ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Honestly Patters, that was a very foolish thing to say! Darryl's response was HIS response...conservative or liberal has nothing to do with it. Not every thought, belief or response can/must or should be categorized at "conservative or liberal". In this case, we all know Darryl isn't conservative, so his response can't be conservative...and it wasn't.
We are all responsible for our own behavior. Addiction is a disease, but we're still responsible for our actions.
Your question can not possibly be answered by anyone here. It's a hypothetical situation so how would you expect anyone to answer it if we've never been in that situation? We can't.
Yeah but Patters lives, breathes, and enacts life through the lens of everything being liberal or conservative. Democrat or Republican. With the former always being good, and the latter eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil and bad. Man, and some people say drunk, fat, and stupid is no way to live life.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Yeah but Patters lives, breathes, and enacts life through the lens of everything being liberal or conservative. Democrat or Republican. With the former always being good, and the latter eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil and bad. Man, and some people say drunk, fat, and stupid is no way to live life.
PR, like you, seems to misunderstand my point. I'm not making a philosophical point, but simply a point about the lack of options that are available to the down and out. Our society basically says to the impoverished person who does not have a penny to his name:
- Steal or prostitute yourself
- Get high (so you can get into a detox)
- Live on the streets, and risk all sorts of consequences
Of course one can try to get into a temporary shelter, but there's no guarantee.
Believe it or not, there really aren't any other options, and not all the people who find themselves in such dire straits are bad people.
If we had more liberal government, I think we would have more programs and more shelters, which would be cheaper than having more police, courts, and prisons.
And I'll always defend your right to live drunk, fat, and stupid
PR, like you, seems to misunderstand my point. I'm not making a philosophical point, but simply a point about the lack of options that are available to the down and out. Our society basically says to the impoverished person who does not have a penny to his name:
- Steal or prostitute yourself
- Get high (so you can get into a detox)
- Live on the streets, and risk all sorts of consequences
Of course one can try to get into a temporary shelter, but there's no guarantee.
Believe it or not, there really aren't any other options, and not all the people who find themselves in such dire straits are bad people.
If we had more liberal government, I think we would have more programs and more shelters, which would be cheaper than having more police, courts, and prisons.
And I'll always defend your right to live drunk, fat, and stupid
Another point is that "getting high" to get into a detox is a great option and I've participated in helping addicts get into detoxes that way several times with great results. So don't present that option as so dire and dramatic.
Getting "high" can simply mean providing a half pint of vodka for the candidate to drink on his/her way to the detox. For someone who desperately wants to learn to live sober & straight, it shouldn't be a big deal.
If our society provided all the help and safety-nets people like you would like to see, I believe fewer people would get sober. Alcoholics & addicts should never be coddled lovingly. We require "tough-love" and getting sober MUST be extremely difficult in order for the alcoholic to properly see & understand just how precious one day of sobriety actually is.
Those I've met in AA who have told me "getting sober was easy for me"...were usually the first ones to end up relapsing. So we should never want to make it any easier. Like I said before, the candidate has to want sobriety more than anything else in their lives.
When AA first started, there was no other help. It wasn't until the 70's & 80's that gov't programs began to help the alcoholic. The strange thing is, all these programs haven't changed the success rate of alcoholics getting sober. The vast majority still end up going "back out".
I'm sure that even in your profession, you can often tell when someone isn't desperate to get sober. My advice to anyone in your field is waste as little time as possible on those who are not desperate in their desire. The best thing they teach in AA is to never want others to get sober, but instead, we tell new-comers, "If you want what we have, then do what we do".
It's simple and it works.
__________________ "No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"
Last edited by PatriotsReign; 04-11-2011 at 06:01 AM..
It's interesting how the actual messages in the bible get a "zzzzzzz" from the right, whereas the ones that appear nowhere in its pages -- such as anti-abortion fervor -- must be treated as the deep-felt religious conviction of the theocratic rightist that's speaking.
Eh well. There's your "shining city on the hill," right? Maybe we need to take the scriptures seriously as humanistic documents, not documents meant to destroy people's choices and spirits.
In every instance, the ancient scriptures offered more, not less, respect and dignity for human beings compared with the surrounding cultures at the time the scriptures were composed.
Yet in modern America we invent or vastly exaggerate aspects of scripture to denigrate the autonomy of the individual.
