First Impression Post Week 7

--Original published at Rachel's Blog

Addiction is a serious problem in today’s world, and I feel as if these people should receive as much help as possible in order to better themselves.  To receive help, there are two ways in doing so.  The first is the abstinence model and the second is the harm reduction model.  When comparing the abstinence model and the harm reduction model, the abstinence model will make people get away from drugs/ alcohol, but with the harm reduction model, it is not stopping the addiction, it is just reducing it.

When answering the question of which model I would recommend if a loved one needed help, I would definitely pick the abstinence model.  I would pick this model because people will be completely stopping alcohol/drug use in order to turn their life around.  They could attend the AA meetings, and with this in mind, the goal for the person is to recognize that they have a problem, and realize that they need to make an effort to fix it.  These meetings will help by talking to these people in order to help them realize that drugs/alcohol are not the answer.  With this in mind, I would not recommend the other model because the addiction is not being stopped, and drugs/alcohol are still being used, but not as intensely, and the goal is for them to not use these anymore.

First Impression Post #7

--Original published at MaddiesCollegeBlog

This week I chose to write about the second prompt which talks about the 2 methods of treating addiction.

Addiction is something I am very familiar with (which is unfortunate at my age) but I am going to incorporate my personal experiences to my post to show the severity of addiction and how I feel that one method is definitely better than the other, but neither are good enough for this epidemic.

I am from Hanover, PA, it is relatively a small town with a suburbs side and a “city” side. My high school was very interesting because we lie right between the city and suburbs part of town, so we get a mix of the upper-end people and the city people. Being in a school so diverse, it was really eye-opening to see how things spread so easily. My high school was always known for being a bunch of druggies, it got to the point where it was so bad people knew it as “heroin high” and called it that for years. There would always be police and drug sniffing dogs searching the lockers, people doing drugs in the bathroom, and so on. I knew it was bad, but it never truly effected me until my junior year when one of my closest friend started to become an addict.

His father had stage 4 lung cancer, and was basically put into hospice, but they were giving him Oxycontin so he would be in less pain. My friend discovered these pills, and started popping them but, only every so often. Before a party, before going to football games, and sometimes just for the hell of it. then, as his father progressively got worse, I started to notice that he was popping them more frequently and becoming less like himself, I started to get concerned. By the end of my junior year he was now taking them everyday before school, when he would get home from school, and so on and then I had realized that he was truly getting addicted to this opioid. So, I expressed my concerns, and we anonymously told the head counselor at the high school that something needed to be done because the issue was now bigger than us just telling him to stop. Thankfully, they had sat him down in a meeting with the school board, the 3 principals & all the counselors and basically scared him enough to never touch it again. His father ended up dying that November. Since then, from my knowledge, he hasn’t touched it since.

I feel that choosing a method definitely depends on the severity of the case. Each person has their own battles, some harder than others, and therefore I feel like we can not generalize what approach would be better for everybody. although, I do feel that each approach is beneficial so anyone who faces addiction could go through abstinence or reduction model and most likely get similar results.

Now about a month or two ago, I had very close friend who happens to also be my co-worker, overdose on heroin at the age of 18. She never showed any signs that she was using, she had some other problems going on (Home life, boyfriend, etc) but never seemed to let it get to her. She always came into work smiling and cracking jokes. I wish I could have noticed a change, but she never reached out for help, she held everything in I assume. She was loved by many, and I wish I could have done something.

In her case, I would have recommended going to AA, but also partaking in the reduction model because of how bad her case was. Also, heroin is a very addictive drug so I feel that just attending AA meetings would not have completely gotten her to stop.

I think overall, Most people should partake in AA to completely try to stop using the drug, but I understand that it is tough. So maybe by taking on both treatments would be beneficial to all.

 

Impression Post #7: Addiction

--Original published at Manda's College Blog

I chose to write about whether abstinence or the harm reduction treatment would benefit more than the other. I’m going to approach this with my personal experiences and what I am currently dealing with.

My loved one is an addict. It wasn’t unknown to anyone it was actually what defined him. Everyone looked at him as the fun guy that knew how to party. He was an addict since he was 13 years old. He didn’t believe he had a problem, abusing at work, while driving, seeing his family, using whenever he went out on a outing. You tell him he’s an addict and he’d only laugh at you and ask you to then be one with him. His abuse and depression was getting worse to where he would have no money, lost his home, and lost a lot of his families support, including mine at the time.

