Religion
Related: About this forumLetting Go of God: How 12-Step Programs Are Losing Their Religion
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/letting-go-god-12-step-programs-losing-religion-95357/BY JESSE BEACH December 04, 2014 4:00 PM
(Photo: STILLFX/Shutterstock)
We atheists and agnostics in AA have faced a long struggle for acceptance. But newer 12-step fellowships are leading the way to a more tolerant form of recoverydespite a Back to Basics backlash.
AA is spiritual, not religiousnow hold my hand while we pray.
This was the kind of message Barry Hazle faced at a California 12-step-based treatment program he was ordered to attend in 2007 as part of his parole from drug charges. Alcoholics Anonymous encourages prayer to a God as we understand Him for help getting and staying sober. As an atheist, Hazle asked for alternatives. He was given two: Buy into the 12 Steps as written or go back to jail. He objected and a California court agreed that Hazles First Amendment rights had been violated. Hazle will receive a settlement of almost $2 million.
An estimated 69 percent of Americans believe in some form of One God, according to the 2012 Pew Research Nones on the Rise survey. But atheists, while still a small minority, increased from four percent to seven percent since the previous Pew surveythere were 12 million self-identifying American atheists in 2007, increasing to 22 million in 2012. It varies by region: If you live in the Northeast, 54 percent of you believe in a personal higher power. In the South, 86 percent of yall do. Elsewhere, one in four Canadians dont believe in God and half of Brits are non-believers. And under-30s are everywhere more agnostic or atheist than their elders. Although theres plenty of life in God yet, especially in the U.S., the trend is clear: AA must become more accepting of non-believers or shrink.
None of this would surprise James Christopher, who got sober in AA in 1978, then broke from the pack in 1986 to found Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS). AA is a religion in denial, says Christopher. Interestingly, AA itself was born half a century earlier of several Oxford Group memberswho themselves broke away from the Oxford Group, because they found it too religious.
more at link
phil89
(1,043 posts)go to empirically validated treatment instead of this anti humanist, religion based garbage.
What is the empirically validated treatment that you recommend? And what is anti-humanist about 12 step programs?
This article is about removing the religion, so I really don't get your religions based garbage comment.
TygrBright
(20,762 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Most insurance pays only for detox, if it pays for chemical dependency at all.
When you speak of "treatment" you are most likely talking about in patient, residential or day treatment programs which are much more comprehensive but also costly.
If you mean 12 step programs as "recovery support", I think the bigger problem is in dismissing them. For many, that is all that is available.
TygrBright
(20,762 posts)...with 12-Step support, and nothing else.
Nevertheless, when judges sentence drunk drivers to "attend AA" and other coercive programs substitute AA (which works by attraction, not promotion) for those day and/or residential treatment programs that provide more comprehensive and targeted interventions, everyone loses.
Those who evaluate the "effectiveness" of 12-Step programs as "treatment" and then heap public scorn on it because those who participate may relapse multiple times before achieving long-term sobriety are also doing a disservice to those who need either treatment OR recovery support.
12-Step programs are not treatment, don't pretend to be treatment, don't work the same way treatment does. That they may help some folks achieve and maintain sobriety without treatment is a wonderful thing, but it's not necessarily what they are best at, which is long-term peer support for implementing a personal effort to maintain sobriety based on the steps.
explicatively,
Bright
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The religious aspect is a huge one, and I am glad to see that that is being addressed in some areas.
The court orders are also problematic, as 12 step programs really must be voluntary if they are to have any impact.
In my experience, the problem the courts have is that there are no alternatives. There is no day or residential program available.
Last I looked, the only thing positively correlated with recovery rates was length of time in a residential program.
I totally agree with your description of what 12 step programs are and what they can and can't do.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AA is effective.
TygrBright
(20,762 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)TygrBright
(20,762 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)if they are one component of a full treatment plan for addictions. Really, the only empirically validated treatment protocols out there are the varieties of CBT. For those who don't know what those are, it basically boils down to change your thoughts, change your feelings, and change your behaviors. Funny how 12 Step groups actually do those very things!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)dependency.
For many, 12 step programs are all they've got.
TM99
(8,352 posts)And it is definitely better than nothing.
I have attended Al-Anon meetings for some time, and I have personally found them quite helpful.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And, as you suggest, combinations of tools or resources offer the most hope for lasting recovery.
Regular attendance at AA or other "Fellowship" meetings can be helpful in redirecting one's habits of thought and in finding support, but CBT and DBT have a bit more rigor and emphasize mindfulness and awareness of one's thoughts and responses to stimuli in ways that not only help resist substances but also make them more capable and happy in other areas of their lives.
I currently use ACT as my preferred blending of mindfulness and CBT clinical practice.
Support groups are an excellent adjunct but certainly no substitute for the therapy itself.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is a social club for relapsing or soon to be relapsing alcoholics.
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AA comes up "ineffective". The Cochrane study is still the best out there.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856072
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There has been research, there have been studies, but it seems highly unlikely that reliable data could ever be collected from individuals in a group that has, as it's core principle, respect for anonymity.