No wonder the atheists have such a field day with the passages that are inimical to human freedom -- "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," etc. -- when the most fundamental push of the bible, toward human coexistence and dignity, is buried in such an automatic knee-jerk fashion.
Another point is that "getting high" to get into a detox is a great option and I've participated in helping addicts get into detoxes that way several times with great results. So don't present that option as so dire and dramatic.
Getting "high" can simply mean providing a half pint of vodka for the candidate to drink on his/her way to the detox. For someone who desperately wants to learn to live sober & straight, it shouldn't be a big deal.
If our society provided all the help and safety-nets people like you would like to see, I believe fewer people would get sober. Alcoholics & addicts should never be coddled lovingly. We require "tough-love" and getting sober MUST be extremely difficult in order for the alcoholic to properly see & understand just how precious one day of sobriety actually is.
Those I've met in AA who have told me "getting sober was easy for me"...were usually the first ones to end up relapsing. So we should never want to make it any easier. Like I said before, the candidate has to want sobriety more than anything else in their lives.
When AA first started, there was no other help. It wasn't until the 70's & 80's that gov't programs began to help the alcoholic. The strange thing is, all these programs haven't changed the success rate of alcoholics getting sober. The vast majority still end up going "back out".
I'm sure that even in your profession, you can often tell when someone isn't desperate to get sober. My advice to anyone in your field is waste as little time as possible on those who are not desperate in their desire. The best thing they teach in AA is to never want others to get sober, but instead, we tell new-comers, "If you want what we have, then do what we do".
It's simple and it works.
Wow, you must have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night
PR, like you, seems to misunderstand my point. I'm not making a philosophical point, but simply a point about the lack of options that are available to the down and out. Our society basically says to the impoverished person who does not have a penny to his name:
- Steal or prostitute yourself
- Get high (so you can get into a detox)
- Live on the streets, and risk all sorts of consequences
Of course one can try to get into a temporary shelter, but there's no guarantee.
Believe it or not, there really aren't any other options, and not all the people who find themselves in such dire straits are bad people.
If we had more liberal government, I think we would have more programs and more shelters, which would be cheaper than having more police, courts, and prisons.
And I'll always defend your right to live drunk, fat, and stupid
You make this sound like this is the only person in the world in this situation, oftentimes in the world of drug/alcohol recovery people have to really hit rock bottom before they change. An issue with being young is that you believe that you can live forever, and there is always tommorrow...
There is not a great safety net, but if someone wants to effect personal change in their lives then there are resources available.. there is a whole bunch of wasted time and resources spent of people who do not want to change.. these are the kids who burn out resources and have a greater need to play games than to make changes in their life.
There is nothing you can do for this person, unless the person wants to make changes and wants to avail him or herself of existing resources..
You have to stop describing this kid as a victim of abuse, or a victim of society as all that does is create codependency and an excuse for his behavior.. you have to cut the cord, let him go and wish him well. If he wants to make a change then maybe you can help him, but until then you, as a limited resource, may find someone else you can work with.
It is a hard lesson to learn, but it is the facts jack.. if I was your supervisor I would watch you closely and if you continue to have such angst over these types of decisions I would "counsel" you out of this profession... as your values are pretty screwed up.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
You make this sound like this is the only person in the world in this situation,
Actually, if I read the initial post correctly, Patters was saying the direct opposite. He stressed that the situation he discribed was reality for (in his own words) a surprisingly large number of people.
Quote:
There is not a great safety net, but if someone wants to effect personal change in their lives then there are resources available.
Are there? From Patters list of "solutions" and from my own experience, there are not all that many "resources available." They are especially not available to people who are homeless, jobless and without insurance.
Quote:
There is nothing you can do for this person, unless the person wants to make changes and wants to avail him or herself of existing resources.
That doesn't seem to be necessarily true, Darryll. Patters could (and did) give the kid a list of options - limited as they were.
I took the post to be commentary on the scarcity of solutions in general - not a cry from Patters to save this one particular kid's life.
Quote:
You have to stop describing this kid as a victim of abuse, or a victim of society as all that does is create codependency and an excuse for his behavior.. you have to cut the cord, let him go and wish him well. If he wants to make a change then maybe you can help him, but until then you, as a limited resource, may find someone else you can work with.
