By this logic, any doctor who working as an addiction specialist is also worthless unless he/she used to be an addict, am I right? Anyways, I suggest you re-read my last post. Nowhere did I speculate about what the "itch" feels like. Rather, I stated that chemically and biologically, an addiction to meth stays with one for life. Actually, my knowledge is based on reading biology and chemistry textbooks, and my conversations with both doctors and addicts. Not movies. I used to live in Pasadena, which had a recovery facility, and a couple of my friends worked there. I have always found the biochemistry side of addiction interesting. AH! This is completely different than Selbbin's girlfriend, who, according to him, has had been going to various rehab facilities for years, to no avail. Your experiences jive with what I have been told by those working in treatment facilities, and why your last post can't be applied to Selbbin's case. However, since you seemingly disagree with me, I thought it would be more effective if you wrote it yourself. Indeed, that is the fear with many addicts; even if they have been clean for over a decade, they can still relapse, since the desire to use is always there.
When I was in rehab, we talked about this with the other patients and we all felt that no doctor should be the head of a rehab clinic (or hold any position where they get to decide how recovering addicts are treated in their facility) without having first-hand experience of substance addiction and withdrawing. We also agreed it's an unreasonable demand, but I swear, there are too many doctors with the proper degrees but so little experience treating addictions / withdrawals that their "treatments" do more harm than good or, alternatively, their methods of treating the patient go against logic even though the patient should always come first. There is little inherent value in following procedure just for the sake of following procedure (yes, this does happen more often than people like to think). Then again, I do understand that often it's not about the doctor's incompetence as much as it is about limited resources which you can really do nothing about. It's just bad when incompetence and limited resources are combined which seems to be the case all too often (at least around here, behind God's back).
I think T.Trian answered you pretty effectively. I'm good. Again, T.Trian's post. Reading about it and talking to others about it does not in any way make you an authority on this subject IMO. Umm, no. Most people mistakenly believe that rehab is the best way to get off of whatever it is they're on. She's doing what society tells her to do. No, actually that's not the issue. After a point it's no longer about 'want' and is instead much more about them believing they can handle it. That they're strong enough now. And then they get sucked right in.
I'd just like to weigh in on a few things. First, she doesn't have bipolar. She has borderline personality disorder. They're different and the distinction is important. Two, I'm not 'the exception'. I love her and I'm going to be here for her. That's all. I was just stating that unlike most other relationships with someone with BPD, we've somehow avoided ugly confrontations that experts warn about. I found that interesting. Three, I am under no illusion that she will crave Ice for life. She won't be hooked all the time, but she will indulge from time to time, when BP thoughts and memories of her past become overwhelming. This is something I need to accept and stay with her, or reject and leave her. BPD has triggers that will, not could, set her off. Understanding this is important for me. However, I also know from past experience with her that, with support, she can be sober for long periods of time. Four, this is not the 'honeymoon' period. I've known her six years. We went out for a year, had a two year break and are now together for three years. That doesn't make it easy, but we have both been surprised by how resilient our connection has been, considering we are from totally different worlds and backgrounds. Five, therapists that don't have experience, by her account, are useless. She had a great experience with a counselor at one rehab where he was a reformed junky. He inspired her to want to become a counselor herself. This probably won't happen but it is one of two goals that can give her some focus. Anyway...
Yeah, it's a very common sentiment among addicts. "What the fuck does this stuffy asshole in a lab coat know about my addiction?!" And then, every possible mistake they make in the highly inexact science of treating addicts is ascribed to them being out of touch. Imagine if this same sentiment applied to gunshot wound victims, or anyone else going under the knife of surgery. Insanity, right? It's a horrible mindset, but one that is difficult for many addicts to let go of. So if reading and studying a subject doesn't give you any authority on it, then pray tell, what exactly does?! I became an authority on the subject of my degree (mathematics) and my present work (economics and statistical programming) by that same "reading" and "talking to others". According to you, our method of preparation for 90+% of the jobs in society is completely wrong? A lot of addicts feel this way, and they end up as corpses for it. I remember Amy Winehouse even had a song romanticizing your viewpoint. "They tried to make me go to rehab, and I said no, NO, NO!" Now she's dead. Coupled with your idea that medical experts are worthless, this is some really dangerous advice and misinformation you're peddling here. Awesome. You're happy and satisfied with the relationship. In that case, I'm confused by your posts. The original one in the "Not Happy Thread", where you seemed depressed, was that to ask for advice, garner sympathy, or simply vent? And what was the point of this stand-alone topic? To reassure everyone that things are indeed okay?
I'm writing lucid, unemotional posts. Don't take that to mean that I am calm, carefree and content. It's part of me reassuring myself. I still get stressed. I still worry. I still feel anxious. I still have all the internal struggles about her health, her happiness (and mine). But there's no point in getting emotional or carried away in a writing forum. I'm just trying to be clear about the technicalities. The point of the standalone topic is that it was suggested because my post, just a vent for no further action, sparked considerable debate. And yes, it was just to vent.