That is when he started to cut off cold turkey seeing that he was losing a lot for this reason. He really liked the person he was being sober, and he began to get his life back together gaining the trust and love again that he once had; then he started to make money again. Not long after he tried to replace the addiction with something else. I believe that term “addictive personality” is more real and should actually be a logical term if it isn’t; because he became addicted to something else. Then eventually he went back to his first choice and now has another form of addiction. He relapsed and the consequences were a lot worse.

This is where we both realized he couldn’t do this alone. He admitted he had a problem but it was the matter I always questioned was “How badly do you want to stop?” This is where a lot of addicts tend to fail at whatever type of treatment they approach, because most of the time they truly don’t want to stop. So my loved one trying abstinence tried, but he didn’t seek his full potential.

He started to go to AA meetings, church every Sunday, a individual councilor and we paid for a $500 pill (just ONE pill, and I believe it was called Naltrexone) that could decrease his cravings. He would take another pill every three months. He continued to abuse only 3 months later even though he was doing all of the right things. In between his back and fourth cycles of sobriety he would use the excuse that weaning himself off the drugs would help him stop completely. I believe when someone wants to use this method, it’s only a poor excuse to keep on using the drug, but to try to comfort their loved ones by giving it a title of “harm reduction” treatment. Anyone could do this type of treatment whether they want to get better or they do it to make their loved ones happy, and both WILL fail unless they truly want to get better. I don’t believe this method would help even under a doctors supervision. They won’t always have doctors to monitor them. Im not saying abstinence is a definite fix either, though it is a better chance for recovery. It’s honestly if they really want to get better, and I strongly believe the first approach to getting sober is going to a inpatient facility and to be carefully monitored with whatever type of treatment you or they chose to approach. Thats why the next step we took for my loved one was a treatment center. He will be practicing abstinence and learn coping skills and work on a plan of recovery when he gets out….so all in all addiction will never end. He will always be an addict, but if the right steps and resources (and money) are taken, there is a higher chance of success. But again, its if he truly wants it.

I also wanted to mention about the gas stations and other places offering harm reduction “zones”…it’s only asking for trouble and I believe it’s only going to make those zones places for addicts to get their fix. I see this strategy as high risk not just to the addict, but the innocent people that are in those areas. Give them less ways and “zones” to abuse. More consequences, more monitoring and send them somewhere to get sober the safe way. With all the money that is being granted to help addicts, I think they can afford to pick up these addicts that are a risk to themselves and society and send them somewhere!

First Impression #7

--Original published at CurtisCollegeBlog

When talking about straying away from addiction, I think it would be best to take the abstinence model. The fact of the matter is, in the other model the people are still using the drugs. Sure, it stops the spreading of disease more, but I think it would be more beneficial to try to get people off the drugs in general. In terms of health, toward the general population maybe the clean needle model will help a lot, but I don’t think it is helping at all in terms of taking people off drugs. I’m thinking the main purpose presented in this prompt is to get people off drugs. In the last sentence ending the prompt, it asks how you would treat this toward a family member. Specifically, it says which model would you suggest to a loved one who is fighting addiction. I personally, think in just about every scenario I would recommend the abstinence model. I think it’s better for people to be off drugs, getting clean, making a better life for themselves. I don’t believe giving out clean needles and endorsing the thought of doing drugs will help with that at all. So, maybe it takes going to those AA-type meetings, maybe it takes an intervention or two to get those wheels in the right direction, but it’s doing something. I think the other way just gives the wrong impression and doesn’t necessarily make anyone clean in terms of drug-free, just clean in the way of not spreading disease.

First Impression Week 7

--Original published at Madison's Blog

Addiction is a real problem in our country at the moment, and I feel like more should be done to help those in need. There are two main pathways you can take to help a loved one who is struggling with an addiction, the abstinence method and the harm reduction method. Both can work in many cases, but they are very different. The abstinence method is to quit the habit or addiction for good, in order to better the individual’s life.   In the abstinence method, the science behind addiction is studied and used as a way to treat the illness. It has been scientifically shown that addiction is somewhat genetic, and people can be predisposed to having an addiction prone body.  Over 50% of a person’s predisposition to addiction is genetically linked. The person struggling with addition and using an abstinence method of treatment must retrain their altered brain to think it is powerless to the alcohol and drugs, and therefore cannot use them again. In the harm reduction method, quitting the addiction is not the goal in mind. What the method entails is educating the individual about the risks associated with the behavior. Also, it provides services like, drug replacement therapy, needle exchange programs, designated drivers in certain situations, substituting for “less harmful drugs”, and testing commonly used drugs for harmful additives. These services aren’t aimed to stop addiction from occurring, but it helps reduce the risks involved. It can potentially save lives by providing education and safety measures to those who need it. This method can be used as a stepping stone to abstinence, since sometimes it can be hard to stop an addiction at one time. If a loved one needed help with an addiction, I would recommend the abstinence method. This would be the more reliable method, since it stops the behavior instead of just curbing the risks. I think it is more beneficial to completely stop the behavior in order to be happy and healthy in the future.