I presume you are basing this on the fact that the kid in question had been in a program and broken the no-sex rule? Is that all it takes? One mistake and you're out? I suppose that's valid in a world where "resources" are as scarce as they are.....and maybe someone who won't form a relationship with another patient will be less of a "risk," but I still don't see how a social worker, any social worker, just "cuts the cord and walks away," especially if the kid is genuinely sorry and is asking for a second chance. Obviously he cannot be let back into that particular program but to say the social workers shouldn't help him find an alternate solution seems counter-productive, at the very least.
Quote:
if I was your supervisor I would watch you closely and if you continue to have such angst over these types of decisions I would "counsel" you out of this profession... as your values are pretty screwed up.
And that, in my opinion, as a medical professional, a mother, a former hot-line crisis worker and a busybody was totally uncalled for. Not only is it unjust and are you not in any position, regardless of your past experience as a "boss," to make, it's rude and far beyond what you would actually "know" about Patter's job performance or his "values."
When I worked in the ER we, the employees there, from the housekeepers to the doctors and everyone in between, kept a "slush fund." We'd routinely donate our own money to give to patients who were being medically released but really were, mentally, ill-equipped to deal with even getting home from the hospital - IF they even had a home to go to. We routinely discharged them with dinner money, cab fare, and phone numbers and locations of possible shelters and agencies which our social service department didn't always provide. If they didn't have money for their prescriptions we'd take a quick collection of employees until we were sure they'd be able to fill their medications.
Going above and beyond your "job duties," by suffering some "angst" about your patients or clients is not something to be fired over, Darryll, it's something which should be fostered and encouraged.
Besides, and more to the point, I don't think Patters was suffering undue angst over this particular patient - as he said in the beginning post, it's not just this one kid - it's all the kids.....and that could mean your's or mine someday.
I gotta tell ya, if it's MY kid, I sure hope he runs into the Patters of the world and not the Darrylls.
Actually, if I read the initial post correctly, Patters was saying the direct opposite. He stressed that the situation he discribed was reality for (in his own words) a surprisingly large number of people.
Are there? From Patters list of "solutions" and from my own experience, there are not all that many "resources available." They are especially not available to people who are homeless, jobless and without insurance.
That doesn't seem to be necessarily true, Darryll. Patters could (and did) give the kid a list of options - limited as they were.
I took the post to be commentary on the scarcity of solutions in general - not a cry from Patters to save this one particular kid's life.
I presume you are basing this on the fact that the kid in question had been in a program and broken the no-sex rule? Is that all it takes? One mistake and you're out? I suppose that's valid in a world where "resources" are as scarce as they are.....and maybe someone who won't form a relationship with another patient will be less of a "risk," but I still don't see how a social worker, any social worker, just "cuts the cord and walks away," especially if the kid is genuinely sorry and is asking for a second chance. Obviously he cannot be let back into that particular program but to say the social workers shouldn't help him find an alternate solution seems counter-productive, at the very least.
And that, in my opinion, as a medical professional, a mother, a former hot-line crisis worker and a busybody was totally uncalled for. Not only is it unjust and are you not in any position, regardless of your past experience as a "boss," to make, it's rude and far beyond what you would actually "know" about Patter's job performance or his "values."
When I worked in the ER we, the employees there, from the housekeepers to the doctors and everyone in between, kept a "slush fund." We'd routinely donate our own money to give to patients who were being medically released but really were, mentally, ill-equipped to deal with even getting home from the hospital - IF they even had a home to go to. We routinely discharged them with dinner money, cab fare, and phone numbers and locations of possible shelters and agencies which our social service department didn't always provide. If they didn't have money for their prescriptions we'd take a quick collection of employees until we were sure they'd be able to fill their medications.
Going above and beyond your "job duties," by suffering some "angst" about your patients or clients is not something to be fired over, Darryll, it's something which should be fostered and encouraged.
Besides, and more to the point, I don't think Patters was suffering undue angst over this particular patient - as he said in the beginning post, it's not just this one kid - it's all the kids.....and that could mean your's or mine someday.
I gotta tell ya, if it's MY kid, I sure hope he runs into the Patters of the world and not the Darrylls.
Sorry.
The "kid" will turn out to be a codependent person who relies on agencies to make him change.. rather than on himself. The result is a young man who believes that he is a "victim" and will continue to be so because of the lack of resources, instead of a person who can control his substance abuse issues.
You have to work the program, it does not work you..
Unfortunately, it is what it is, the reality of today's resources, and based on the recognition that a person who does not want to get well will not get well, no matter what the intervention is. It is about being client centered and the recognition that no matter what a person does, if the client does not want to change will not. You can admit him to the best substance abuse program in the country.. but if he does not believe he can and want to change he will not.