If 12 step programs work for even a few, then I'd call them successful. Other programs have failure rates, too.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The issue isn't does AA have a failure rate. Of course it does. The issue is does AA actually have any measurable effect on outcome. The evidence, cited up above, is available and has found no evidence that AA is effective.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Your cite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856072
"unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness" is an unreasonably high standard to apply to a community support program.
This is a meta-study; the conclusions are drawn from review of 8 prior studies. I wouldn't put a lot of value in this academic work, it's only as good as the weakest study in the set.
I also don't know that the researchers don't have an agenda. A cursory review of other studies by one of the authors suggests that they support pharmacological solutions over psychosocial interventions.
We see a lot of that.
In any event, "somewhat effective", or "sometimes effective", is not bad as long as it's not the only treatment available.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)would you suggest we drop that standard?
Meta studies are now a pejorative? Interesting. "I don't know the researchers don't have an agenda" - seriously? That's pathetic.
I guess when one doesn't have any evidence for one's position, it is best to portray the facts as somehow tainted.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Warren Stupidity, who "doesn't have any evidence" save a meta study.
Had you been paying attention, you'd have read where I state that reliable studies aren't likely to exist with a group therapy model that values anonymity.
So, pathetic or not, there isn't any research to cite, duh.
Yanno, in grad school it was always the sorry lazy losers who chose to conduct a "study of studies" over conducting original research.
Toward my advanced degrees, I conducted participatory research with real people. It took twice as long to conduct but it was worth it and actually added something of value to the published literature available to others interested in the same topics.
Stick around and you might learn something.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You do understand that a meta study is an analysis of many other studies, right?
"So, pathetic or not, there isn't any research to cite, duh." - well sure there is, one need only go to the meta study and pull all of their other studies from their report and look at what those studies have found. One could in fact run a statistical analysis on the aggregate data from those studies, increasing the sample size and the accuracy of the analysis in a sort of "meta study", oh wait....
Here this might help:
In statistics, meta-analysis comprises statistical methods for contrasting and combining results from different studies in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
bvf
(6,604 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)There is very little research on the effectiveness of them for various reasons, but the little research that has been done shows that it's ineffective. On top of that they add an element of shame to drug use that is being phased out of modern treatments. That element of shame is the real poison (the dishonest "not religious" claim aside) because it actually kills. It teaches that if you relapse you failed and have to start over, that you were weak. It does kill people, it drives some to suicide, or to just keep going and overdose.
So no, it's not a worth while program, because it a) doesn't have a confirmed success rate over self quitting, and b) actually causes deaths.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The only positive correlation that I am aware of is length of time in residential treatment, an option generally not available to people.
What are the "modern treatments" that you refer to? I would be most interested in looking at them.
Have you been engaged with any 12 step programs? Have you quit any addictive substance? Do you have any data to support your claim that 12 step programs kill or lead to an increased suicide rate? Actually causes death? You really need to provide some data to back this up.
While the recovery rates are abysmal and the relapse rates extremely high for chemical dependency no matter what treatment is involved, making the claim that 12 step programs are a negative is much more dangerous than any 12 step program out there.
Once again, Lord, you are talking about something that I think you may know very little about.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)How do you know that pointing out that AA is a negative is "much more dangerous than any 12 step program out there"?
Wait, what, you have no idea? So it is ok for you to castigate people for making unsubstantiated claims, but it is just fine for you, in the same post, to make a wild unsubstantiated claim. Interesting.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There will be crickets.
Not that I want to praise AA; participants get out of it what they put in.
But critics just want to hate on anything with the word God in it.
No program is 100% successful, or even 50% successful.
If any were, they'd be well known and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are AA haters just like there are religion haters, and sometimes they overlap, as you point out.
Although I know that AA has it's ups and it's downs, and I know it is not for everyone, when it does help, it often really helps.
I am very glad to see that non-religious alternatives are growing. It's a terrible illness, and anything that helps should be supported.
Those that lamely throw around that it kills people are clueless.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts).
I'd hate for anyone to buy into their lies. AA is all there is in many smaller communities.
Non-believers can benefit from the program if they loosen their interpretation whichever step mentions God.
Can you imagine if someone bought into the hatred and didn't even try?
Seriously, I know a lot of people with substance abuse problems and if I ever learned someone didn't even try AA because of what somebody said, I would be pretty upset.
Screw that.
Interestingly, my dear friend called today that her son called from jail, a DUI.
He's not hurt and nobody else is injured.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and some of those reasons might be highly personal.
I have seen some non-believers wear the AA jacket with ease. They were able to make their own interpretation of "higher power" work for them.
But I have also seen those that are so put off by the reference that they can't get past it.
The availability of non-religiously based programs is highly dependent on where you are.
At any rate, when people are struggling with recovery, they will sometimes use any excuse to fail. If there weren't AA bashers, they would find another reason.
But spreading false information that it kills people is pretty despicable.
I am sorry for your friend. I hope that she will consider attending an al-anon meeting. Doing the right thing by your child who is having issues with CD is really, really hard. I know.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There are plenty of reasons to reject AA, including rejection by some who were unable to find success with the program.
I've had a lot of exposure to programs and to addicts and have helped quite a few in recovery, which is one of the reasons that my friend called me.
