Alcoholics and benefits.
Laura Kuenssberg files this copy: (we hope to be speaking to Mr Purnell tonight on the programme. If you have any thoughts, and especially experience in this area, drop us an email or leave a comment)
"Alcoholics could face having their benefits docked if they don't get treatment for their problem. The work and pensions minister, James Purnell, is announcing an government review with the Department of Health to look at the idea. Measures that require drug addicts to get treatment in order to keep receiving benefits are currently going through parliament, but Mr Purnell wants to consult on the extending the idea to people with alcohol problems.
On a visit to Dewsbury Moor this afternoon he'll say,
"We have introduced a new policy that will mean heroin and crack addicts get treatment in return for benefits. We will actually help them rather than simply handing them money which ends up in pockets of drug dealers.
"But we can't abandon anyone to long periods on benefits without help to overcome problems. So that's why we are going to look at the arrangements for alcoholics on benefits, just as we did for problem drug users, so that people get the help they need to get sober, to get their life back and get back to work.""
RSS feed
Email us
Our Twitter
Listen to PM
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~49~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
You already know what he's going to say? Gosh PM can predict the future now - I'm sure TI-Horse will want to tap into that talent.
Complain about this comment
I have been involved in government consultation in the past on welfare reform.
The problem I found was that government ministers and their so called advisers already had pre-ordained outcomes to these kind of approaches. There are a lot of assumptions involving the success of such programs, however, the reality rarely seems to match the rhetoric. When challenged on these kinds of welfare reform initiatives, ministers seem to always point to past or existing successful programs involving other minority groups. However, when independently scrutinized these programs are found to fail the most needy and are of help only to those in least need or have already made the decision to explore going back to work.
There is also the problem of the one size fitting all syndrome too. No matter how much rhetoric we hear about the DWP treating people as individuals, and that so much more help is available these days, again in reality it is just not true if you have any real in depth problems. Of course you will always find exceptions to the rule and these are the ones who are cherry picked by government advisers as shinning examples of how people are being helped. This is then translated into the belief that the majority are able to be helped in the same way. Again independent scrutiny would suggest otherwise.
Finally, it is pandering to middle England and the voter to make such marginalised groups flavour of the month. Even more so if you can be seen to be making them suffer even more. I would like to ask James purnell and his government, at the end of all this so called 'treatment' to supply real, permanent jobs that give a 'LIVING' not just minimum wage. If they can't make the system flexible enough to allow people to be able to have a little hope for the future. At the moment there is very little flexibility in the system. No doubt he will find some Rhetoric to counter this - don't be fooled.
Complain about this comment
Two immediate problems come to mind
1)Who will decide who is an alcoholic and who is a heavy drinker?
2)I imagine that those who reallly do have a problem will hide the fact. Let's face it, we all understate to our doctor the amount we drink anyway.
Actually make that three
3) Just stop trying to control other people. Alcohol is legal, crack and heroine aren't - spot the difference?
Complain about this comment
CairnTerrier, 3 - Here's a few answers:
1. If your drinking stops you working and you need to claim benefits to survive, you're an alcoholic.
2. See 1.
3. Not to make too light of this, but if you want my money, guess what, you'll have to show some responsibility, and to some extent dance to my tune. If you can afford to fund your alcoholism/heavy drinking (including health care), then you can live as you like.
funnyJoedunn, 2 - I agree with a lot of what you say, but it doesn't mean that we should do nothing. Like you say, a significant part of the problem is finding people jobs that they can do that pay a living wage and give them a place in society. So far I've no good ideas for this, but I'm hopeful that someone will solve it.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I don't see the problem with this - If I were unfortunate enough to have become alcoholic, I'd welcome any spur to helping me to solve my addiction.
I now confidently anticipate that there will be loud cries of 'freedom of choice'.
Complain about this comment
CairnTerrier
1. When I worked in the Trust we had a scoring system that was applied to every admission. There are a lot of individuals who have alcohol dependence issues that they are unaware of. These people were often functioning well in their home environment but needed withdrawal management when admitted to hospital.
