The Beginning of the End of the Abstinence Rule?
The Beginning of the End of the Abstinence Rule?
The reaction to the news last week that Hazelden will be using medication-assisted treatment—including the maintenance drug, buprenorphine (Suboxone), potentially indefinitely for some patients—has been intense. “Hell froze over,” one tweeter responded, expressing shock that the granddaddy of abstinence-based treatment could make such a big change. “It’s about time,” said Dr. Charles O’Brien, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Center for Studies on Addiction, and one of the field’s most eminent researchers. The head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, also praised the decision.
But while people familiar with the incontrovertible data showing that maintenance saves lives are singing Hosannas and hoping that Hazelden’s shift foretells a sea change, those who believe that abstinence is the only acceptable treatment outcome aren’t surrendering without a fight. And public misperceptions about intoxication from maintenance medications could support this backlash if not appropriately addressed.
A report published in the trade publication Addiction Professional says that representatives from several major private residential treatment programs—including the Caron Foundation, Father Martin's Ashley and, bizarrely, Hazelden itself—met in October in Nashville to develop a “white paper” aimed at shoring up support for abstinence-only treatment and demonstrating that residential care is more effective than outpatient treatment for opioid addiction. While those involved said that they don’t necessarily oppose buprenorphine maintenance, one of the paper’s eight points of agreement will be that abstinence is the “desired” outcome.
Addiction Professional claims that former Obama deputy “drug czar” and longtime University of Pennsylvania addiction researcher A. Thomas McLellan will issue the white paper. But he says that he is not involved in the project. On buprenorphine and Hazelden, he adds, “Tell me another area of medicine where willingness to use an FDA-approved medication is a bad idea. Tell me another area where it makes news."
Other signs of backlash can be seen in the responses to the articles published about the change, in which commenters cite negative anecdotes about maintenance and claim that the push for change is just another example of pharmaceutical industry pressures unduly influencing psychiatry. Yet The World Health Organization, The US Institute on Medicine and even the office of the “drug czar” all see maintenance treatment as a crucial option and as the one most likely to save the lives of long-term opioid addicts. And the evidence favoring maintenance comes largely from government-funded research on the cheap generic medication methadone, which makes the idea of excess industry influence somewhat laughable. Methadone was introduced in the '60s, while Suboxone got FDA approval an entire decade ago.
At least half a dozen former Hazelden patients have died from overdose—a rate that shocked the rehab.
Of course, no one—let alone Hazelden—actually argues that Suboxone should be used for everyone or that abstinence-based treatment shouldn’t be available to people addicted to heroin or prescription pain relievers. Hazelden’s decision to offer maintenance was made because of the enormously high relapse rate it saw among opioid-addicted people leaving residential care, a group for whom abstinence-only treatment clearly wasn’t working. In recent years, at least half a dozen former Hazelden patients have died from overdose—a rate that shocked both the renowned rehab’s leadership and its counselors. Prior to the recent rise in prescription drug addiction, only 20% of their patients were addicted to opioid drugs; now, among young patients, the rate is 41%.
It was those frequent relapses and deaths that made Hazelden reconsider the treatment it provides. According to its chief medical officer, Dr. Marvin Seppala, the knowledge of those bad outcomes resulted in far less resistance to the decision to allow maintenance than he had expected from those steeped in 12-step treatment. During the 10-month period in which Hazelden worked on the change, it held numerous meetings and trainings to help staff get on board and address their concerns.
But how could an organization that had abstinence at its very core even begin to embrace maintenance? In Narcotics Anonymous (NA), the 12-step program for opioid addicts (as well as stoners and coke heads), people on methadone maintenance have traditionally not been considered to be “in recovery,” and their “clean time” typically wasn’t even allowed to start to be counted until they stop maintenance. Some meetings won’t even allow people taking maintenance medications to speak, because they are seen as active users who simply have substituted one drug for another.
There are, however, certain 12-step programs that do support recoveries that don’t involve total abstinence. Obviously, people in Overeaters Anonymous (OA) cannot entirely refrain from eating, and requiring participants in sex addiction programs to give up all sexual relationships isn’t much more realistic. Instead, people in these programs come up with definitions of abstinence that work for them. For example, some people in OA identify “trigger foods” that aren’t safe for them to eat and consider doing so a relapse; people in sex addiction programs may stick to monogamous relationships only. “If you think about overeaters or sex addicts, they have to define their own recoveries really specifically and define abstinence for themselves,” Seppala says.
“Maintenance failures” are visible at the clinic, while abstinence failures are not at the rehab.
Hazelden, therefore, will consider people who are taking maintenance medications as prescribed as being “in recovery” from the day they start therapy and abstaining from nonprescribed drugs. Relapse will involve using in any way that deviates from medical advice. There is a precedent for this view of recovery: a 2007 panel convened by the Betty Ford Institute concluded that people who are on maintenance medications who follow medical instructions may be considered in recovery, although ironically, the Betty Ford Center itself still rejects maintenance medication. The maintenance-supportive definition is also used by the advocacy group, Faces and Voices of Recovery (FAVOR).
And in yet another sign of just how radically the addiction world is changing, NA itself seems to be softening its stance. “Our policy is a little convoluted,” concedes Jane Nickels, public relations manager for NA World Services, while stating firmly that “our basic philosophical foundation is abstinence.”
Here’s how weird it gets: an NA publication written in the ’80s and updated in the ’90s said both that “the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using” and also that meetings can legitimately limit those on maintenance medication from speaking and taking leadership positions. A later publication, from 2007, however, states that “the reality is that some groups already permit those on drug replacement to share and lead meetings while others do not.” Since each group is autonomous, Nickels says, “Group conscience will ultimately determine the level of participation of those on drug replacement,” including buprenorphine. Nickels stresses that the group’s official stance is “we’re encouraged to open wide the doors of our meetings to any addict who wishes to join.”