First Impression Week #7

--Original published at Nadia's Blog

Abstinence and the harm-reduction method both seem to be effective ways to reduce addiction. The abstinence method seems to be more effective in my opinion and seems to have a much greater result. If someone decides to change their addiction and is dedicated to a program like the 12-step program, this rigorous program will most likely ensure a positive outcome. Although each individual is different, a program like this will give most people the help they need and they will be able to do this with the aid of others. This is a very important aspect in trying to break an addiction. It is so easy to give in to yourself, but when you have someone else to face, you tend to think more about your decisions and the opinions of others. I believe that if there are set guidelines to follow, it will make the process much more manageable and it will be clear what the individual needs to do to become clean. This method also gives the person a specific goal in mind, which is to not use drugs or alcohol. The support of other people who are in a similar position will also continuously motivate them to stick to their goals and accomplish them. The harm-reduction method is also a method that can reduce addiction; however there is no clear goal in mind. Since the goal is to not become clean, this will allow the individual to still use, just not in an excessive amount. No matter the amount, there are still consequences and effects on the brain are physically altered and cannot be reversed. So although this method can reduce the addiction, it will continue to affect the brain. The abstinence method guarantee’s that an individual is capable of sobriety and makes it possible to be clean in the future.

First Impression Post #6

--Original published at JanellesCollegeBlog

For this first impression post, I decided to write about the different ways that people can approach addition, and the models that are recommended. The first model is abstinence which looks to completely rid an individual’s life of the addicted substance. The second model is the harm reduction model. This model focuses on using addictive substances in a safe way to decrease the risks that using drugs or drinking alcohol brings to individuals addicted to them. This model acknowledges that some people may not be ready to completely abstain from substances so they just make sure they are safe.

For me, I personally agree with the abstinence model more although I believe that both models have their pros and cons. The abstinence model seems like the better option to me because anyone addicted to a substance should want to completely eliminate it from their life. Abstinence is the only way that someone addicted will be free from the hold that the substance has on them. The con in this method is that usually this is hard to accomplish right off the bat, and often people will fall back into the habit of using. Usually too, if people fall back into using, they will fall harder and use more than they did before. I understand the point of the harm reduction method because anyone using drugs should be using safely, but I also think that encouraging use is not the way to get people to stop using addictive substances. The pro in this method is that it will lessen the amount of diseases caused by unsafe using, but the con is that it makes it seem like using is okay as long as you are being safe. Although this thought can also be refuted by saying that those who are addicted will find ways to use, safe or unsafe, so it is better to make sure that they are being safe.

If I had a loved one struggling with addiction, I would first make sure that they were being safe in what they were doing, and then I would help and encourage them to abstinence. I think that this is the only way to be completely free addiction which should be the ultimate goal for those struggling. I would encourage them throughout the whole long and difficult process, but help them strive towards not using at all.

First Impression Post Week 7

--Original published at Sidney's college blogs

For this week’s first impression post, I decided to write on the approaches to addiction. I read the article that was linked from New Hope Recovery Center. The abstinence approach is a model in which the addicted user of drugs or alcohol will discontinue the use of the abused substance completely. Many will recommend this approach to battle addiction because of the easy relapse they can have. If they are still using the drug some, they will use it in an abusive way. This is why abstinence is preferred by many.

The harm reduction approach does exactly what the name says. It is put in place to reduce the risks and harm of the drug use. Although it may seem as though it is a method to condone the behavior, it just acknowledges that no matter what, the destructive behavior is going to happen. Those in support of this approach promotes less destructive ways in response to these destructive behaviors. For example, although it is illegal to use heroine, many clinics will have clean needles available for them to use so they are not getting diseases from sharing needles with others. I also heard a while ago that a few Sheetz gas station stores are going to be trying out a new light within their bathrooms. There has always been a lot of overdoses in their bathrooms, so a few stores are going to have a blue light put in them so that it makes the addicts unable to find their veins.

I do not believe that either way is the right or wrong way to help with addiction. I believe that the end goal of abuse should be abstinence, but I believe that the harm reduction is needed to be able to get to that point. The reduction should be in place to help ease the addicts off of their behaviors. I believe that once the user is addicted, they are always going to be susceptible to it when they are put around it, so the abstinence is needed.