2. Received wisdom with the House Officers and SHOs was that you wrote "Patient admits to drinking x Units per week" and worked on a figure of about 1.5x - 2x as the true figure of their consumption. We used to apply a similar rule to cigarettes too.
3. Unfortunately the individuals who have a problem with alcohol also tend to be heavier users of the NHS and often require more "interventions". A lot of the ones I used to see were retired. Are the Government going to take their pensions away?
Complain about this comment
eighty eighty (4)
I agree doing nothing should not be an option. However, if by doing nothing, you mean, we should incentivize the already marginalised underclass of people by threatening them with even more poverty and social exclusion if they don't do as we (government) say.....?
I think the government need to work out is it really help that they want to give to unfortunate people or, is just another form of social control dressed up as so called help? I'll tell you if they really wanted to help people its going to take more than a government dictate to truly begin a real attempt at inclusion. By the way, there are many people who are in work with what might be termed as a alcohol problem too!
Complain about this comment
Big Sister 5
"...I'd welcome any spur to helping me to solve my addiction."
Maybe yes, maybe no. The problem with "addictions" is that they are... addictive. A truly serious medical condition.
Many (although perhaps not all) addicts are effectively helpless against their addiction.
Basically, an addiction can only be "cured" from within. Until then... difficult.
There are multiple, intertwined, social, environmental and, often genetic factors involved in addictions.
Incidentally, nicotene addiction is often more difficult to "cure", than heroin...
Complain about this comment
Yes, Charlie, I accept completely the points you're making, none of which are new to me, but there are many addicts who want help to kick their addictions. I cannot see the problem with offering that help, and, in this case, using the benefit system as a spur to accepting help.
Complain about this comment
Charlie, Big Sis - good points. We weren't overly worried about an abrupt withdrawal from heroin - it's unpleasant but doesn't kill anyone. Abrupt withdrawal from alcohol can cause some potentially fatal complications so the support needs to be there to manage this effectively and I don't believe that it is in all areas.
I'm sure we managed plenty of withdrawals in hospital that then relapsed on the moment of discharge because they either didn't see that they had a problem or they did want to stop but there wasn't the support out in the community to assist with this.
I was involved of the care of a patient with alcoholic liver disease a while back. The partner found Christmas extremely hard because the television is full of adverts with people enjoying alcohol. Their situation was very different - the patient did not perceive that there was a problem and the partner watched their joint income go to feed the addiction.
The review needs to consider the support network to sustain a change and the impact that this is likely to have on the alcoholic's immediate network of friends and family.
Complain about this comment
Big Sister 9
I agree with the "Principle" of a "spur".
However, a spur should only be introduced when a fully supportive medical/social infrastructure is available. It isn't, within the UK. Nowhere near.
Regretably, yet again, I believe all "we're" going to hear from Government is rhetoric.
I know of no UK Hospital Authority that could "possibly", let alone "can", cope anywhere near effectively, with presently known alocohol and drug addicted patients, let alone the projected patient numbers that might be presented under this proposal.
"Fine words don't butter parsnips".
This proposed scheme is going to cost a great deal of money and take time to get the medical personnel in place - if it's intended to be effective.
Well, who knows...
Complain about this comment
I thought it meant the benefits of being an alcoholic.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Charlie (11). The proposal/s may look fine on paper, but the devil's in the details - and the funding.
There may be the money to detox alcoholics/addicts, but continuing care is needed to help them stay drink/drug-free.
And if Charlie's right - and certainly speaks with authority - what is the point of getting people off their drink/drugs only to see most of them slip back?
It's cosmetic, then, as bad as putting a sticking plaster on a carcinoma. 'I can't see it now, so it's gone away'.
Complain about this comment
Big Sis (9)
"But there are many addicts who want help to kick their addictions"
I believe any medical help should be by voluntary partnership not by coercion as a first or last resort by threatening means. If the government want to treat addicts in this way just make it illegal to not accept treatment (like sectioning in mental health). I just find the whole approach of the government full of hypocrisy. Why can't they just be honest.