Resources will not get better in our lifetime and more proably get worse..
There are concerns that this scenario is even being brought up on internet forum.. this is a situation that should be discussed in an agency, in professional supervision. Doing so does nothing for the client and even less for the "professional"..i.e. it has no value.
If I was a supervisor of the author of this thread, would be extremely concerned that this "professional" would seek feedback on an agency situation, in an anonymous political forum.. it shows really poor boundaries, and raises ethical issues as well.
As a parent certainly would not want a "professional" to discuss his situation or seek answers on an anonymous message board.. a lesson in professional boundaries is in order.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
Another point is that "getting high" to get into a detox is a great option and I've participated in helping addicts get into detoxes that way several times with great results. So don't present that option as so dire and dramatic.
It's the best of some lousy choices, but I do wonder if some conservatives would see this as a way to play the system so that the addict gets more taxpayer funded services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotsReign
Getting "high" can simply mean providing a half pint of vodka for the candidate to drink on his/her way to the detox. For someone who desperately wants to learn to live sober & straight, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Half a pint of vodka is quite a trigger for the alcoholic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotsReign
If our society provided all the help and safety-nets people like you would like to see, I believe fewer people would get sober. Alcoholics & addicts should never be coddled lovingly. We require "tough-love" and getting sober MUST be extremely difficult in order for the alcoholic to properly see & understand just how precious one day of sobriety actually is.
I basically agree, and believe me when I negotiate treatment plans with POs, they are reasonably onerous (such as 90 meetings/90 days and lots of tox screens).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotsReign
Those I've met in AA who have told me "getting sober was easy for me"...were usually the first ones to end up relapsing. So we should never want to make it any easier. Like I said before, the candidate has to want sobriety more than anything else in their lives.
When AA first started, there was no other help. It wasn't until the 70's & 80's that gov't programs began to help the alcoholic. The strange thing is, all these programs haven't changed the success rate of alcoholics getting sober. The vast majority still end up going "back out".
The studies I've read show that AA/NA + individual therapy has the best success rate for addicts in general, but actually I don't know of a good study that really looks looks at the success rate of any program. Studies of AA, for instance, do not compare the success rate of AA goers vs. non AA goers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotsReign
I'm sure that even in your profession, you can often tell when someone isn't desperate to get sober. My advice to anyone in your field is waste as little time as possible on those who are not desperate in their desire. The best thing they teach in AA is to never want others to get sober, but instead, we tell new-comers, "If you want what we have, then do what we do".
It's simple and it works.
I think I've helped several clients who were initially resistant at least take a serious stab at sobriety, and as I'm sure you know that first step is often the key to getting the client to eventually get serious about sobriety. Those who are insincere stop showing up.
The "kid" will turn out to be a codependent person who relies on agencies to make him change.. rather than on himself. The result is a young man who believes that he is a "victim" and will continue to be so because of the lack of resources, instead of a person who can control his substance abuse issues.
You have to work the program, it does not work you..
Unfortunately, it is what it is, the reality of today's resources, and based on the recognition that a person who does not want to get well will not get well, no matter what the intervention is. It is about being client centered and the recognition that no matter what a person does, if the client does not want to change will not. You can admit him to the best substance abuse program in the country.. but if he does not believe he can and want to change he will not.
Resources will not get better in our lifetime and more proably get worse..
There are concerns that this scenario is even being brought up on internet forum.. this is a situation that should be discussed in an agency, in professional supervision. Doing so does nothing for the client and even less for the "professional"..i.e. it has no value.
If I was a supervisor of the author of this thread, would be extremely concerned that this "professional" would seek feedback on an agency situation, in an anonymous political forum.. it shows really poor boundaries, and raises ethical issues as well.
As a parent certainly would not want a "professional" to discuss his situation or seek answers on an anonymous message board.. a lesson in professional boundaries is in order.
Frankly, I would have thought you knew enough about conventions in the field to realize that I have altered some of the facts without altering the substance in order to present the problem, while preserving client confidentiality.
Also, I'm not presenting an agency situation; I'm presenting a societal situation. This is a political forum, and the question I'm raising is about how as a society we can help addicts and the downtrodden. But, perhaps you believe by keeping such questions out of public discourse, you can continue to keep the downtrodden invisible.
Re: What would you do?
Linear Mode
