3/2008 ArchiveApril 2008May Archive
Home
Methadone Forum
Rate Your Program
"What's Your Story?"
The Director's View
Talk Back
Guestbook
Addiction Science
An Addict's View
Bits and Pieces
Dedications
Drug Tests
Erosion Of Rights
Federal Regulations
 Frequent Questions
Georgia Opiate Clinics
Georgia Regulations
Hepatitis HCV
   Internet  Resources
 Legal Issues
Library
Methadone Talk
Methadone and Pain
Methadone Interactions
Methadone Maintenance
Myths Of Methadone
News And Views
  Opiate Drug Treatment
     Overdosed
Pregnancy
Rights of Patients
Suboxone
Video Library
For Women Only


If you think you are too small to be effective, you have never been in bed with a mosquito.   Bette Reese

My name is Deborah Shrira and I am the Founder of Medical Assisted Treatment of America, Incorporated.  I like to take the time to introduce myself to all of you
visiting for the first time.  All of us at Medical Assisted Treatment welcome you!!!  We want you to know--- we are here to assist you in whatever way we can.  We want you to know you are not alone.   We try to answer your calls as soon as we can. We want you to know we sincerely care about you.  If you need help---we
want you to give us a call --- we stay open around the clock just for you. 

It has definitely been busy since Christmas and we can't seem to get caught up.  We ask for your patience if we are slower in answering.   ---We always answer everyone.  We try and supply each person with quality time.  We try and go one step farther than all the others ---one extra mile because we believe each of you
are worth the effort.  --- You may have wandered off the path and found yourself lost in the wilderness.  We can identify with you because it has happened to all of us.   We want you to know you are not alone  ----let us help you???

I want to share with all of you an article I came across.  It is as if the writer had read my exact thoughts. I never have understood "Tough Love."  --- Maybe it is needed in other behavioral areas and I certainly believe in discipline but when it comes to addiction--- I must admit I do not believe it is called for.  Can any of you help me out here?  I would love to hear how all of you feel about it...  


It is the ultimate parental nightmare: Your affectionate child is transformed, seemingly overnight, into an out-of-control, drug-addicted, hostile teenager.  Many parents blame themselves.  "Where did we go wrong?" they ask.  The kids, meanwhile, hurtle through their own bewildering adolescent nightmare. 

I know.  My descent into drug addiction started in high school and now, as an adult, I have a much better understanding of my parents' anguish and of what I was going through.  And, after devoting several years to researching treatment programs, I'm also aware of the traps that many parents fall into when they do finally seek help for their kids. 

Many anguished parents put their faith in strict residential rehab programs. At first glance, these programs, which are commonly based on a philosophy of "tough love," seem to offer a safe respite from the streets -- promising reform through confrontational therapy in an isolated environment where kids cannot escape the need to change their behavior. 

At the same time, during the '90s, it became increasingly common for courts to sentence young delinquents to military-style boot camps as an alternative to incarceration. 

But lack of government oversight and regulation makes it impossible for parents to thoroughly investigate services provided by such "behavior modification centers," "wilderness programs" and "emotional growth boarding schools." Moreover, the very notion of making kids who are already suffering go through more suffering is psychologically backwards.  And there is little data to support these institutions' claims of success. 

Nonetheless, a billion-dollar industry now promotes such tough--love treatment.  There are several hundred public and private facilities--both in the United States and outside the country -- but serving almost exclusively American citizens. 

Although no one officially keeps track, my research suggests that some 10,000 to 20,000 teenagers are enrolled each year.

 A patchwork of lax and ineffective state regulations -- no federal rules apply -- is all that protects these young people from institutions that are regulated just like ordinary boarding schools but that sometimes use more severe methods of restraint and isolation than psychiatric centers. 

There are no special qualifications required of the people who oversee such facilities.  Nor is any diagnosis required before enrollment.  If a parent thinks a child needs help and can pay the $3,000- to $5,000-a-month fees, any teenager can be held in a private program, with infrequent contact with the outside world, until he or she turns 18. 

