Re: Kayleigh on Quakerism, spiritu

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete,

My leg is healing fine so far as I know, tho I will have to have the cast on for

a few more weeks. Luckily I can walk without crutches and it doesn't hurt very

much.

funnily enough, when i said

> i was dismayed at addiction being called a disability or a disease, a guy

> on addict-l mockingly asked what i would call a broken arm!

>

I guess I would call it a fracture.

<snip>

> funnily enough, i visited a friend who had recovered from cancer recently

> and when i congratulated him he said " I just did as I was told " .

>

People are different from one another. However, if I had done what I was told,

I would be dead. I think I already said that my doctor told me that if he were

me, he would liquidate all his assets, buy a yacht, and sail around the world.

The implications are clear. My doctor was telling me I was going to die. So I

didn't do as I was told.

> > I do not have a definition for

> spirituality here. I am simply repeating from stuff I have read. I

> suspect that most people's definitions of spirituality vary wildly from one

> another's.

>

> Usually it means " my religion which i wont admit is a religion, so i'll

> call it spirituality. " of course what it is used to mean all different

> things, but if you dont say what is meant by " spirituality " - what is the

> point of mentioning that there is a school of thought that says its part of

> recovery? what value is that info if you cant say what it is?

>

" Spirituality " is one of those words like " love, " or " democracy. " People throw

them around freely, believing they are talking about the same thing as others,

without realizing that their definitions are very idiosyncratic. When I mention

that there is this school of thought, I don't mean any more than what I said.

Whether people all mean the same thing isn't important. They believe that they

are talking about the same thing.

<snip>

>

> So these AA-holes (sorry, but the hyposcrisy makes me very angry) who

> claim not to play doctor and not even tell you you are alcoholic, tell you,

> the recoverer from cancer, that you still have it. of course, these ppl

> were " only speaking for themselves " - but if they can have the cheek to

> talk like that abt cancer, they certainly will have it to talk to

> another abt 'alcoholism' like that too.

>

And other diseases, I'm sure.

Not my understanding. not for chemical dependence/abuse anyway - for

> Full Remission, you must be sypmptom free. The DSM doesnt give any clear

> indication when " Sustained Full Remission " should be considered " cured " -

> perhaps because they wanted to give the Disease Model a loophole to

> continue dxing their patients as only " Full Remission " indefinitely.

I don't know what remission means to drug and alcohol counselors. But have you

looked at the latest edition of the DSM? Because I seem to recall having read

somewhere recently that it now acknowledges people can be cured.

As for cancer, I am sure you are wrong. No one has ever told me I am in

remission. By current medical standards, I am cured. And if I get cancer

again, they will be able to tell whether it was the same kind I had before. (I

have had 3 different primary cancers, by the way. Only one was immediately

life-threatening.)

>

> > When people talk about recurrence, it simply means

> that the first treatment didn't get rid of it. It doesn't recur, it was

> there all along and flares up again. I don't think this has anything to do

> with the 12 step model, tho I agree it is somewhat misleading.

>

> I dont think so - I think the notion is that the cancer is only in

> remission even if completely zapped - if it recurs, fresh tumors have

> appeared without any being left from the last time.

>

No, no, see above. Altho I will admit that cancer treatment and terminology

varies wildly, as I learned in the support group.

> > In my experience, people who treat cancer believe that they heal their

> patients, no matter whether they're surgeons, or technicians who manipulate

> radiation machines. This is very different from a 12 step model.

>

> Yep, absolutely. also, they take more responsibilty for whether the patient

> recovers or not. the 12-step ppl, both XA and professional, like to take

> the credit for successes but blame the sufferer if they dont get well. I'm

> repreatedly harangued abt how " anyone can get well in AA, and those who

> dont need to take responsibility for themselves " - missing what to me is

> simple logic is that the extent to which AA can take credit for success it

> must also take for failure.

>

When I was in treatment we were told on my first day that only 7% of us were

going to make it. I remember thinking that it was an astonishing admission of

the ineffectiveness of treatment. They, however, believed it was a failure of

the patient's. It's really close to the 5% success rate that people have

claimed for AA.

<snip>

> > I was talking about doing no > >harm. It

> seems to me that if someone realizes they have an emotional > >disorder, it

> is possible to recover.

>

> Doesnt follow - you knew you had cancer, but you still needed treatment for

> it, and if there werent any, you might have died. knowing you are ill

> doesnt mean that you must always be able to overcome it. The immune system

> of an AIDS patient " knows " it has been infected, but the immune system is

> the very thing that is attacked by it, and its ability to fight back

> overwhelmed. similarly, with psychological disorders, the person's

> " resistance " to the illness is affected.

