So you found the cause of addiction?

The complexities of addiction have long been compounded by all the discussions about what addiction is, how it develops, and the factors behind this development. Parallel to this is the discussion on how to better address addiction. Of course, these proposals on treatment and recovery are directly related to the answers someone might have in regards to the first set of discussions: what it is, how it develops, and the factors behind this development. I would term this, someone’s “personal philosophy of addiction.”

Some of the common discussions include the role of genetics, the role of social factors, the role of neurobiology, the role of learned behavior, the role of co-occurring disorders, and the role of childhood experiences. The weight a person would place on any of these factors would inform their “personal philosophy of addiction.”

Once a person has formed their “personal philosophy of addiction”, they could have a sense of what would provide a better alternative on how to address this issue. Do I believe addiction is mostly a direct result of childhood experiences that included trauma? Then I would probably place priority emphasis on the resolution of this issue as it relates to treatment and recovery. Examples as such can be made with all other factors.

When proponents of single factors that explain addiction are making their points, they usually do a great job providing rationale and isolating the factor in such a way that it provides a great opportunity of enriching knowledge on the influence this factor has on addiction. Their intention is a noble one as they attempt to find a better solution to this problem by exploring its root causes and underlying conditions.

The problem in this occurs when a proposal as such does not consider a context in which this factor interacts with many others. Reducing our understanding of addiction to one single explanation is not warranted in our attempt to improve the way we help those afflicted by addiction.

Discussion around these topics tends to be based on premises of mutual exclusivity. If this is right, then that must be wrong.

I believe the discussions should be about increasing our knowledge base and understanding. It should be about integration between all the great things we have learned so far about addiction with all the new perspectives.

Can addiction be a disease of the brain while also having been influenced by social factors and adverse childhood experiences? Why not.

One critical factor not to be left out of the conversation is the person struggling with addiction issues themselves. Each person has a story and a narrative. What could be the perceived causes of one’s addiction could be totally different that the perceived causes of somebody else’s. So let’s listen to them. Let’s try to understand where they are coming from and what they believe in. Let’s also listen to how they believe they can recover. At the end of the day, what the person struggling with addiction believes about all this is more relevant than what I believe as a helper.

Many speak about person-centered approaches, individualized treatment, integrated behavioral health, bio-psycho-social-spiritual approaches, holistic, and whole-body perspectives. Do we really believe it? Does it really show in what we do to help those in need? What do I honestly believe about addiction, how it develops, and how people recover? The answers make a world of difference.

Enter the text or HTML code here

The Neglected Side of Step Four (of AA/NA) – Character Strengths

The 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) are not the only pathway to recovery. But for those that decide to take the journey, it will be known how the fourth step (Made a searching and moral inventory of ourselves) has built a reputation as one of the most spoken about in fellowship meetings, step study resources, conferences, and other AA/NA activities.

This reputation is also related to the perceived difficulty some members of 12 step fellowships have attributed to the fourth step. In this inventory, the person addresses issues related to resentments, fear, relationships, guilt, and shame; all areas that can prove challenging to a person in early recovery. It includes the identification of the role of the character defects.

A person in this state has traditionally coped with these difficult areas through the use of the substance and/or other unhealthy behaviors. Now in abstinence based recovery, the individual could be faced with emotions that are difficult to understand and to face in a newly found life of sobriety. Some could avoid reaching this point and many a self-esteem could be shaken.

The development of addiction itself could have been influenced by adverse childhood experiences, mental health conditions, and unhealthy family dynamics. At the same time, and through the progression of addiction, additional negative consequences can arise: worsening of mental health issues, additional traumatic experiences, relationship issues, etc. It could be easy for the person to forget or not recognize what is inherently good in them.

What about if more attention would be given to the person’s assets, positive traits, or character strengths? Could this shed some light to help individuals identify and recognize in themselves positive aspects of their personalities and their lives that could have easily been obscured by addiction? The Narcotics Anonymous Basic Text makes explicit reference to this point:

“Assets must also be considered, if we are to get an accurate and complete picture of ourselves. This is very difficult for most of us, because it is hard to accept that we have good qualities. However, we all have assets, many of them newly found in the program…”

One specific way in helping to achieve the identification of a person’s character strengths is through the use of the VIA Survey of Character Strengths ( www.viasurvey.org ). These character strengths are based on Petersen and Seligman’s (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. In this classification, there are six human virtues that are common throughout cultures along with twenty-four character strengths.

