Use the Deaths of Famous 12-Steppers to Recommend the 12 Steps

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
1,220
Location
Looking-Glass Land
Please, Don't Use the Deaths of Famous 12-Steppers to Recommend the 12 Steps
The sudden death of any person who takes a particular path to address addiction represents a failure of that approach. Yet this year we still cried out for more of the same.


S. Peele | 12/31/14 said:
Any mention of the most notable—and horrible—deaths of 2014 will include the names Philip Seymour Hoffman, 46, and Robin Williams, 63. In 2013 meanwhile, the list of notable premature deaths was headed by Cory Monteith, 31, while in 2011 it was Amy Winehouse, 27.

What do these talented, short-lived people have in common? All had recently attended a 12-step meeting or a conventional (read: 12-step-based) rehab shortly before their deaths.

Consider how The New York Times reported the aftermath of Hoffman’s death:

“…there was an outpouring of grief on Facebook, on Twitter and in columns by recovering addicts and alcoholics like the journalist Seth Mnookin and the screenwriter Aaron Sorkin about their own struggles with sobriety and the rarely distant fear of relapsing back into the throes of active addiction.

“There was also a palpably visceral reaction in the meeting rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, where, according to some in attendance, many discussions since last Sunday quickly turned from the death of a great actor to the precariousness of sobriety, and the fears of many sober people that they could easily slip back into their old ways, no matter how many years they have been clean.

“Mr. Hoffman’s overdose after what had been widely reported as 23 years without either drugs or alcohol…”

The Times said of Williams:

“Mr. Williams was an admitted abuser of cocaine … in the 1970s and ‘80s, and addressed his drug habit in his comedy act.

“In 2006, he checked himself into the Hazelden center in Springbrook, Ore., to be treated for an addiction to alcohol, having fallen off the wagon after some 20 years of sobriety.”

Moreover, Hoffman had returned to treatment not long before and, the Times reported, had been at a 12-step meeting weeks before his death, while Williams had had a refresher visit to Hazelden months earlier and reportedly attended an AA meeting the day before he killed himself.

Cory Monteith announced that he “had checked himself into a treatment center for an unspecified substance addiction” four months before his death, and not for the first time, according to the Times, while the BBC reported that Amy Winehouse attended a string of such facilities, last checking out of the (12-step-based) Priory clinic the month before she died.

Yet the lesson that commentators tend to take from these deaths (expressed here in the Winehouse case, among countless other examples) is: “Addiction is so horrible; we must help more people to go to rehab and join 12-step groups.”

Robin Williams, described on Substance.com and elsewhere as “a powerful voice of addiction,” is the most stunning example of this circular reasoning. He hadn’t consumed alcohol for years, or taken any other drugs for decades. Yet he still considered himself to be “in recovery.” Did he share, for all those years, 12-steppers’ “rarely distant fear of relapsing back into the throes of active addiction,” as described by the Times? We don’t know.

We just know that he killed himself.

But how can people cite these cases to argue in support of 12-step groups and conventional rehab, when logic points the opposite way? It’s reminiscent of Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness”: What looks and feels good is the truth, no matter how false.

So it is that the cycle of dysfunctional “I am an addict” self-labeling, a psychologically damaging process that is the heart of our current addiction treatment system, persists.

The 12 Steps, whose roots are 19th-century Protestantism’s confession and redemption paradigm, fit into what today we call a “shame-based” theology. Don’t believe me? Read the Steps:

Step One: “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol…”

Step Five: “Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.”

Step Seven: “Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.”

Step Eight: “Made a list of all persons we had harmed…”

And so on. Yet we disregard the fundamental role of shaming in the 12 Steps despite the overwhelming evidence of its harmfulness. As William White—himself a prominent booster of 12-step programs—concluded:

“A review of the research on the use of humiliating, confrontational tactics, which attempt to induce shame, found that none of the studies done in four decades supported this approach. In one study included in the analysis, the more the counselor confronted the client with past mistakes or other shaming information about his problem, the more the client drank.”

Of course I don’t have all the necessary evidence in the individual cases of Hoffman, Williams, Monteith and Winehouse to prove the culpability of 12-step programs in their deaths. But in the light of all we do know, can’t we at least agree that using their cases to advocate for greater 12-step membership is absurd?

There are non-shaming, empowering alternatives. In my first Substance.com column of the New Year, I will describe how to break the cycle of shame and shed an “addict” identity.
http://www.substance.com/please-don...-12-steppers-to-recommend-the-12-steps/18231/
 
We need to stop celebrating the cult that calls itself AA. Teaching people they are powerless is just wrong.
 
We need to stop celebrating the cult that calls itself AA. Teaching people they are powerless is just wrong.

I agree that it's the absolute wrong message to give addicts. People with addictions need to be told they can overcome them (and given help in doing so), not told that they're going to spend the rest of their lives on the brink of relapse and the only way to avoid it is to spend hours every week listening to junky humblebrag warstories. There's no evidence that it works, good reason to believe it makes things worse - it's just a hangover from the prohibitionist temperance ideology of the 19th/20th century.
 
^I was under the impression that 12 Step models are supposed to give you a path out of "jails, institutions and death". So for the person who employs the 12 Step model as their guide in recovery, and dies as a result of that modalities' shortcomings, is not that evidence of how that modality has failed them in their recovery? Perhaps not a total failure of the entire model for everyone else in the world, but as far as the individual in question goes, I can't see what else it could be seen as but an example of how the model has failed itself in the individual's case. And that is a big point the article attempts to drive home.