>

> If the person is well enough to recover, then imho they'll got for it,

> by definition - they wont need any censure form others for not doing so to

> spur them on. in fact, coercion mighty make it harder for them. I go for

> the ian thing - the more I accept the person for who they are *now*,

> warts 'n' all, the more likely they will heal.

>

Let me try to clarify a little here. I do think that having an emotional

disorder tends to obscure one's perception of whether one has an emotional

disorder or not. So I say, if people realize they have one, they can recover.

There are certain disorders that absolutely prevent a perception that they

exist, for example, sociopathy (or whatever it's called nowadays.) I don't

expect those people to recover.

There are very effective medications for depression, which I assume most

frequently leads to suicidal ideation. Thus if the person realizes that he/she

is depressed, it is possible to recover. Probably there are some people who are

so depressed that they believe they are beyond help. But that is really an

educational failure, in my opinion.

> I do agree abt not hurting others tho - one does have a duty to avoid that.

> Perhaps if ppl were more accepting of euthanasia, then ppl would be more

> accepting of psychologically-motivated suicide and less hurt if it took

> place?

>

I suppose this is possible. But it is probably a cultural thing that has little

to do with euthanasia. Look at Japan, for example. Suicide is accepted there,

tho for very different reasons. And perhaps it hurts less for those left

behind. But I really don't know.

Kayleigh

-----

See the original message at /list/12-step-free/?start=476

--

Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/

______________________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Kayleigh and all

I hope your leg is still doing ok...

> " Spirituality " is one of those words like " love, " or " democracy. " People

throw them around freely, believing they are talking about the same thing

as others, without realizing that their definitions are very idiosyncratic.

When I mention that there is this school of thought, I don't mean any more

than what I said. Whether people all mean the same thing isn't important.

They believe that they are talking about the same thing.

But what conclusion do you draw from it? many ppl conclude this means that

" spirituality " is a good thing - but if it there is no agreement on what it

is, then discussion of its value is pointless.

>

> Not my understanding. not for chemical dependence/abuse anyway - for

> > Full Remission, you must be sypmptom free.

You snipped what I said. I said you dont need to be *abstinent* to be in

remission, and that's perfectly true. If you are drinking/using without

meeting any of the criteria, you *are* symptom free. Simply drinking/using

is not a symptom in itself, even after the dx has been made. as it is,

Robin Roon on addict-l, who was involved in determining the criteria, says

that he thinks even the requirements for remission ought to be simply no

longer meeting the dx, but he could not persuade the DSM ppl to accept

that, tho it would correspond to normal epidemiological practice and also

common sense.

The DSM doesnt give any clear

> > indication when " Sustained Full Remission " should be considered " cured "

- > > perhaps because they wanted to give the Disease Model a loophole to >

> continue dxing their patients as only " Full Remission " indefinitely. > >

I don't know what remission means to drug and alcohol counselors. But have

you looked at the latest edition of the DSM? Because I seem to recall

having read somewhere recently that it now acknowledges people can be cured.

Yep, looked at latest edition. It *does* suggest its possible, but does not

give *criteria* - the very slight reference in facts simply warns against

premature consideration of cure, without saying when one can definitely *say

cured*. it's a very backhanded way of admitting a cure is possible, and to

me smells strongly of fudge!

>

> As for cancer, I am sure you are wrong. No one has ever told me I am in

remission. By current medical standards, I am cured. And if I get cancer

again, they will be able to tell whether it was the same kind I had before.

(I have had 3 different primary cancers, by the way. Only one was

immediately life-threatening.)

I thought that was what the AA ppl were telling you? I'm quote ok with the

idea of you being cured. I believe it is true tho, that *some* cancer

patients are simply described as being " in remission " altho there is

indication any more that any tumors are left. it probably depends on the

type of cancer. in the case of substance dependence, their isnt even any

" tumor " of any kind at any time, yet they still talk abt " remission " !

> >

> > > When people talk about recurrence, it simply means

> > that the first treatment didn't get rid of it. It doesn't recur, it

was > > there all along and flares up again.

As above, my impression that this isnt true for all cancers. apparently

healthy ppl produce 10,000 cancer cells all the time anyway - ppl develop

the disease when the immune system fails to destroy them. hence, there's no

need for a recurrence to suggest that it wasnt zapped last time. however, i

expect it depends on the type of cancer.

