Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Addiction, Drugs, and Morality

Addiction on 2 Fronts: Work and Home


By SARAH KERSHAW
Published: December 7, 2009
WASHINGTON — His son had been dead from an overdose only three months when A. Thomas McLellan, among the nation’s leading researchers on addiction, got a call from the office of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Would he accept the nomination to be the government’s No. 2 drug-control official? e

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times
A PERSONAL MATTER A. Thomas McLellan says he is working against not just drug abuse, but also the belief by many that it is a moral, not medical, issue.

Dr. McLellan, 61, makes no secret of his cynicism about government — “I hate Washington,” as he put it in an interview — and he had no intention of leaving his job as a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and scientific director of the Treatment Research Institute in Philadelphia.
But the loss of his younger son, who overdosed on anti-anxiety medication and Scotch last year at age 30 while his older son was in residential treatment for alcoholism and cocaine addiction, changed his perspective.
“That’s why I took this job,” said Dr. McLellan, who was sworn in as the deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in August. “I thought it was some kind of sign, you know. I would never have done it. I loved all the people I’ve worked with, I loved my life. But I thought maybe there’s a way where what I know plus what I feel could make a difference.”
Married to a recovering cocaine addict, Dr. McLellan has been engulfed by addiction in life and work. His own family has been a personal battleground for one of the country’s most complex and entrenched problems, while as an expert he has been a leading voice for the idea that addiction is a chronic illness and not a moral issue.
This view squares with that of his boss, R. Gil Kerlikowske, a former Seattle police chief who declared on taking office as drug czar in May that President Obama’s administration would no longer use the term “war on drugs” — and that the term implied the government was waging a battle against its citizens.
Instead, the two men say the government needs to change its drug-control strategy, redirecting some of the resources into prevention and treatment and away from law enforcement and antitrafficking efforts, which consumed 75 percent to 90 percent of the budget during the Bush administration.
Dr. McLellan said that of the 25 million substance abusers he estimated were in this country, only about 2 million were receiving treatment. He and Mr. Kerlikowske want to triple that number, partly by spending more money and partly through other tactics, like integrating addiction treatment into the primary health care system.
Many veterans of the long and frustrating fight against addiction say it is about time. “This is an extraordinary moment of opportunity,” said Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and one of the colleagues and friends who helped persuade Dr. McLellan to take the job.
Still, even Dr. McLellan’s most ardent supporters say the challenges are formidable. The federal drug-control office can do only so much, and the Obama administration decided the drug czar would no longer be a cabinet-level position. State and local governments, law enforcement agencies, the health care system and schools are all big players. And taxpayers tend to have little sympathy for addicts or for treatment programs with track records that are mixed at best.
“I can tell a state legislator that if you would only provide treatment for these guys, we’d have the greatest reduction in crime,” said Joseph A. Califano Jr., chairman of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. “But those constituents want computers in the schools, better roads, better sewage systems.”
Mr. Califano, who was been involved with government efforts to combat the drug problem since the days of President Lyndon B. Johnson, said that he had great admiration for the new leaders of the drug-control office but that “you need a presidential commitment here.”
“I think if Obama gave these two guys the spark, they would know how to turn into a fire,” he said.
The office is preparing its drug policy strategy, to be released in February along with Mr. Obama’s budget. “We are going to get the money to do this,” Dr. McLellan insisted. “I can’t tell you the amount or where it’s coming from, but we’re going to get it.”
The drug czar himself, who has made passing reference to his adult stepson’s struggles with drugs but does not discuss it openly, was more cautious, as he tends to be.
“I think for some folks, radical change will be their only measure of success,” Mr. Kerlikowske said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ll see that. I think we’ll make a lot of progress, we’ll slow the freighter down and start turning it in the direction of the more balanced view.”
The two make an interesting pair — the former police chief who has plenty of experience parsing words with reporters, and the plainspoken, quirky and mustachioed psychologist who says “ain’t” and “yeah,” and whose candor can make Washington insiders nervous.
Dr. McLellan, who has written or collaborated on more than 400 papers on addiction, is well known among his colleagues and friends for both his passion for the subject and his bluntness.
In a recent interview in his office here — still sparsely decorated except for a photocopied picture of his family, including his surviving son and two young grandsons (or “grand felons,” as he called them) — Dr. McLellan put his feet up on the coffee table and declared, “I hate this job.”

