it’s success stories.
Also, it is commonly believed that this allergic reaction can be passed down from a parent. Whether this is true, I don't know, but alcoholism does seem to run in families, so there could be something to it. In any case, that's a question best left to the scientists.
As for blaming parents, the Big Book is pretty clear that "So our troubles, we think, are basically of our own making." (page 62). If someone is blaming their parents, or wife, or employer, or anyone besides themselves, they are not properly following the AA program as outlined by the founders.
Of course, most meetings are "closed" and some are "open" for friends, family, etc. but as I said, again this is a reason given to me that I've encouraged go to AA for help - that they simply believe that is not for them. One woman refused to go after finding out her sponsor had to be a woman and also that she thought most of those attending a meeting "were not in her 'socio-economic' strata."
I suggested she try going to another meeting or even more until she felt she was "among her peers!" I also suggested that her desire to have a male sponsor just might be a way to flirt and find another partner to drink with, as that's what got her in to problems in the first place.
Please accept my apologies.
I mistook your post to be from the perspective of one so devoted to AA they can not permit the program to be questioned without abusing the questioner.
Again, my most sincere apologies.
Also, there were numbers of airline pilots who attended out-of-state meetings so that they weren't in danger of being "outed."
They claimed they could work for the airlines as drunks, just not admitted alcoholics attending AA!
Erin go bragh!
“How would you know? It’s not like drinkers return to meetings to tell others their doctrine is wrong.”
True, but they often return to tell others they were right. I have always lived in modestly small towns. 90% of the alcoholics I have come in contact with who remain sober(or not)are on the radar and their situation easily identified.
‘Furthermore, if one told you they were an alcoholic and got “cured,” the first thing you’d tell them would be “then you weren’t a true alcoholic.”’
That may be the case but talk about something that’s not disprovable.
“True, but it does make being dogmatic about it a matter of faith and not of fact...”
It’s far more than “faith” it’s a theory backed up by an awful lot of experience (myself and many many others)
It seems as though you or someone you know has had some bad experience with AA and also returned from problem drinking to normal drinking status.If that’s the case, God love you, it’s an exceeding rare thing for sure. But if true I would like to hear about it as it would be a first in my experience.
The success stories are a fairly big part of AA. Excluding them is not only biased, its transparently fraudulent.
I don't know who you're shilling for, but beware - the karma for trying to steer alcoholics away from known, effective help is so black, not even demons could survive it.
What I'm saying is, person to person, soul to soul, you've been warned.
Also for some reason you got the impression that I think AA is the only way to sobriety. Nothing could be farther from the truth as I know people who have used alternative methods ranging from acupuncture to just quitting cold turkey with no help from anyone.
AA worked for me and has worked for many but that’s as far as it goes.
I do however steadfastly maintain my strong opinion of an alky returning to “normal” drinking. The fact that this happens to be a AA belief neither bolsters nor detracts from it’s validity for me.
A close friend said that first she lost her mother to alcohol, then she lost her to AA.
I stopped AA meetings after finding all the 12 steps in the bible. I admit, I used to get depressed over hearing the stories. I would go hit the liquor store after meetings. I have known some people who just turned to smoking weed and others just taking pills (as long as they were not drinking it was ok by them).
Bible study has taken me a long way, and it is free too.
Not at all. My experiences with AA were, on the whole, positive.
Nevertheless, I do recognize it is a faith system: something many members do not. That is really my only objection.
As for drinking, I'm completely normal for about fifteen years now...so long as "normal" is defined as nothing but Sacramental Wine at Mass ;)
No more than claiming the success of The Latter Day Saints shows their Christian orthodoxy.
Nevertheless, thanks for the warning.
Most AA doctrine I find pretty innocuous.
But when you start getting into concepts like “dry drunk,” “sponsorship,” and similar apocryphal beliefs, I need more than “success” for validation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.