Complain about this comment
funnyJoedunn, 7 - I think that the problem that the Government has is that it wants to help people but it also wants "quick wins" (how I hate that term) so that it can justify its existence. Unfortunately, we've dug ourselves into such a deep hole with the welfare system as it currently operates, that anything that provides a quick win isn't going to provide a solution.
I don't have an answer. I don't understand people in general well enough to even suggest anything. But I'm sure that if we get serious about trying to sort things out, it can be done. Are we prepared to spend the money to do it? In the UK, probably not unfortunately.
Yes, there are plenty of people in work with an alcohol problem. But I do believe that if you can hold down a job and support yourself and any dependants, then you can do as you want (though the fact that they'll still get free health care does annoy me).
Complain about this comment
This gov't wants to stick its nose in everything and is running out of ideas. Time for a change.
Complain about this comment
DMcN @ 16, M'yes.
If this or any goverbment wants to reduce the intake of alcohol in the population, they could start by telling the alcohol lobby to take a running poke at a rolling doughnut, and reduce the number of places that have a licence to sell it. Like any outlet other than a public house, perhaps, and not after midnight or before noon. That booze may be cheaper per fluid ounce than bottled water in your local (open 24 hours a day except Sunday) supermarket is hardly an incentive not to buy the booze!
Complain about this comment
Yes David "Time Gentlemen, please"
Complain about this comment
eighty eight (15)
I agree.
However, I'm not sure whether the welfare system is the real problem. Could it be that certain sections of society have come to feel more and more marginalised and disaffected to the point that they feel, even if they really did bother to buy into the system (as the government would like), they would see no tangible benefit to the quality of their lives?
I, Like you, do not purport to know enough to have any real answers too. But one thing I do see is, the marginalised have become more so and there are more of them. The poor have become relatively more poor and there are more of them too. Social and medical problems abound but few (at least in national life) seem to be asking questions about how our so called modern democratic society has failed so many.
Sermon over vicar.
Complain about this comment
funnyJoedunn, 14
"I believe any medical help should be by voluntary partnership not by coercion as a first or last resort by threatening means."
So where do you draw the line? If I decide that I can quite happily live on benefits and so develop an allergy to work (let's see, I'll call it stress), does that mean that I should get paid for sitting around doing nothing?
We've got to get back to a stage where benefits aren't just a hand-out but require the recipients to accept some responsibilities in return.
Complain about this comment
eighty eight (20)
As a way of explanation, hopefully this will make myself clear. I believe medical treatments and welfare support are separate issues. If you are in receipt of long -term benefits due to ill health, you will have gone through a rigorous assement by a DWP doctor. Also your medical history will have also been entered into... there is much more they do too to investigate your claim. Don't give the impression that you can just decide to make a careeer on welfare benefits.
Complain about this comment
CG (17);
There's a problem there. Local pubs are shutting down at a startling rate, precisely because of the flood of cheap booze from the supermarkets. There is less opportunity to go and have a pleasant evening at the local.
Besides the local isn't often such a pleasant place to be. Games, loud music, rubbish food, obnoxious patrons. At least the tobacco smoke has gone.
My parents have just emigrated to France. They've left behind a small country village in Sussex where the pub has drunken, foul-mouthed and aggressive punters outside the doors every weekend night. No sign of the police. Where they live now there is no such drinking 'culture' and the few bars close at around 9 in the evening.
The supermarkets are flooding their aisles with 'value' own-label spirits for a few quid a bottle. It's never been cheaper to get completely plastered. It's true enough to say that we have a cultural problem with alcohol in the UK. The ready availability of cheap liquor is part of it. But no-one makes the idiots drink in the way that they do. That's down to personal choice.
Other countries restrict the sale of spirits to a restricted selection of outlets like so-called 'bottle shops'. Why not here? Why not legislate to control pricing and availability? Ban cheap offers/happy hours/drink-all-night-for-a-fiver and similar incentive schemes.