“This is a job that needs scientific background,” he went on. “But if you come to it with the kind of desires to turn everything into a scientific experiment, you will have your poor little heart broken.”
Skip to next paragraph

Despite Mr. Kerlikowske’s insistence that putting more resources into prevention and treatment does not mean the government is going soft on crime, such policies are bound to be controversial. Conservatives point out, for example, that drug treatment and detoxification programs have relapse and dropout rates as high as 80 percent or 90 percent.
“I’m not sure the federal government has an obligation to try to rehabilitate addicts,” said Heather Mac Donald, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy research group. “Government has an obligation to provide safe streets to people, and policing has an extremely effective track record in places in like New York City and Los Angeles.”
Dr. McLellan grew up in Mechanicsburg, Pa., and while his family was “riddled” with addiction, he says he wound up in the field almost by accident. He said that while he drank, he was “constitutionally unfit to be an alcoholic,” and therefore did not have what he and many others consider to be a genetic disease.
He earned his doctorate in experimental psychology, with a focus on animal learning, from the Bryn Mawr in 1976.
“You’ve undoubtedly — I think almost every American has read my Ph.D. thesis by now,” he said. “ ‘Negative Autoshaping in the Rat, Cockroach, Pigeon and Crayfish.’ And armed with this kind of knowledge and obvious preparation for the business world, I was shocked to find that there weren’t many jobs available.”
So he went to the veterans’ hospital in Coatesville, Pa., to see what was available. He was offered a job as a technician to evaluate the effectiveness of one of the nation’s first drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, and that led him and a team of researchers to develop the Addiction Severity Index, now established as a standard assessment tool for drug and alcohol abuse.
In recent years, Dr. McLellan has focused on the lack of addiction screening in primary health care settings like doctors’ offices and emergency rooms. For example, he said, just as with hypertension or diabetes, there is a concrete way to measure whether someone has an alcohol problem.
The measuring stick is known as “3-14” — so if someone is having 3 or more drinks a day, or 14 per week, that should raise a red flag, and physicians should be much better equipped to intervene and offer treatment options if there is a problem. Ideally, Dr. McLellan said, that treatment would be available in the medical system itself, not segregated in rehabilitation and detox programs, with their high failure rates.
He said another goal was to get a better handle on measuring the use of drugs and alcohol by those under 21, the time of highest risk for the onset of addiction. His younger son was in eighth grade when he began to struggle with addiction, and by then Dr. McLellan was a prominent researcher in the field.
“If it has to happen, better it happens to me, I’m an expert, right?” Dr. McLellan said. “I didn’t know what to do and none of my buddies knew what to do, and let me tell you they were experts. So I said, ‘What the hell are we doing?’ ”
That prompted him to start the Treatment Research Institute to evaluate addiction treatment. But both of his sons continued to struggle with addiction.
Dr. Volkow, of the national drug-abuse institute, said the death of the younger son “epitomized how unprotected people who are addicted to drugs are, even with that father.” Of Dr. McLellan, she added, “He’s an absolute true warrior in the best sense of the word.”
The older son is doing well now, and the two enjoy working together to restore houses and sell them. “Maybe when I get out of here, I’ll do more of that,” Dr. McLellan said.
Then he quickly added, “There’s a lot of need for drug-free housing.”

6 comments:

  1. Addiction affects everyone in some way. Whether you yourself are an addict, the family member of an addict, or just working and dealing with addicts in your daily life. The unfortunate side of addiction is that there is nothing we can do to stop an addict from acting out. When an addict wants to turn to their drug of choice they will find a way. This article shows this dilemma in the life of Dr. McLellan. While he works as the government’s number two drug-control officer and is an expert on drugs and addiction, two of his sons struggle with addiction and his youngest son died because of it. I think this example shows the power addiction has over an addict and the powerlessness that even knowledgeable people have to help an addict. The well-informed Dr. McLellan was still powerless to help his struggling sons.

    I find that this dilemma emphasizes the importance of preventative measures in regards to dealing with substance abuse. People need to be better educated on the negative impact of alcohol and drugs and ways to prevent future addiction. People need to be made aware of their genetic predisposition to addictive behaviors. More measures need to be taken to decrease drinking in youth which will increase their likelihood of becoming addicts as adults.

    The article suggests a change from the current drug-control strategy, which spends 75-90% of its budget on law enforcement and anti-trafficking efforts. That money could be allocated differently to help with prevention and treatment. I also think treatment methods need to be better studied and improved. With exceedingly high costs for inpatient treatment centers, which have the highest rates of recovery and lowest rates of relapse, are rarely fully covered by insurance and are unattainable to the majority of substance abusers that need them. McClellan noted that out of 25 million substance abusers only 2 million are able to receive treatment. Availability of treatment, cost of treatment, and effectiveness of treatment methods need to be evaluated and greatly improved upon. These programs need to be marketed as benefiting the greater public. If addicts are rehabilitated then crime rates will decrease, the number of people living on the streets will decrease and millions of lives can be saved. Also, of the 25 million substance abusers that are suffering, their family and friends are suffering as well. If more addicts were helped their quality of life and the quality of life of their families can improve.
    -Olivia Thomas