If I had a family member who was addicted to a substance, I would want their end goal to be complete abstinence from that substance. Although that is the end goal, I think that it is important to remember that it is not going to happen right away. It is a long process, but it is doable. I would be thankful and appreciative of the alternatives that are out there to help my family member to not be so destructive in their using. The reduction is needed before the ultimate goal can be reached.

Spotlight Post #1

--Original published at Pisacane Perspectives

“The most important question is not whether children from divorced families are having difficulties, but what particular factors cause these differences,” (Hughes). As the vast majority of studies has proven over the past few decades, divorce has effects on the children within the family. These effects, however, vary from child to child which may give off the impression that divorce doesn’t affect them all.

“Current evidence suggests that the loss of parents, economic difficulties, stress, parental adjustment and competence, and interparental conflict all contribute at least to some degree to the difficulties of children,” (Hughes).  With the numerous changes going on in the child’s life, it’s hard to believe that that anyone could be unaffected. Not every child is going to show all the negative effects that divorce has been known to have, which when looking at case studies, may seem to diminish the impact divorce has on children. Over a million couples get divorced in the United States annually, so it only makes sense to view the largest sample possible as each case will be very different. As Fagan and Churchill explain, “there is no way to predict how any particular child will be affected nor to what extent, but it is possible to predict divorce’s societal effects and how this large cohort of children will be affected as a group.”

After decades of studies, there is no doubt that divorce has negative effects on the children of the family. There are numerous reasons for this, and there are numerous ways in which these effects are shown, but as each child reacts and adapts differently, the results have to be looked at generally. One reason for this powerful impact may be because “as of the latest data from the 2009 American Community Survey (shows), only 47 percent reach age 17 in an intact married family,” (Fagan and Churchill). As we know, childhood and adolescence are where the majority of our development as people occur, and the changes which divorce brings on, such as the ones mentioned by Hughes, can alter that development. This may play bigger or smaller roles for each child, but overall, divorce has been proven to have a negative impact.

 

http://marri.us/wp-content/uploads/publications/research_papers/EF12A22.pdf

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14469/The%20Effects%20of%20Divorce%20on%20Children–1995.pdf?sequence=2

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/contemplating-divorce/200911/divorce-doesnt-harm-children-parents-fighting-harms-child

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-divorce-bad-for-children/

 

Spotlight Post- Caleb C

--Original published at Caleb C's College Blog

Divorce is such a controversial topic, though we see many more divorces than ever. The question sometimes should not be about the parents, but about the children being dragged through such a difficult time at such as young and important part of their life. Through this post I will be examining 4 articles, 2 which defend how divorce is not so bad for children, and 2 which argue that a child can’t come out of a divorce unscarred.

First, let’s examine an article done by Huffington Post, written by Brette Sember, who titles her article, “Why a Good Divorce Is Better Than a Bad Marriage for Kids.” Sember, being a former Divorce Attorney has much experience in the field dealing with divorced parents, thus can shed a lot of insight into how families are impacted. Sember starts off with a strong central message stating, “while there is no question that divorce is hard for kids, it is a far cry better than raising your children in a violent, abusive, angry, or deeply resentful marriage.” She does have a point here, considering that sticking through with a bad and harmful relationship could have an overall negative impact on your children instead of separating and having them live in two peaceful homes. Sember continues to then comment “if you stay married for the sake of your children, you expose them to daily arguments, negative undercurrents, shouting, possible violence, and an atmosphere that is in no way calm and peaceful.” Overall, Sember makes an argument that within the family, if the parents are not at good terms, then forcing a marriage can overall impact a child more negatively than simply divorcing. Also, what I find compelling about Ember’s article is how she addresses the other side of the argument, stating, “while the research is clear that divorce does have an impact on children, it fails to take into account the permanent emotional damage children suffer when they stay in one home with parents who can’t get along.” She continues to say how a divorce frees a family from such a hostile environment.