Because it shouldn't be let go of? It's not at all the same thing. Mathematics? Writing? History? You learn all that by studying, but you can't get into the mindset of an addict the same way. Clearly. If you could, it wouldn't be such a difficult thing for you to understand. Understanding the chemical dependency and symptoms, isn't all that it is. You also have to understand the psychological aspect, which is different for everyone. It's not a simple one size fits all cure, and that's why the stuffy people in lab coats fail over and over and over again. Peddling? I'm not peddling anything. I'm offering my experiences, that is all. He was clearly venting, which he's stated, I've stated, KaTrian has stated.
Actually, KaTrian didn't write the post you're quoting there, I did, so I'm not sure how her name ended up in the quotes (we do write on the same comp, but I was logged in as myself, so not sure what happened there...). In any case, at least from my point of view, things aren't that black and white: obviously most doctors know quite a bit about what they're doing. However, forgive me if I'm sceptical, but I'm not sure how you could possibly know what kind of doctors I, for instance, have encountered while withdrawing. Some have made mistakes, some have even admitted them afterwards, e.g. prescribing the wrong kinds of medication to treat withdrawals despite me asking for another med beforehand with clear explanations of why I'm requesting a certain type/brand. In that particular case, the meds he first prescribed me came from a brand that sponsored the hospital and the brand I requested is a bit more expensive and requires a special permit, so naturally he's pushing the pills he usually uses for his patients even if they don't suit me or some other individual. Just like with most things, even that isn't a black and white -case: many doctors don't believe their patients for a variety of reasons and want to see the effects of their preferred treatments before going another route, i.e. doing what the patient requested. This is understandable because e.g. some of the patients at the rehab hospital were so out of it, they were barely lucid. I, for one, was lucid most of the time (and the doctor and all nurses agreed when I later discussed this with them) and I've been in this vicious cycle so long that I know how my body works, what medications work and what don't. Of course he has to cover his bases too, so the doctor does what he does with everyone because how does he know that what I'm telling him is the truth? So I understand where he's coming from, but it still sucks to be the guinea pig every fucking time you meet a new doc. However, this comes partly down to ignorance/laziness on the doctor's part, partly (probably mostly) to limited resources, i.e. he can't afford to spend enough time with one patient to really get all the facts the first time around. The flipside of this coin is that there are the exceptions to this rule, doctors who do listen to the patients (albeit critically of course). They often ask far more questions and pay attention to the replies to see if the patient is lying or making up stuff for one reason or another. These men and women tend to be older, more experienced, and can spot lies and guesswork pretty well. They also tend to be good at evaluating people, so sometimes they do... "take chances," so to speak, and go straight to their 2nd or 3rd preferred option instead of always going with the 1st. My old doctor at the university was like this and he was the best damn doctor I've ever met. Needless to say, with him, we usually found suitable solutions to different health problems far more quickly and painlessly than, say, with the rehab doctor or a couple of others I've seen after the uni guy moved to administrative duties (nowadays he's the head of the hospital and doesn't treat patients directly anymore, alas). Two younger doctors were the exact opposites of this guy: they paid pretty much no attention to what I said, to my medical history etc, and instead just went with what they always did in even borderline similar cases. Youth and inexperience isn't much of an excuse, however, since I have encountered a very young doctor, fresh out of med school, who was almost as good at listening to his patients than the old uni doc. This young guy just had a knack for asking the right questions, digging up the essential information, and then made his decision as to which course of treatment to pursue. If only all doctors were as attentive as these two, we'd have far fewer problems and e.g. withdrawing would be far less unpleasant. Hell, it would be much quicker: my current withdrawing process has lasted around two months when it could've been over in less than two weeks if I'd just ended up with a doctor who listened / knew what questions to ask, i.e. was a good doctor. I mean, we do agree that there are both, good and bad doctors, right? Anyway, I would imagine that treating withdrawals and drug addicts is so different from treating, say, gunshot wounds, that the two aren't directly comparable in this situation. I would also imagine that, as you said, treating addicts is a notch less exact of a science in comparison and this, in turn, indicates, to me anyway, that the doctor needs more information to make his or her educated guesswork, i.e. more communication with the patient than if, say, the patient had been shot through the bicep with a 9mm FMJ round. I'd think that the aforementioned gunshot scenario would have notably less variety when selecting the proper treatment than if the patient was suffering of codeine addiction instead. To me it seems like choosing a successful treatment for that kind of an addiction requires a bit more information of the individual case than with the gunshot wound. Depends on what "studying" entails. Did you go through med school? Or did you just read books/internet articles/discussions and talk with people? If the latter, well, sorry, but I wouldn't count you as an authority on the subject. If you did go through the same or similar enough training that doctors do when they get their degree, you'd rank as an authority on the subject in my book. I believe there's a good reason why med school is more than just reading books and partaking in classroom discussions. You wouldn't accept anybody as an authority on MMA either if their claim to fame was having read several books on the subject and discussing MMA with other people? At least I wouldn't because theory is theory, practice is practice, and you can't replace the latter with the former.