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would do the country as a whole a great benefit if more money were put into drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Drug use is a huge issue in the United States. Although it may not be the government’s responsibility to help drug addicts, I believe it should be the government’s moral obligation to try and do so as much as possible. The country tries to protect its citizens by pouring tons of money into policing drug use, yes, but what about the people who are already addicts? Don’t they deserve the country’s help and protection as well?
    If we examine this issue from a utilitarian standpoint, the greatest good for the greatest number of people would be to delegate more of the government’s money for drug control to the millions of addicts across the country. The article claims that there are approximately twenty-five million drug abusers in the United States and only about two million are receiving help for their addictions. Even though the success rates of rehabilitation programs are not perfect, the more people treated the higher chance of success.
    Everyone wants to live in a safer healthier environment. The best way to do this is to get substance abusers the help they need in order to help them become healthy positive members of society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that the governments role in drug control is a difficult issue. On one hand, I think that if we had better rehab programs, then we had have less substance abuse problems. The article mentions that there are rehab programs that have dropout rates of up to 80 and 90 percent. I believe that the government needs to strive to improve that, because I think that would help to lower drug use in this country. However, as the article points out, there is a lack of funding in this field. People would rather have other things improved instead of having their money go towards the rehab of addicts, and in some cases criminals. Therefore, should the government be shifting money from law enforcement and antitrafficking to rehab? The article mentions how bad dropout rates can be, but they do not mention how good they are. So if the best dropout rates are as low as 5% I would react differently than if the best were 50%. Because the article fails to show how effective rehab programs can be. So if they are effective, then shifting money to rehab centers would be a good idea, but without further information I think it is hard to make that call.
    On a separate note, I do like that the article mentions the idea of screening for addiction. I do agree in that addiction is a medical issue, and therefore there should be more screening for it. I think letting someone know they are at-risk for addictions could be important. It would make them more cautious in their actions, and could lead to some positive results. -Joyce Ganas

    ReplyDelete
  4. So what I basically get from the article and people's responses is that the article is based toward funding of drug rehab programs and preventative measures toward drug acquisition with regard to governmental action. If that is the case, is this ethical? Like most cases, especially because this topic runs deep in the medical vein, yes and no. First, a defense. It is defendable for more funding to go to such programs for drug relief. People like this face a medical issue: they suffer from neurological and psychological problems which they suffer from. As medical professionals, it is important to insure that such individuals receive the same care as any other person with an illness (beneficence/nonmaleficence).
    There is also a case against this. As someone who wants to go into the medical field and someone who knows a good deal about addiction from seeing those around him, I believe that addiction to a degree is controllable. Upon acquisition of a substance, the person should, from a personal stance, know as much as possible about what they are putting in their body and the degree to which it can influence their future actions. If this is true, it is not fair to deprive others the acquisition of funding for programs (transfer, health, food). For instance, hunger is a large issue not only in the U.S. but in the world, would not be more utilitarian, and therefore from certain stances, to bolster food programs to assure that the number who go hungry every day be minimized. So, as one can see, there are important implications and cases for both sides of the argument.
    I would like to end by commenting on the previous post left before me by Joyce. Although I am not against the idea of screening, I find it would be especially unethical to supply money to the idea. There are many other better places, as I have stated above, that the money could go. Furthermore, having a genetic predisposition to alcoholism myself, and being a college student, I do my best to assure that I do not support the problem. Because of this, I hold a personal stance that one should be completely informed of their medical history or predisposition, but that it is solely up to them to discover that. Therefore, I feel that if someone wishes to go through the process of screening that they use an out-of-pocket expense to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have grown up surrounded by the disease of addiction. I have seen what it does to the people I love and how it changes them completely. The criminal activity of an addict is not a result of their moral character...it is a result of the disease from which they suffer. I am so happy I read this article and I am so glad to see the government finally backing the years of research which has proven addiction to be similar to mental illness and thus it should be treated in similar ways. Someone who commits a crime as a result of mental instability is not incarcerated but rather treated in a facility suitable for treating their disease, this should be true for individuals suffering from addiction. It is about time that the government stops investing all the funds into law enforcement and prisons and begins offering the preventative measure and rehabilitation services necessary to protect our youth from the silent epidemic of addiction. If rehabilitation services and government detox facilities were capable up funding more then a 5 day to 1 month treatment for addicts perhaps the success rate of these programs would actually be effective?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is an extremely sensitive issue. I have had personal first hand experience, with a family member who has a drug abuse problem. Because of this I have done extenseive research around the area of drug abuse. Overall, I think I agree with this article. Change is neccessary if we want to decrease this countries drug abuse issues. To decrease the issue, we really need to understand why people begin using in the first place. More money and more research should go into looking at what makes individuals vulnerable, besides the already known risks such as poverty etc. Many people I know with substance abuse problems are from upper-middle class families, who don't have a family history of drug abuse. Secondly, the treatment programs in this country are riddiculous and need to be updated and more money should be provided to make treatment centers better equipped. Currently, the family member in question is at a theraputic school, that specializes in drug rehabilitation. This school is in the top dug rehab programs in the nation and has a high success rate. However, it costs 60,000 dollars plus for a school year. This cost isn't covered by most insurance companies but rehab is deemed neccessary for drug users. How can we expect drug users to get better, if the support and treatment programs most effective cost so much money and aren't paid for by insurance companies or government? Shifting money away from traficking and more on treatment, is crucial. In allowing addicts to recover and giving thems substanial ways to avoid relapse we can reduce the drug issue in this country significantly and positively impact many individuals lives.
    -A.Rabens

    ReplyDelete