Secondly, we have another article from Psychology Today, written by Susan Gadoua. She titles her article “Divorce Doesn’t Harm Children – Parents Fighting Harms Child.” So, here we have a second article from another credible source making an argument that divorce itself doesn’t harm the children, what does is the fighting. Right off the bat, Gadoua shows her main message of the article stating, “regardless of whether parents stay together or split, if there is fighting going on between them, the children will suffer.” This is a similar argument made by Sember in the previous article, focusing more on the psychological aspect of fighting and a bad marriage, than the divorce itself and how it impacts the children that way. Gadoua also comments on the other side of the argument who say that divorce is bad for children, by commenting and discrediting a book titled “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce,” written by Judith Wallerstein, which the main premise of the book is that divorce overall hurts children. Gadoua comments how “any longitudinal study on families like this can’t possibly yield accurate results because you have no way to compare these families to the alternative.” Gadoua is saying here how after studying a family long term, and how the divorce impacts the family, you can’t compare this to the same family if they did not get in a divorce. The closest you can come to comparing divorce factors is by comparing a divorced family and one that stays in tact. She then goes on and says how every family is unique and has their own factors such as, cultural differences, age of children, economic status, degree of tension, and so forth. So overall, you cannot generalize how a divorce can be always bad for the children when there are many unique aspects at play. This is then commented by Gadoua stating, “every situation is truly unique and a myriad of factors need to be weighed such as timing, age of your children, safety for you and your children, financial ability to split up as well as other resources on hand.” She sums up the article by saying how staying with your children can seem like the right thing to do, though that isn’t in every case and when you and your family is in a more happy situation, so will your children be.

Now, coming from the other side, an article written by Harry Benson for Institute for Family Studies, titles his article “When, and Why, Divorce hurts Kids.” He starts off the article by referencing a recent study done stating the study “came out earlier this month concluding that whether parents cooperate or not makes little difference to how children cope with divorce.” This is opposite to the other two articles I analyzed, because both Gadoua and Sember argued that divorcing from a bad environment helps the children, though this study says that doesn’t matter for the children because they still have to cope with the divorce itself. Benson does give the other side some credit though by saying how sometimes there is no other option but divorce considering how toxic the environment is at home. Benson does go on to say though how “in many other cases, however, divorce does damage children, especially where the parents had relatively low levels of conflict. According to one U.S. study, that description applies to about half of divorcing couples.” Benson goes on then to talk about two main reasons why the break up hurts children. First, after a divorce, there is usually fewer resources to pay for life related things, thus the family sometimes has to receive government aid, and also how one parent ends up becoming displaced, typically the father who then “needs to make an extra effort to remain in regular contact with his children.” This doesn’t always happen, and reduced father day-to-day contact typically has a negative impact on children. The second point Benson makes is how the children view the divorce different than the parents. Benson refers to certain questions which go through kid’s minds, such as “what on earth happened? Was it me? Or is that how relationships are? They just go pop for no apparent reason?” This type of thinking can then end up hurting the child’s perceived thought of relationships and impact their relationship life negatively as adults.

Finally, an article written by Tricia Goyer, for Family Life, titles her article “It Hurts to be a Child of Divorce.” She begins the article by talking about personal experiences with divorce as a child as well as her own experience, being 18, when her parents divorced. Overall, as a child, she thought that divorce “didn’t seem right. More than that, it seemed wrong.” Going further into her experience as a child, Goyer thought how weird it was to go to two Christmas Gathering, and two Thanksgivings. To her it seemed unnatural and things never seemed “right” after the divorce. She also comments on the psychological impact the strenuous relationship of her parents had on herself. She references how there will always be a sort of guilt in her mind associated with her parents, always thinking that it was her fault somehow and “if I’d been a better kid it would have been easier for my parents to work it out.” She then sums up the article stating “the best thing you can do for yourself and for your children is to give your marriage a second chance. Don’t think that walking away from your commitment will come without consequences. Don’t think you’re not going to break your children’s hearts.”

For the 4 sources, I believe they were all credible, though some had more of a convincing stance than others. For example, in my opinion, the two best sources came from the Huffington Post article, and the Institute for Family Studies article, both which are very credible sources, defending opposite stances. These are both very credible because they come from well known sources, and one references many studies done on divorce, while the other was a past divorce attorney, thus automatically has some credibility when talking about how divorce impacts families. I believe that based on my research that there are some cases where divorce is necessary for the well-being of both the parents and the children, though I believe that is only the case in extremely toxic situations where the divorce ends up only positively impacting the children. Though, overall, as noted in Benson’s article, half of divorcing parents have relatively low levels of stress, thus the children in those families end up confused and question themselves as to why the divorce occurred because it wasn’t too obvious. So, my consensus would be that in most cases, the children end up being negatively impacted, and I believe that in all cases, every child is scared somehow by the split.

Sources:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/contemplating-divorce/200911/divorce-doesnt-harm-children-parents-fighting-harms-child

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brette-sember/why-a-good-divorce-is-better-than-a-bad-marriage-for-kids_b_6925236.html

https://ifstudies.org/blog/when-and-why-divorce-hurts-kids/

http://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/life-issues/challenges/children-of-divorce/it-hurts-to-be-a-child-of-divorce