Over the past three years, I have interviewed more than 100 adolescents and parents with personal experience in both public and private programs and have read hundreds of media accounts, thousands of Internet postings and stacks of legal documents.  I have also spoken with numerous psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and juvenile justice experts. 

Of course there is a range of approaches at different institutions, but most of the people I spoke with agree that the industry is dominated by the idea that harsh rules and even brutal confrontation are necessary to help troubled teenagers.  University of California at Berkeley sociologist Elliott Currie, who did an ethno-graphic study of teen residential addiction treatment for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told me that he could not think of a program that wasn't influenced by this philosophy.

Unfortunately, tough treatments usually draw public scrutiny only when practi-tioners go too far, prompting speculation about when "tough is too tough." Dozens of deaths -- such as the case of 14-year-old Martin Lee Anderson, who died hours after entering a juvenile boot camp that was under contract with Florida's juvenile justice system -- and cases of abuse have been documented since tough-love treatment was popularized in the '70s and '80s by programs such as Synanon and Straight, Incorporated.

Parents and teenagers involved with both state-run and private institutions have told me of beatings, sleep deprivation, use of stress positions, emotional abuse and public humiliation, such as making them dress as prostitutes or in drag and addressing them in coarse language.  ---------- I've heard about the most extreme examples, of course, but the lack of regulation and oversight means that such abuses are always a risk. 

The more important question -- whether tough love is the right approach itself -- is almost never broached.  Advocates of these programs call the excesses tragic but isolated cases; they offer anecdotes of miraculous transformations to balance the horror stories; and they argue that tough love only seems brutal -- saying that surgery seems violent, too, without an understanding of its vital purpose. 

What advocates don't take from their medical analogy, however, is the principle of "first, do no harm" and the associated requirement of scientific proof of safety and efficacy.  Research conducted by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Justice tells a very different story from the testimonials -- one that has been obscured by myths about why addicts take drugs and why troubled teenagers act out. 

As a former addict, who began using cocaine and heroin in late adolescence, I have never understood the logic of tough love.  I took drugs compulsively because I hated myself, because I felt as if no one -- not even my family -- would love me if they really knew me.  Drugs allowed me to blot out that depressive self-focus and socialize as though I thought I was okay. 

How could being "confronted" about my bad behavior help me with that?  Why would being humiliated, once I'd given up the only thing that allowed me to feel safe emotionally, make me better?    My problem wasn't that I needed to be cut down to size; it was that I felt I didn't measure up. 

In fact, fear of cruel treatment kept me from seeking help long after I began to suspect I needed it.  --- My addiction probably could have been shortened if I'd thought I could have found care that didn't conform to what I knew was ( and sadly, still is ) the dominant confrontational approach. 

Fortunately, the short-term residential treatment I underwent was relatively light on confrontation, but I still had to deal with a counselor who tried to humiliate me by disparaging my looks when I expressed insecurity about myself. 

The trouble with tough love is twofold.  First, the underlying philosophy ----- that pain produces growth -- lends itself to abuse of power.  Second, and much more important, toughness doesn't begin to address the real problem.

Troubled teenagers aren't usually "spoiled brats" who "just need to be taught respect." Like me, they most often go wrong because they hurt, not because they don't want to do the right thing.  That became all the more evident to me when I took a look at who goes to these schools. 

A surprisingly large number are sent away in the midst of a parental divorce; others are enrolled for depression or other serious mental illnesses.  Many have lengthy histories of trauma and abuse.  The last thing such kids need is another experience of powerlessness, humiliation and pain. 

Sadly, tough love often looks as if it works: For one thing, longitudinal studies find that most kids, even amongst the most troubled, eventually grow out of bad behavior, so the magic of time can be mistaken for the magic of treatment.  Second, the experience of being emotionally terrorized can produce compliance that looks like real change, at least initially. 

The bigger picture suggests that tough love tends to backfire.  My recent inter-views confirm the findings of more formal studies.  The Justice Department has released reports comparing boot camps with traditional correctional facilities for juvenile offenders, concluding in 2001 that neither facility "is more effective in reducing recidivism."

