IS METHADONE THE ANSWER?

OR DOES METHADONE STOP ADDICTS FROM TACKLING THE CAUSES OF DEPENDENCY?

“Experts and users are divided about the merits of this 'maintenance' approach compared to the more robust alternative of rehab. Elizabeth Day listens to arguments from both sides,” stated The Observer on Sunday 16 November.

  xxx

Addiction Today editor Deirdre Boyd was quoted in this article but wishes to clarify that contextual sentences were omitted. She supports the full spectrum of care – but underscores that referring only 2% of patients to abstinence-based services is so disproportionately small that it cannot constitute a comprehensive care pathway. She also advocates that it is inappropriate for patients seeking drug-free treatment to be referred elsewhere.

Finally, over a year, methadone and rehab costs are very similar - but the issue should be one of clinical effectiveness as well as cost effectiveness.

It is with great sadness that we read Peter McDermott's comments in the article. As a board member of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, he should be advocating the spectrum of care options for the benefit of people who desperately need them - and he should be using accurate facts, especially when quoted in national media.

Read the full Observer article by clicking here.

Comments

[Justin Roman]

Dear Addiction Today

Fabulous reading over the weekend - good, bad and indifferent views of our beleaguered industry.

Addiction is an uphill battle for those affected at the best of times and it is true to say that for many, relapse is an inevitability.

To suggest that if an individual is poor or homeless, comes from a family of addicts/ thieves or was 'sodomised' as a child, and therefore has no 'marketable' skills returning from rehab is WHOLLY IRRESPONSIBLE and RECKLESS and I am offended by such a comment.

To think that an addict of such background is unable to function, work or be of use to wider society is pathetic at best, and very narrow minded!

Being in the recovering community myself, I am constantly in contact with people who come from such backgrounds (and worse), who have benefited from rehab to the point where they are a) drug-free and remained that way, b) employable and employed, c) accepted by family, d) paying their way in life, e) HAPPY.

Financial, emotional and family support? Not always. A desire to change and live normal, drug-free lives? Absolutely!

I also know people who have become dependent on state prescribed Methadone. Most of them know no better, because no alternative has been offered to them and where rehab has been discussed, there is 'no money available' to fund it. Harm minimisation works for some people because they are not educated in the long lasting and life changing effect of abstinence. Instead they are provided alternatives and syntheitcs that offer 'control'.

Funding for abstinence based recovery models of treatment is limited by the ignorant opinions of those who write the cheques. If I want to get clean but have no money to privately fund abstinence based treatment, I have little hope of success because as an addict I can not help myself, and my state will only pay if I qualify under their exclusive assessment, should any funding be available. As a citizen of this nation, as a taxpayer, as a human being - I deserve the right to choose. If I need to join a waiting list for residential treatment; so be it, if the result, possible or not, is a chance to live a normal, drug-free life.

[FARS Services]

FARS’ experience has shown predominantly our clients have been out on methadone or Subtext as an end in itself without their personal needs being taken into account nor them being informed about their treatment options. The majority enter into treatment with the desire to become drug free but find themselves switched from their illegal drug to a legal drug.
We have clients who rather stay on their opium than enter into treatment with statutory services as they believe methadone or subtext to be more addictive than opium. Surely as your article states recovery is a personal choice but should not all who come into treatment with statutory services be made aware of their options and its consequences.