Her younger sister was my girlfriend, an alcholic and she died in 1983
My friend already attends al-anon due to her former husband and now her daughter, and one of her brothers asked me to help him. (It's a family problem)
Al-anon is helpful but I worry sometimes that many meetings might not provide as broad a range of resources as they might.
People at AA meetings, for example, are often hostile toward people who might openly mention alternative programs, like CBT/DBT, SMART Recovery or Rational Recovery, all of which focus on building internal strength and mindfulness as tools against relapse.
Like any other problem, different people respond better to different approaches.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)My best friend lost her son last year. It was unspeakable.
Al-anon can be great for support and for helping people to stop the enabling. That is what kills people, not AA.
I'm for whatever works, that's my bottom line. And some people just don't make it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There is no evidence AA is effective. Being ineffective makes AA as good as any other program - they are all ineffective.
on point
(2,506 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Otherwise, I will just assume this is a baseless, cheap shot that not only insults the religious but those who are truly struggling with addiction.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)because, if I remember well, AA does not work any better than consulting your GP.
(not 100% sure, but I think I remember AA has actually underperforms the average GP)
So AA was just a God-drug dispensing mechanism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There is a lot more to 12 steps than god, but you would know that if you had bothered to read the article.
GP? What do you imagine a GP does for your average chemically dependent patient?
BTW, there haven't been GP's for many years.
You know about as much about AA as you know about islam.
I'm beginning to get to know you. You make outrageous statements based on no data or evidence. That's reason and rational thinking for you!
It's just your beliefs, apparently grounded in faith.
That should probably be outlawed.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)1- on AA, I did not claim I knew the specifics of their method, I just mentioned I'm pretty sure I read a text from a usually reliable source stating there is no proof that AA works any better than a GP.
Edit: just checked: what I said is confirmed by one 2006 scientific study. Its conclusion, I quote:
No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems." Published at the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856072?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Other publications wrote article such as: "AA is Faith-Based, Not Evidence-Based"
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/aa-is-faith-based-not-evidence-based/
2- As for the word GP, I use it because I currently live in a country where MDs are called GPs.
Sorry if I caused any inconvenience.
3- on your statement "You know about as much about AA as you know about islam", it's needlessly offensive. I restated in (1) exactly what I know about AA, which is just a rough gage. You made the assumption I know little about Islam. That assumption happens to be false. I am quite knowledgeable of Islam, short of knowing the Quran by heart. Which brings me to (4)
4- you wrote that my "beliefs (are) apparently grounded in faith". Then it would seem 'appearances' led you to wrong conclusions. I'm an atheist.
All the best and ease up. Divergence of opinion could be civil. I hope.
And a criticism of AA is not a criticism of you as a person.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)showed clearly that you know nothing about it.
Being "pretty sure" is great. Lots of people are "pretty sure" there is a god. I'm sure that is cool with you.
Christopher Hitchens was a raging alcoholic. Anything he had to say about AA should be taken with a shot of scotch. I accept the objections to the religious aspects of AA. That clearly doesn't work for everyone. Richard Dawkins has actually promoted non-god based 12 step programs.
I'm still waiting for a definition of telecuranist, btw.
While I wait, would you like me to give your a definition of agent provocateur?
Faith would be beliefs without evidence. Until you show evidence, I am going to call what you are spouting faith.
This might work elsewhere, but it's not going to work here.
All the best to you as well. I hope that you learn some religious tolerance.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)1- You say " I make) blanket statements about the program that showed clearly that you know nothing about it."
At the time you posted that comment, I had at the same time edited my post adding to it medical sources backing what I had said. I copy my edit here
No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems." Published at the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856072?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Other publications wrote article such as: "AA is Faith-Based, Not Evidence-Based"
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/aa-is-faith-based-not-evidence-based/
In short, I am not trying to brag or anything, but medical sources back what I was saying.
So I greatly fear your own sentence " Until you show evidence, I am going to call what you are spouting faith. " boomerangs back at you, since I believe you have 'faith' in the AA method.
2- telecuranist: I already answered in the thread, but I can repeat here: I had used televangelist/telequranist to describe a muslim cleric whose preaches are broadcast on Peace TV and Internet. Since he is obviously preaching the Quran and not the Christian Gospels, I had expressed it as a telequranist with the attached word televangelist to make the meaning clear.
3- I would be delighted to clarify whatever doubts you might have about the term agent provocateur if you were kind enough to clarify over what issue you feel I might have been provocative? AA? The facts back me up. Islam? in my OP on the thread you reacted to, I did take the pain to mention that if any muslim was offended by what I had written, I was willing, able and keen to point out the risks and deficiencies of any other religion of their choice.
4- you wrote
Well, no. I agree with Hitchens that 'Religion poisons everything'.
Besides, a question to you: Is it being tolerant to tolerate intolerance?
The doctrine, the text of the Quran, is emphatically not tolerant. Just as the Torah/OT is not either.
Does one tolerate lapidations? Death to homosexuals?
Tolerance can easily slide into passivity.
Again, all the best to you.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is a badge of honor. If you are truly blessed you will be included in the Horrible Atheists Club.