In late 2004, the National Institutes of Health released a "state of the science" consensus statement, concluding that "get tough" "state treatments "do not work and there is some evidence that they may make the problem worse." Indeed, some young people leave these programs with post-traumatic stress disorder and exacerbations of their original problems. 

These strict institutional settings work at cross-purposes with the developmental stages adolescents go through.  According to psychiatrists, teenagers need to gain responsibility, begin to test romantic relationships and learn to think critically.  But in tough programs, teenagers' choices of activities are overwhelmingly made for them: They are not allowed to date ( in many, even eye contact with the opposite sex is punished ), and they are punished if they dissent from a program's therapeutic prescriptions.  All this despite evidence that a totally controlled environment delays maturation. 

Why is tough love still so prevalent? The acceptance of anecdote as evidence is one reason,as are the hurried decisions of desperate parents who can no longer find a way of communicating with their wayward kids.  --- But most significant is the lack of the equivalent of a Food and Drug Administration ------- for behavioral health care -- with the result that most people are unaware that these programs have never been proved safe or effective.

It's part of what a recent Institute of Medicine report labeled a "quality chasm" between the behavioral treatments known to work and those that are actually available.  So parents rely on hearsay -- and the word of so-called experts. 

Unfortunately, in the world of teen behavioral programs, there are no specific educational or professional requirements.  Anyone can claim to be an expert.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Maia Szalavitz
Note: Maia Szalavitz is the author of "Help at Any Cost: How the
Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids" (Riverhead Books).


I know many of your experiences were traumatic .  You felt powerless.  I know I can identify with the author.  I'm asking you to share your experiences with us.  Empower yourself by speaking out.  Let others know about what happened ---I'm giving you the power to do it and take back your life.

It may be all we can do but we can open up and let others know how their "tough love" effected us..   Most of us needed just the opposite.  We certainly didn't need criticism. Most of us used because we lacked confidence in our abilities.  ---- We felt very insecure and using gave us the power to feel better about ourselves.  Many of usused to deal with emotional pain we felt, otherwise, we could not have made it.  I have noticed many had trouble coping with reality --- we lacked the skills--- but why? 

Can anyone identify with what I am saying?Sometimes I wonder where all the pain I feel inside originated from.  I have cried much through the years but all of it never seems to leave.  I am not sure where it all comes from but it is there.
I am positive I am not the only one feeling as I do.  I know I lacked confidence.
I never believed in my own abilities.  I know many of you can identify with me.

I'm speaking out about myself in hopes all of you follow my lead.  We are not like they make us out to be.  I believe we are all very sensitive people.  I believe we are more sensitive to emotional pain than others are.  What do you think?  I am hoping I will receive some feedback I can publish from some of you willing to take a stand... Share your experience with me.  Speak out about how you feel ? Do you agree with the article on "Tough Love?"    I want to hear how you feel about "Tough Love?"

If any one of you would like to comment on "Tough Love" then I am sincerely interested in what you have to say.  Many people read "the Director's View" and I believe it is important to share whether "Tough Love" worked for you. It's time we, as patients speak the truth allowing parents and other Health Professionals
a glimpse into our soul. How can they know if we don't tell them(?)

If you have a story to tell about "Tough Love" and I know many of you reading this do.  I would like to hear it as would others presently dealing with it.  Any insight into how "Tough Love" affected you could help all of us to realize "Tough Love is not always the answer. All comments would be appreciated whether they be pro or con.  I will publish them next month in "The Director's View."  If you would like to be heard...here's your chance.     


Among the growing numbers of researchers and public health officials advocating a daring new strategy to put an injectable antidote for heroin overdose directly into the hands of addicts, few have the credibility of Mark Kinzly.

After 11 years as an addict, Mr. Kinzly cleaned up, began working with needle exchange programs and became a research associate at the Yale School of Public Health. Then came the relapse and the overdose that nearly killed him.