Selling alcohol to someone already visibly intoxicated is a criminal offence. So why isn't it prosecuted? The laws already exist in part, but the irresponsible who sell alcohol to drunks and the underaged are at no risk of punishment.
Toughen up the system AND apply the law.
WR.
Complain about this comment
C_G 17, As far as I can tell, they are more worried about young drinkers. The people I pub with are older and mostly drink real ale. Real ale is not the problem, lager, strong cider, alcopops, etc, are. Put the price up on these things and make a pint of real ale less before more older pubs disappear.
Complain about this comment
If alcoholics spend their benefits on alcohol or cigarettes, at least the government gets most of its contribution straight back.
Perhaps they should restrict this to addicts they recive no revenue from.
Complain about this comment
RXKaren (and Charlie): Of course the structure needs to be in place across the country - anything less, if they were to go ahead with such legislation - would be pointless and deceitful. But let us assume that the structure is there: Can we not agree, then, that the principle of encouraging alcoholics to tackle their addiction is a good one?
I have seen the catastrophic effect of alcoholism on lives - friends who died far too young because their livers were destroyed by alcohol, and people who seem to be using alcohol to relieve their boredom in old age. It's a huge problem, and one which is apparently on the increase. Apart from the effects upon the liver and the brain, people who abuse alcohol are far more likely to have or to cause accidents, the consequences of which may go well beyond themselves.
Of course, there are lots of issues around why people are drinking more nowadays, and not only due to the price and availability of alcohol. I think the psychological side for each individual addict is something that will need to be carefully addressed if such a scheme is to be successful.
I do, though, think it's worth giving it a try.
Complain about this comment
I'm a recovering alcoholic, 5 years beyond my last drink and living a happy productive life here in the Netherlands.
After years of trying, trying with every ounce of strength in me, I finally found what I needed through AA here in Amsterdam.
The idea that 'the dole office' might have made any difference to the timing of my recovery is... almost funny. Thats like saying, 'Stop being schizophrenic' Clearly an idea floated by someone with NO experience whatsoever of addiction.
If you want to spend money wisely, provide some useful help... I never found any in the U.K. Also, wouldn't that just create a whole new class of 'booze junkies'? Breaking into cars etc to feed their habit?
And those complaining about paying for other people addictions. What about your addiction to your car which is destroying my planet? What about Bankers' addiction to money, which we are all paying for? Get real, join the human race.
And have a nice day =O)
Complain about this comment
The interview with the recovering alcoholic tonight was spot-on. NOTHING will persuade an active alcoholic to stop before they want to. Stopping benefits will just make their problems worse; if necessary, they will steal to fund their habit.
What the government could do is make support more accessible and professional when the alcoholic does decide they have to turn a corner. In my experience, they are next to useless.
In Scotland last year, 3 times as many alcohol addicts as drug addicts died of their illness, yet 3 times less money was spent on support. As suggested above, society doesn't believe that alcohol is one of our most dangerous drugs.
Complain about this comment
funnyJoedunn, 21 - Well, maybe we've found where we disagree.
I think that welfare should, as far as possible, be seen as an investment in helping people get back on their feet. That means that where there is a cure (using a health problem as an example), it has to be a complete package that solves the problem that stops the person from getting back to supporting themselves.
Responding to your 19 - "Could it be that certain sections of society have come to feel more and more marginalised and disaffected to the point that they feel, even if they really did bother to buy into the system (as the government would like), they would see no tangible benefit to the quality of their lives?" I'm not quite sure what this means. But if it means that some people find it better to stay on benefits than to get a job, then I think that that is a problem with the welfare system in the first instance since it provides benefits without imposing significant responsibilities. We also need to find solutions to people's expectations about what work is acceptable and what levels of pay/what disparities in pay are acceptable, and that is where is gets really hard.
Complain about this comment
I found the interview moving and informative; thank you, PM team.
Complain about this comment
#26 - Right on ! May you continue to find serenity.