Peele's a bit aggressive in his treatment of 12 Step modalities perhaps (although I understand it as the result of how agressive the 12 Step based treatment industry is in pushing the 12 Steps as the one true path to recovery), but if you take his arguments for what they are they've got a lot of legitimacy - as opposed to bullshit.
 
The problem I see is that science and medicine have failed to create a treatment which competes with the steps. We are still living in the dark ages of mental health treatment. I'm sure we will look back on this time with the same disgust we have for blood letting and lobotomies.
 
We need to stop celebrating the cult that calls itself AA. Teaching people they are powerless is just wrong.

This is why I attend S.M.A.R.T. recovery and don't much like 12 step programs.

Oh and smart doesn't require a higher power nor does it encourage it. You can believe in one if you choose but it's not a requirement. In fact there are no requirements. And it supports medication-aided recovery while 12 steppers literally look down on it.
 
One of the biggest problems in the stranglehold 12 steps has, is that courts are still mandating people to attend meetings or go to jail once they are in the criminal (in)justice system. They say they don't care what meetings (SMART or AA/NA) but in fact in most places AA/NA are the only ones available.
 
This is true. ^
Even in a big city here, there are multiple 12 Step meetings and hardly any non secular groups. 3 Liferings a week, or 4.
With AA/NA there are like 20 a day. Well, AA anyway …
 
To play devils advocate AA would just say that these peoples deaths proves addiction is a lifelong battle and that they stopped practicing the steps, that they spent so much time sober before they relapsed is what matters.
 
A good example of the who circular logic pointed out in the post. Glad someone took a contrary stance though, even though it's so easy preaching to the choir gets boring...

And yes even in where I live in LA county, amongst millions of others, fifteen minutes away from downtown, there is only one smart group, once a week, within 90+ miles (with at least a hundred AA/NA/xA meetings a day in the same area). On the other hand, some cities seem to have a surplus of smart meetings - such was the case in San Diego.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We need more research into addiction and need to realise we all need to find our own way to stay away from drugs not joining a cult where everyone preaches to you telling you to believe in god. We can't sit around talking and hope for the best we need to get up and do what we feel is best for ourselves and what makes us happy. I quit AA pretty dam quick it was the whole god thing and how everyone wouldnt consider me sober if I smoked a joint before bed. I'll never change my beliefs because someone told me to, I go through life knowing that my views on the afterlife and god are right which is a wonderful feeling. Some people find believing in god a more comforting outcome than not believing but I don't. Its not because of who I am, i simply choose the outcome I find more comforting and logical.

Drugs such as methadone and Suboxone have higher success rates than cold turkey non assisted recovery which is finally starting to be recognised as a better way to get "clean" rather than risking a 90 percent relapse rate. We need to keep this additude going and stop the close mindedness AA promotes.

Believe what you want when it comes to religion you can even tell me you rely on god to get you through the day but when it comes to your life don't be an idiot. You just cant expect god to save you because that's not going to Happen its on us to help ourselves. When we cross the street it doesn't matter if we're religious or not we still look both ways its just common sense we don't expect god to keep us safe from oncoming traffic and we shouldnt rely on him so heavily to get clean. Surrendering yourself to god in order to get clean is simply idiotic.
 
Last edited:
I take a very middle of the road viewpoint about AA/NA. It's the same one I take with most dogmas. I have seen it hurt some and help others. I think for all those that make it cult-like there are just as many reasonable folks that use what it has to offer, digest the dogma in a much more metaphorical rather than literal way and get something positive out of it. To hold AA?NA responsible for deaths is the same argument that many make about Bluelight. This argument has been raging over in Support recently and it goes something like this: "If Bluelight is really about Harm Reduction then why do so many members and moderators end up dead from their drug use?"

My viewpoint is that you can give people all the facts in the world and all the dogma in the world and still each person is vulnerable in both unique and sometimes common ways to their own self-destruction. Instead of fighting about either HR facts or recovery dogmas as being the end-all to addiction, I prefer to address each person's attempts to recover their own strength and power. How they choose to go about it--and whether they fail at it resulting in relapse or even death--is not something I feel inclined (or qualified) to judge them for. From what I have observed, death is a pretty arbitrary outcome as anyone that reads Bluelight every day can attest to. I am amazed daily at the dosages, combinations and frequency of use that I see on these boards. One person's "safe" is another person's fatal. One person's innocuous exploration is another person's path to addiction.

If I were dictator of the universe (=D) I would take what is useful from the Twelve Step approach, what is useful from the SMART or Rational Recovery approach, what is useful from the medical model and what is useful from the psychological model, tie it all together with secular buddhist thought and teachings and go from there. In the meantime I will continue to say what I do now: if you have an addiction use every single method of support out there. There is no right way and no wrong way though there may be right and wrong ways for you. Learn yourself. Change yourself. Create the self you want to be.
 
"If Bluelight is really about Harm Reduction then why do so many members and moderators end up dead from their drug use?"

That's an absurd argument unless someone has the statistics to compare the number of bluelight posters who die from drug use to the number of non-bluelight posting drug users who die from their drug use. Of any population indulging in the use of certain drugs, a portion are inevitably going to die. That's just the sad reality.

There's also a "do as I say, not as I do" element to a lot of it. I know I've done a lot of stupid shit which I would never recommend anyone else do on bluelight, because at the time I was desperate or not thinking straight. It just comes with the territory, nobody is perfect in their implementation of harm reduction, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
 
Hopefully it was clear from my post that I am quite firmly on the "that's absurd!" side of that argument.;)
 
Top