“We were watching TV — I think it was the Red Sox beating the Yankees,” Mr. Kinzly, 47, recalled of the evening in 2005 when he passed out in a colleague’s apartment. “Because of our work he knew what to do. He dialed 911 and then injected the naloxone.”

Taken in high enough doses, heroin and other opioids suppress the brain’s regulation of breathing and other life-sustaining functions. Naloxone is a chemical that blocks the brain-cell receptors otherwise activated by heroin, acting in minutes to restore normal breathing.

Since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 1971, naloxone has become a standard treatment for overdoses, used almost exclusively by emergency medical workers. But it has lately become a tool for state and cities struggling to reduce stubbornly high death rates among opiate users. By distributing the drug and syringes to addicts and training them and their partners in preventing, recognizing and treating overdoses, the programs take credit for reversing more than 1,000 overdoses.

“From a public health perspective, it’s a no-brainer,” said Dan O’Connell, director of the H.I.V. prevention division in the New York State Health Department, which supports 20 naloxone programs, all but one in New York City. “For someone who is experiencing an overdose, naloxone can be the difference between life and death.”

But federal drug officials say distributing naloxone directly to addicts may do more harm than good.

“It is not based on good scientific data,” said Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director for demand reduction at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. “It’s based on what some people would consider the right thing to do. But the studies supporting it are so sparse it’s painful.”

She pointed to a survey in 2003 of addicts in San Francisco published in The Journal of Urban Health, in which 35 percent said they might feel comfortable using more heroin if they had naloxone on hand, and 62 percent said they might also feel less inclined to call 911.

“These were their attitudes,” Dr. Madras said. “I’m taking the stand that in the absence of scientific evidence we don’t engage in policies that would bring more harm than benefit.”

Similar concerns were expressed by Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, a federal agency that finances treatment programs. “Our position is that naloxone should be administered by licensed health care professionals,” Dr. Clark said.

Nevertheless, the direct-to-addicts model has spread rapidly since Chicago introduced it in the late 1990s. Baltimore, New York and San Francisco soon adopted the model, and Boston, Philadelphia, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin have more recently joined the trend.

“The program here has been extremely successful,” said Richard W. Matens, assistant commissioner of health for chronic disease prevention in Baltimore.

Overdose deaths there in 2005 were at their lowest level in more than a decade, and Mr. Matens gives at least some credit to the naloxone distribution.

The worrisome findings of the San Francisco survey have not been borne out by more recent studies of actual programs that include training in prevention and treatment.

A study in 2005 of San Francisco’s pilot program found that of 20 overdoses witnessed by trained addicts, 19 victims received CPR or naloxone from the trainee, and all 20 survived. Knowledge about managing overdoses increased, and heroin use decreased.

“Research has shown none of the concerns about naloxone distribution to be true,” said Dr. Sandra Galea, a researcher at the University of Michigan who has written two studies of programs in New York. “It probably is one of the few interventions that truly can reduce the deaths from opioids overdoses.” 

Dr. Herbert Kleber, who had Dr. Madras’s position in the White House under President George H. W. Bush and now directs the Columbia University substance abuse division, said although he wished the evidence supporting naloxone distribution were stronger, “In terms of lives saved, it’s probably the kind of intervention where there’s a likelihood of more good than harm.”

In New York City, the 863 overdose deaths in 2005 made up the fourth leading cause of death among people younger than 65, according to Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, commissioner of health and mental hygiene.

“We want people off drugs,” he said. “But until they get off, we’d like them to stay alive. That means not getting H.I.V. and not dying of overdose.”

Existing programs focus on reaching urban heroin addicts, but naloxone is equally effective at reversing overdoses from other opioids like OxyContin and methadone.

With overdose death rates from such drugs increasing sharply, officials in Wilkes County, N.C., are working on a program to dispense a naloxone nasal spray to users leaving hospital emergency rooms, detoxification centers and jails.

The program, Project Lazarus, received approval from the state medical board in November.