Complain about this comment
BigSiS (25) Completely with you. It is truly demoralising to look down the admission list for a trauma ward and find alcohol implicated in most of the admissions. Also heartbreaking to see someone die of something that could and should have been managed as a community health problem.
The simple sound bite way is to say "hit the benefits." There are genetic and social issues as well that need to be considered. I have concerns that this will be another promise made by the Government that sparks hope in families and alcoholics but ultimately delivers naught.
Sorry if this sounds cynical - I've just been sorting out some emergency albumin for paracentesis on, guess what, an alcoholic with ascites.
Complain about this comment
The ignorance behind this government initiative is staggering - no indication of even the most rudimentary understanding of the overwhelming nature of addiction and the self loathing , desperation and despair which accompanies it. Take away the alcoholic's benefits and provide a "spur" ! Plenty of alcoholics know that they have compelling reasons to clean up their act, but the gulf between their knowledge and their ability to take corrective action is often as wide as the Atlantic occean - launching a boat to cross from one side to another can only be an individual choice and a personal undertaking. Once that boat is bobbing precariously but purposefully on the water is when the maximum support available for the journey is needed.
Complain about this comment
I switched on to PM at 5.20 in time to catch the end of your interview with a recovering alcoholic. As always, I was delighted to hear someone with first hand experience talk some sense about alcoholism. Thanks to the continuing suport of AA, I have been sober for 8 years. I was a 'respectable' housewife and working mother. However, nothing and no one could have persuaded me to stop drinking until I was ready. I agree with one blogger who suggests that if benefits were taken from an alcoholic they would simply find another way. When I was actively drinking, I regularly stole drink/money to get my fix. What would be more useful would be for the mimister concerned to get some real facts about alcohol addiction. Talk to recovering alcoholics, ask to meet with members of AA in the Public Information sector or contact the AA General service Office in York. It's so easy. Alcoholism is a disease...just like Alzheimers, cancer, TB. Alcoholics don't choose to become addicted. No amount of backing them into a corner will work. The alcoholic must reach their own personal rock-bottom and want to get the help. I bet the same will apply to drug addicts too...gamblers...sex addicts...nicotine adddicts...overeaters...get the picture?
Complain about this comment
Thank you, amsterdam, dungbeetel, Karen, gardenblog and Carrots.
I lost a dear friend to alcohol about two years ago.
Well done to all those in recovery.
Complain about this comment
I have to apologise because in my post I wasn't thinking of already-alcoholic people, more of preventing it from being easy for more and younger people to damage themselves with alcohol. The best time to help stop someone from being alcoholic must be before they are.
I have great admiration for anybody who manages to quell any such addiction. In my experience alcoholism and drinking too much as a matter of habit are two different things, though the latter may lead to the former.
WR @ 22, what I was doing was advocating the restriction of the sale of alcohol twenty-four hours a day (I cannot believe that anyone needs to be able to go into a shop or club or drinking-house all night through: if someone can't go twelve hours without a drink then yes, he or she does have a serious problem) and in every retail sales outlet that feels like it. I do attribute the destruction of the small, local pub (it's thirty a week closing at the moment, isn't it?) directly to cheap alcohol being available all the time elsewhere, because I suspect that small pubs can't afford to compete with drinking-shops owned by the big breweries. But the big breweries are the ones who give loadsa dosh to party coffers, so they are allowed to have their way and sell as much booze as they can, while at the same time the government wrings its hands over the problem of, erm, poeple being sold as much booze as the breweries can.
Yes, let's enforce the law! If it the responsibility of the vendor in a pub not to sell alcohol to someone who is clearly drunk, let's make landlords and bar-staff abide by that law. This might mean fewer drunken yobboes infesting the streets of towns after midnight, and fewer louts outside country pubs too.