> Let me try to clarify a little here. I do think that having an emotional

disorder tends to obscure one's perception of whether one has an emotional

disorder or not. So I say, if people realize they have one, they can

recover. There are certain disorders that absolutely prevent a perception

that they exist, for example, sociopathy (or whatever it's called

nowadays.) I don't expect those people to recover. > > There are very

effective medications for depression, which I assume most frequently leads

to suicidal ideation. Thus if the person realizes that he/she is

depressed, it is possible to recover. Probably there are some people who

are so depressed that they believe they are beyond help. But that is

really an educational failure, in my opinion.<<

Some depressions are resistant to antidepressant medication - even ECT and

psychosurgery. OCD can be very resistant too. *Knowing* that one has an

emotional disorder is almost a *part of the definition* of a neurosis

(without it the person is either psychotic or sociopathic) and hence if

merely knowing one had it were sufficient to guarantee recovery, recovery

would be a lot more frequent. I reinvoke my analogy - knowledge of

physical sickness doesnt guarantee recovery is possible does it, so why

should mental health be any different? in fact, one might expect it to be

worse. amputated arms can be sown back on, but a person *cant sow back

their own arms*. similalrly, if someone's mind is affected, it's much

harder for them to use their mind in their best interest - which they would

do for a physical disease.

Pete

----------------------

Cool Briton

Whosoever saves One Life

Saves the World Entire

PERSONALITY-DISORDERS LIST:

http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

_____________________

______________________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh and Pete wrote (snipped a lot)

>>I do think that having an emotional >disorder tends to obscure one's

perception of whether one has an emotional >disorder or not. So I say, if

people realize they have one, they can >recover. There are certain

disorders that absolutely prevent a perception >that they exist, for

example, sociopathy (or whatever it's called >nowadays.) I don't expect

those people to recover. > > There are very >effective medications for

depression, which I assume most frequently leads >to suicidal ideation.

Thus if the person realizes that he/she is >depressed, it is possible to

recover. Probably there are some people who >are so depressed that they

believe they are beyond help. But that is >really an educational failure,

in my opinion.<<

What is suicidal ideation?

I have been extremely well educated as to my depression. This is one of

the sticks I beat myself with...I *should* be cured.

>Some depressions are resistant to antidepressant medication - even ECT and

>psychosurgery. OCD can be very resistant too. *Knowing* that one has an

>emotional disorder is almost a *part of the definition* of a neurosis

>(without it the person is either psychotic or sociopathic) and hence if

>merely knowing one had it were sufficient to guarantee recovery, recovery

>would be a lot more frequent. I reinvoke my analogy - knowledge of

>physical sickness doesnt guarantee recovery is possible does it, so why

>should mental health be any different?

Pete, can you give me some leads to reading material that has this slant?

I would appreciate some *education* along this line.

Thanks.

--

DeWms-

Life is what happens

while you are making other plans.

______________________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi De

On Mon, 05 Oct 1998 16:47:04 -0700 " Deborah Denten, aka De

" wrote:

>

> What is suicidal ideation?

Suicidal thoughts. Psychologists like to use words like

" ideation " and " cognition " for " thoughts " !

> I have been extremely well educated as to my depression. This is one of

> the sticks I beat myself with...I *should* be cured.

Lose this idea De. Many depressed ppl have difficulty

recovering. Some 1 in 3 do not respond to antidepressants.

I wish they were as effective as Kayleigh suggested. also,

some ppl need unusually high doses, that docs may

(unecessarily) be unwilling to prescribe.

> >I reinvoke my analogy - knowledge of

> >physical sickness doesnt guarantee recovery is possible does it, so why

> >should mental health be any different?

>

> Pete, can you give me some leads to reading material that has this slant?

> I would appreciate some *education* along this line.

The best thing is probably the humanist stuff by Maslow and

. emphasised that he believed accepting the

patient was what helped them progress. unfortunately,

ian therapy sometimes looks naff and might not be very

effective - I think this is because the therp overdoes it

and becomes gushing, which is annoying or even damaging for

the client. the empathy needs to be *genuine* and not

excessive. there is a tradeoff for all therapists between

accepting the client and challenging the self-defeating

behavior - you dont want the client to get stuck, but then

you dont want them to quit therapy either. this is

aparticular problem with borderline personality disorder

patients, who may engage in very self-destructive

behaviour. Marsha Linehan and Dialectical Behavior Therapy

is something else to check out - she too emphasises the

need to accept the client, despite negative behaviour, for

months if need be util trust is developed, and to introduce

therapeutic goals gradually, and accepting that regression

may occur. borderlines to regress just before apparently

succesfully completing therapy.

----------------------

Pete Watts

awatt04@...

______________________________________________________________________