“Lazarus, biblically speaking, is one who was raised from the dead, and that is essentially what naloxone does for these people,” said the director of the program, the Rev. Fred Brason II.

Dr. Sharon Stancliff, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, which operates naloxone distribution and training in New York and San Francisco, conceded that the scientific case was not ironclad.

“Right now,” Dr. Stancliff said, “we’re at the point where we know it’s safe. We’re not seeing any bad outcomes.

And we know it’s feasible. We’re just beginning to get really good evidence that it’s associated with a significant reduction in overdose deaths.”

Mark Kinzly, who is back in recovery after relapsing in 2005, says he has all the evidence he needs.

“This weekend I will go see my 9-year-old son play Pop Warner football,” he said. “I am extremely grateful that the medication was available, and as a result I get to raise my child.”

Source:  New York Times       Author:  Dan Hurley

You could be faced with an overdose one day, possibly your significant other or even a family member. Would you know how to handle it?  It's essential you know especially if any one close to you is involved in using and even if it is yourself.  I've provided more information if you choose to further pursue .   

http://www.SuboxoneAssistedTreatment.org/76.html

http://www.MedicalAssistedTreatment.org/86911 

 Medical Assisted Treatment would like to wish all of you "Happy Easter."  " It matters if you just don't give up." We are being attacked on every side by others
disapproval of methadone.  Many of us are facing difficulties even with our own
Methadone Maintenance Treatment Facilities. Many have being discharged over
one dirty urine. I can't understand the logic-- I know many of you drive very far
each day to even obtain your methadone.  It is time we take a stand --- we can no longer remain passive ----- we must speak up for ourselves and fight for our rights just as the others are doing.   We can't do it all alone but if we join
together - - -we can make it happen... how about it?

My partner, Rozi, brought to my attention posts she discovered on... The Topix Forum. I thought it might interest you.  Many of you may not even be aware of (Helping America Reduce Methadone Deaths) HARMD.  It is 501 (c)(3) Non-Profit Organization fighting for "Stricter Regulations On Methadone."

When I was first introduced to HARMD, I believed truly they could be an asset to us,  The Founder's (Husband-To-Be) had died of a lethal dose of methadone. He was in a Residential Treatment Center.  --- It was discovered later, the physician was not even qualified to dispense methadone.  It was certainly an unusual case because I have never seen it dispensed hardly at all in Residential Treatment Centers.  I can understand and relate to her loss because I, too lost my husband
to Agent Orange (Vietnam).  I didn't wage an an all out war on "Agent Orange."

It was the exposure to the chemical in Vietnam that gave Him Leukemia.  I had to look at who made the decision to use such a chemical knowing the detrimen-al effects it would have on our soldiers.  Did they know before they used it ?  Once I started researching it ...I was totally shocked and let down at what our country had done.  They knew because Dow chemicals warned them and practically begged them not to use it.  It took me time to digest all I learned.  It hurt to know my own country killed my husband. I didn't choose to wage war on Agent Orange.  It wasn't the chemical ---it was the person/s who gave the go-ahead to use it knowing what the consequences of using it woul be.     

I think it is time we all should be aware of HARMD (Helping America Reduce Methadone Deaths). They are fighting against us, blaming methadone for the deaths of their loved ones.  They say they are not against methadone, but yet, they want to bog us down with more regulations.  They believe all of us should dose under supervision every day...absolutely no take-outs allowed.  Can you just imagine how much devastation it would cause?  Take some time and ask yourself would it be for the better?  How many people would lose out on even receiving help?

I want to express my thanks to the guy who wrote the excerpt below basically summing up HARMD.  They have many followers and we need to join together and close ranks if we are going to win.  If it doesn't bother you to drive each day and dose supervised then you have nothing to be concerned about other than you may find it difficult to receive a dose increase.   


Although Prohibition ended 70 years ago temperance is advocated by this "HARMD" group - it's my opinion they stand a good chance of doing more "HARM" than good. Methadone maintenance programs are highly structured with nearly 50 years of proven efficacy but this doesn't stop their false claims. The most dangerous are not those that are false; we who support Methadone Assisted Treatment are quick to debunk those. Rather, the dangerous claims are those that are partially true - stated as fact without a speck of research showing the cause and effect that’s being implied.