Among the virtues and character strengths (character strengths in parenthesis) we can find wisdom (judgment, perspective), courage (honesty, bravery, perseverance), humanity (love, kindness), justice (fairness, teamwork), temperance (humility, self-regulation), and transcendence (gratitude, hope, spirituality). These character strengths are common topics of AA/NA culture.

“Character Strengths are the positive parts of your personality that impact how you think, feel and behave and are the keys to you being your best self…They are different than your other strengths, such as your unique skills, talents, interests and resources, because character strengths reflect the “real” you — who you are at your core.”

VIA Institute on Character

Through the use of the VIA Survey, a person can find the order of importance of their character strengths. The awareness of the existence of these character strengths, along with the practice of employing these strengths in new ways, can help a person overcome the emotional burden when coming face to face with the person’s defects of character. The awareness of our character strengths can also provide for a hopeful future when things are not looking too bright while realizing that there is good in me. You could see how this could be beneficial even if your pathway to recovery is not through the 12 steps.

You can access the free survey at www.viasurvey.org and expect to take about 15 minutes to complete it. If you are a clinician in the field, this can prove a great tool for many individuals that have difficulty in seeing the good in themselves.

The idea is not how one perspective is better than the other in regards to character strengths versus character defects, but how both supplement each other and could help individuals obtain a more balanced view of themselves and their histories with both virtues and difficult areas; the true nature of step four.

Do you know what your strengths are?

Enter the text or HTML code here

Ohhh noooo!! It’s a difficult client!!

So how do we react to the difficult inpatient client in our caseload? That person who acts defiantly, does not comply, seems that does not want to be there, but is. Other peers in treatment are not too keen of this client and neither is staff. Does the client follow programming? Not quite.

This scenario presents a challenge to clinicians, staff, and others participating in treatment. The client behaves in such a way that gets under everyone’s skin but is not doing enough to have their treatment terminated. Every morning the news on how clients are doing revolves around this specific person. Whaaaat now? What did the client do (or didn’t do) this time?

How is the psychic and morale of the clinician affected? Do we wish this client wasn’t here anymore? Can insurance please deny further coverage? Can we just kick this person out?

Helping the client engage in treatment can be a work in progress while meeting the client where they are at can also be challenging without the support of other staff who want you, the primary clinician, to “fix the client”. Wishing this client not be in treatment can seem like the best out, but many dynamics must be addressed if we are to remain true to the importance of patient care and ethical practice.

In an individual sense, the clinician must be aware of feelings arising from the situation, be it transference related or due to pressures from others involved. In group settings where staff is present discussing the case, the clinician must be aware of how others’ comments affect their own perspective of the situation and of the individual. Are we buying into the groupthink or are we able to maintain our individual opinions?

They all deserve the best from us, always and unconditionally, whether we like them or not, independent of our opinion, and independent of our professional prognosis.

The need for supervision seems paramount in cases as such. Easy answers should not be expected as there are many factors to consider. But if we are to speak about client care and ethical practice as a priority, the following points are of relevance:

While the client is still in treatment and under our care, this person deserves nothing but the best from us and our team. That is the warranted client care. The possibility of assessing whether the client should be in this treatment episode, or not, becomes a different conversation. Until, and if, a decision as such is made, the client is still a client, no matter anything else.

Am I as a clinician aware of the power of my expectations of the client, on the client’s outcome? There is a chance of closing down possibilities to be helpful if my expectations of this client are minimal or non-existent; if I am not as present as I can be for this person; if “I know this client will fail, so why try”. They all deserve the best from us, always and unconditionally, whether we like them or not, independent of our opinion, and independent of our professional prognosis.

Picture this scenario: I take my car for a tune-up, but I am not one of those to really take good care of the car nor to follow all preventive care suggestions. It is also a bit dirty and filled with fast food reminders. How would I feel if I found out I was not given “the usual tune up” they give everyone else because the mechanics thought I did not deserve it for not taking good care of my car? I did pay the same amount as the “worthy ones”. I don’t know about you guys, but I would not be a happy camper.

Enter the text or HTML code here