Complain about this comment
Of course alcoholism is a big problem. It costs society money and security, families are disrupted and it costs the individual their health and their mental well being. It is too important for a politician to use it to make headlines by spouting simplistic solutions. It suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of a condition in which biology and psychology interact. People with alcohol dependence are a diverse population but what they share is a compulsion which goes beyond logic. The reason they find it hard to stop is not because they don’t want to but because stopping is hard and staying off is usually exceptionally hard without a very high standard of mental health treatment. Substance misuse services are choked of funds. Simply by threatening to deprive patients of social security will be at best useless and at worst harmful.
Complain about this comment
For those people who are struggling or have struggled with the empty glass. I would not take your benefits away. I hope I would try to help as best I could. In trying to help I would have to understand that I am not part of any assement process. I would try to understand that your experience is your truth and that your truth is as valid as anyone's. I would also try to understand that I have no automatic right to speak into your life. I would try not to judge you by my own standards. However, I must also understand that I have a duty to you as a fellow citizen.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure that I understand the comments from the alcoholics who have posted on this thread. The proposal is that if you want to keep receiving benefits then you undergo treatment for the alcoholism, not that you stop drinking, though that presumably is the aim of the treatment.
Are you all saying that you'd refuse treatment?
Complain about this comment
In response to 38. Refusal to accept treatment isn't really a problem. They are motivated to seek help by wanting to be loved by their partners and respected by their children. It is maintaining it that is the issue and pure economic blackmail will not help maintenance in someone with complex psychological and biological reasons for drinking. I have known people lose bigger pay checks than statutory benefits because of a need to drink. The mistake is to see alcohol dependence as an extreme liking for alcohol rather than a symptom of a deeper problem like anxiety or depression in which the alcohol both worsens but pardoxically temporally treats the symptoms of the deeper problem.
Complain about this comment
#38, think it through, detox only gets people off alcohol, it doesn't stop them sliding back. So then the underlying causes need to be addressed and these are often very deep, for example needing psychotherapy. Support services of that quality and availability are like hens teeth.
Instead, each time detox 'fails', it reinforces the mentality that the person's problems are intractible. Alcoholics know this so are not up for it unless really determined. The mental battle they face with themselves is huge and pressure from anyone is an irrelevance as #39 has suggested.
The other point to make is that the alcoholic's point of view is not rational; it doesn't respond to logical arguments.
Complain about this comment
TitusMartin, 39 and dungbeetel, 40.
Here are the comments:
26 - The idea that 'the dole office' might have made any difference to the timing of my recovery is... almost funny.
27 - NOTHING will persuade an active alcoholic to stop before they want to.
32 - Take away the alcoholic's benefits and provide a "spur" !
33 - However, nothing and no one could have persuaded me to stop drinking until I was ready.
All these people are assuming that the proposal is that benefits will be stopped if an alcoholic doesn't stop drinking. It isn't. The proposal is that the benefits will be stopped if people don't go for treatment.
By all means, talk about the sort of treatment that will be required to successfully get people sober or how long people should be given to get sober, but stop muddying the issue by implying that the requirement is that people stop drinking.
Otherwise, you're saying that I should fund alcoholics until they feel that they're ready to give up. As amsterdammonamour said, Get real!
Complain about this comment
I'm an alcoholic and have struggled with the NHS provision for years. Sometimes I've been out of work for a month or two [as a direct result of my drinking problem], but I've always managed to find another job or way to support myself.
The NHS provision is poor - admit you are an alcoholic and in most areas you can wait 6 months before you get seen. I've been told by an Alcohol Worker at least once that I'm not an alcoholic, but merely a binge drinker. OK, all I know is that once I've taken a sip of alcohol you may as well roll a dice. It won't matter how many important commitments I have lined up, or how much money I have to lose I will only stop when I feel able. That could be in 4 hours time after consuming 1 litre of Vodka, or in 4 days when I'm completely beat after 30 units a day of wine, cider and the odd soft drink.
I've spent 16K on private rehab treatments - that money came from well meaning friends, some from savings and some I've managed to find myself. All that has taught me is that I will only stop when it's possible for me.