"HARMD seems hell bent on perpetuating the myth that methadone is “trading one addiction for another” or that it’s a “number #2 killer

They imply that the citizens who have found a new life thanks to the availablity of methadone maintenance programs are people who use your tax dollars to feed their addictions and support their immoral lifestyles. They paint a picture of uneducated, mentally unstable street thugs driving recklessly between the clinic and the ghetto, robbing little old ladies and running over unsuspecting school children, a trail of dead bodies in their wake. This is absolutely ridiculous.

MATsavesLIVES

Editor's Note:  Their is much morer to his post and if you're interested in pursuing the remainder of it then drop by at
http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/methadone/TAHR51FCFPIERM97

I am asking all of you to take the time and drop by HARMD's website. Check it all out and see how you feel about them. We at Medical Assisted Treatment thought you should know what your competition is.  You may not consider them compet-ition but take a closer look- they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

We too are very much concerned about the deaths occurring from methadone.  We don't take it lightly and it was one of the main reasons I opened this website to educate all of you interested in learning more about methadone.  Methadone is a life-saving medication if used properly but if not and in combination with other drugs it can kill you instantly.  It is not a medication any teenager should have in their possession because it is not like the other opiates.    

We are all in favor of getting the methadone off the streets where it can be purchased illegally.  We agree there needs to be an investigation to discover exactly where our children are obtaining these medications.  We are not for stricter regulations because those involved in MMT know it is controlled more than any other medication.  It it not easy for any of  us to abide by all their regulation to earn our take-homes  Many of us do and we deserve those take-homes.

Please drop by and check out:  http://www.HARMD.org

Thank you so much for your time.  I am very interested in what you think after you have visited HARMD. We are open to any suggestions as how we can accomplishment our goals.  They have lots of people following them and they have launched an agressive campaign. If we keep sitting around  hoping things will get better - we are going to lose many of our privileges.  Is this what all of you want ?  Please do write me concerning what you thought after you visited.

We need more people like "MATsavesLives" to speak out on our behalf.   How about it?  Do any of you have the courage to speak out against what you believe is unjust in our society? If you do then show me by sending it to me.  I will be happy to publish it next month.  You will find the address at the end of "The 
Director's View?"   


*A person takes a drug of abuse, be it marijuana or cocaine or even alcohol, activating the same brain circuits as do behaviors linked to survival, such as eating, bonding and sex...   The drug causes a surge in the levels of a brain
chemical called dopamine, which results in feelings of pleasure.  The brain 
remembers this pleasure and wants it repeated.

*Just as food is linked to survival in day-to-day living. drugs begin to take on the same significance for the addict.  The need to obtain and take drugs becomes more important than any other need, including truly vital behaviors like eating.
The addict no longer seeks the drug for pleasure, but for relieving distress.

*Eventually, the drive to seek and use the drug is all that matters, despite devastating consequences.

*Finally, control and choice and everything that once held value in a person's life, such as family, job and community, are lost to the disease of addiction.

 Reward Pathway  


Research on addiction is helping us find out just how drugs change the way the brain works.  These

® Reduced dopamine activity. We depend on our brain's ability to release dopamine in order to experience pleasure and to motivate our responses to the natural rewards of everyday life, such as the sight or smell of food. Drugs produce very large and rapid dopamine surges and the brain responds by reducing normal dopamine activity. Eventually, the disrupted dopamine system renders the addict incapable of feeling any pleasure even from the drugs they seek to feed their addiction.

® Altered brain regions that control decisionmaking and judgment. Drugs of abuse affect the regions of the brain that help us control our desires and emotions. The resulting lack of control leads addicted people to compulsively pursue drugs, even when the drugs have lost their power to reward.

The disease of addiction can develop in people despite their best intentions or strength of character. Drug addiction is insidious because it affects the very brain areas that people need to "think straight," apply good judgment and make good decisions for their lives. No one wants to grow up to be a drug addict, after all.


It is not unusual for an addicted person to be addicted to alcohol, nicotine and illicit drugs at the same time. Addiction to multiple substances raises the level of individual suffering and magnifies the associated costs to society. No matter what the addictive substance, they all have at least one thing in common - they disrupt the brain's reward pathway, the route to pleasure.


®Medications. In some cases, medications developed for one addiction have proven useful for another. For example, naltrexone, which can help former heroin users remain abstinent by blocking the "high" associated with heroin, has been found to be effective in treating alcoholism.

®Behavioral therapy or other psychotherapy. Behavioral therapies do not need to be specific to one drug and can be adapted to address use of multiple or different drugs. It is the disease of addiction that the therapy addresses.

®Combined medications and behavioral therapy. Research shows that this combination, when available, works best.

®Multipronged approach. Treatment for multiple addictions should be delivered at the same time. This is especially true because there are always triggers, such as trauma, depression, or exposure to one drug or another, that can put the recovering addict at risk for relapse. In addition, treatment must consider all aspects of a person - their age, gender, life experiences - in order to best treat their drug addiction. Although the type of treatment may differ, it should always strive to address the entire person through a multipronged approach that tackles all co-occurring conditions at once.


Despite the availability of many forms of effective treatment for addiction, the problem of relapse remains the major challenge to achieving sustained recovery. People trying to recover from drug abuse and addiction are often doing so with altered brains, strong drug-related memories and diminished impulse control. Accompanied by intense drug cravings, these brain changes can leave people vulnerable to relapse even after years of being abstinent. Relapse happens at rates similar to the relapse rates for other well-known chronic medical illnesses like diabetes, hypertension and asthma.


®Just as an asthma attack can be triggered by smoke, or a person with diabetes can have a reaction if they eat too much sugar, a drug addict can be triggered to return to drug abuse.

®With other chronic diseases, relapse serves as a signal for returning to treatment. The same response is just as necessary with drug addiction.

®As a chronic, recurring illness, addiction may require repeated treatments until abstinence is achieved. Like other diseases, drug addiction can be effectively treated and managed, leading to a healthy and productive life.

To achieve long-term recovery, treatment must address specific, individual patient needs and must take the whole person into account. For it is not enough simply to get a person off drugs; rather, the many changes that have occurred - physical, social, psychological - must also be addressed to help people stay off drugs, for good.


Positron emission tomography images are illustrated showing similar brain changes in dopamine receptors resulting from addiction to different substances-cocaine,methampetamine, alcohol, or heroin.  The striatum (which contains the
reward and motor circuitry) shows up as bright red or yellow in the controls (in
the left column), indicating numerous dopamine D2 receptors.  Conversely, the
brains of addicted individuals (in the right column) show a less intense signal, indicating lower levels of dopamine D2 receptors.

Source: 2007 Home Box Office  

My last word to you is continue to keep "Hope" alive. We need to be there for
ourselves and for our friends and families. We all face different battles each day and some we win and others we lose.  Many times we are wounded. It is these times we need help from others --- and I want all of you to know we are here for you.  You can call us anytime.  Our doors and hearts are always open to you.
We never close.  If you need to call and can't because of financial reasons---we understand.

We just ask you to send us an e-mail to the address I gave your earlier. Please include your name, phone number and the best time to reach you.  We will call you at our expense. Now, you have no excuses- All calls are Confidential.  We
are here for you.  We are here to assist you in any we can--not to judge you. We don't mind what hour you call. If you can't sleep and need to talk -- better to talk than to end up using again.  

If you have any comments you would like published then please send them to me at:
deborah_shrira@MedicalAssistedTreatment.org

We can be reached at these numbers:  Phone (770) -426-0871 (office)
                                                              Phone (770) -527-9119 (cellular).

Let me hear from you...  Let's Keep Hope Alive...

Editor:   Deborah Shrira                      Dated: March 15,2008

Top