I've been back to the NHS only to be told I'm still not an alcoholic - yet my GP has seen me collapse in her surgery on days following the end of a drinking bout.
I've claimed benefit on the few occasions I haven't been fit to work, but have found them extremely difficult to obtain and I usually get myself back to work, well before my sicknotes expire. My reward for this is an ever complicated system which for someone self-employed and only taking minimal time off is a complete nightmare.
Recently the only thing keeping me going is my own determination, family and supportive friends who still have some belief I can beat this.
What amazes me is that there isn't any support for those in my position - yes I can access some local help via charities or the NHS, but both only offer appointments during the working day. This makes it very difficult to access for anyone still in work. Hardly encouraging.
Complain about this comment
HeroicNorthernAngel(42) - I'm really sorry that your experience as a service user was the same as I was observing whilst part of the "service provision." I'd suspected that when the caseload of the mental health link workers/alcohol advisers got to the point where targets were being missed that there was some "recategorisation" of clients so that they didn't impact the figures.
The other really interesting point I hadn't thought of concerned the self-employed. As a manager one of the umpteen policies I've had to read and digest was the Drugs and Alcohol one. The policy states that none of my staff should be allowed to attend work in an intoxicated state and that I should send them home on unpaid leave and consider disciplinary action on their next attendance UNLESS I suspect that this is a dependency issue in which case I should send them home on special leave and make an urgent referral to Occupational Health so that appropriate support can be arranged.
In my past I've worked in the OH department of a large organisation and seen how alcoholics have been managed in the workplace and given paid leave to attend appointments. I was always impressed by this caring attitude but it was explained to me that the organisation has invested money and time recruiting and training the individual and a small amount of outlay to help them through this problem will pay dividends with loyalty and productivity in the future. In my present role I've been told that it can be used as an indication of stress and anxiety.
The question is who supports the self employed in this way? And if it all gets too much, you lose your job and your business and you're not in the right "place" on the cycle of change to start treatment then you lose your benefits too with this proposal. It has to be support and motivation to move someone to be ready to make the change but have the services there to support it. Maybe the definition should change from alcoholics to something that encompasses the range of problems that people have with alcohol.
Complain about this comment
re @ 8, 11
Medications that have now been shown, in clinical trials, to have performed extremely well.
BUT, they are not "stand alone" treatments.
Will N.I.C.E. give approval..?
And, will the necessary NHS after-support be available, IF, the medications are approved?
Not from what I've heard.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/15/addiction.cold.turkey.pill/index.html
Complain about this comment
You are probably right, Charlie. :(
I looked up naltrexone when I was (uselessly, I now realise) trying to intervene in X's drinking. It's only available across the Atlantic.
There's also some horrible pill that makes you do anything from vomit to have a heart attack if you do drink alcohol, I can't remember the name.
But I agree, what is the point of filling someone up with pills if the 'cause' of their drinking is still there?
And I never knew what was behind X's underlying problem.
So I wish HNAngel the best of luck.
Complain about this comment
Yes, there are several medications which have been shown to work for some people. Antabuse is the drug that causes you to vomit and have what can be a life-threatening reaction, should a patient come into contact with alcohol.
Trouble is if the desire is strong enough many alcoholics may take the risk - then you have a serious problem. There are also those who will react to vinegars, aftershave, perfume and even the alcohol in body sprays. It therefore can only be taken with extreme caution.
Other drugs have been shown to reduce pleasure effects, and or cravings - they are effective in only a certain percentage of patients and aren't worth anything without a complete change in thinking, as well as dealing with the addictive mind - which is more difficult than most people can imagine. I have tried some of these solutions, and I can confirm they did not give the required result (and yes I have lots of postive things in my life and did make practical changes). I was also advised to try CBT counselling - this was by the NHS who then told me their waiting list was too long and that I should seek this, once again privately!
It's not as easy as popping a pill, and as I'm learning the change is having to come from me, my support network, privately paid treatment and/or voluntary organisations.
It looks as if the NHS will have to change dramatically to provide the support required to make this new 'idea' work.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS