Effects Of Alcoholism And Drug Act Examined

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31864, 17 December 1968, Page 17

Effects Of Alcoholism And Drug Act Examined

(Spccfellp written for "The Press” by the Rev.

PHILLIP RAMSAY)

From January 1,1969, a new era of helpfulness. The firm grip on the addict is relinquished on this date. The alcoholic will go to hospital, not to prison: those “hooked” on drugs will be regarded as sick persons in need of remedial treatment and no longer as criminals deserving of punishment. They may even find this newly arranged help in spite of themselves, for there is legal provision for compulsory treatment.

When the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act was passed in 1966, it was welcomed aa a more civilised approach to a growing problem. A clear sign, both legally and administratively, is the transfer of control from the Justice Department to the Department of Health. Even so there is no ground for easy optimism or public complacency in this technical switch.

In the bizarre and often tragic world of potions and pills a faltering step in the right direction does not constitute a significant breakthrough. The politician, oversensitive to triennial voter truculence is too timed to stride it out radically. It may be, in this very hesitancy, he has sold us short. Half measures may be worse than none at all if, in this complex section of social welfare, we fool ourselves with the belief that the act has produced a panacea. True, the act is an admission that undignified and repressive measures have failed, .it ought now to say that there is no quick or easy way to achieve national sobriety. Because so few believe it interpreters of the act should make plain the fact that alcoholism is a public health problem of gigantic proportions. The same should be said for drug addiction, although public abhorrence ensures dramatic prominence in the headlines for this minor yet accelerating trend. Self-Punishment

The young man mainlining on heroin or the middle aged woman secretly uncorking the whisky has no need of society’s wrath or its gaols. They are already imprisoned —serving life sentences in chemical and psychological dependency. They are not committing crimes against society in general or against particular persons or property. The “trips” by way of drunkenness, pill, or needle are crimes against themselves. The addict is punishing self, hating self, feeling guilty or insecure about self. So it is, the Justice Department can do nothing for the addict's anxiety, depression, or terrible sense of isolation. The new era of helpfulness from January next is official recognition that there are some things the law cannot do. The Department of Health will have to apply its medical and mental health techniques—not to punish, but to heal.

If the problem of addiction is to be treated from next year as a public health problem and not—as in the past—simply one of public order and decency, there must be changes in public attitude to match this official switch. The stigma attached to the alcoholic will be reduced, not by some newfound pity, but by enlightenment.

Why should decent, otherwise rational people treat the drug addict as an outcast? What is morally and socially reprehensible about a victim of alcoholism? In the name

Of sanity, why should we act toward these in different manner from the victim of diphtheria or tuberculosis? True, the alcoholic does not recover from his illness in the way people recover from measles or iiifiuenza. Like the victim of diabetes, the addict is incurable, but treatable. Public Attitude Although the “cure" rate is but a fraction of those recovering from cancer, it is publie recognition of alcoholism as a disease that provides a basis of the most successful treatment yet evolved. The public is unkind, uninformed. When it learns that the drug addict is not a moral leper nor the alcoholic a plain drunk lacking in will, power, they will stop making them society’s scapegoats, loaded with our collective guilt and driven out into the wilderness to die. Given this public enlightenment, the victim recognises his plight as a sickness. He is now more inclined to welcome the fact that there is a new kindness written into our laws; he has friends who will help him. As at present, most alcoholics to receive treatment in our general and mental hospitals will be voluntary patients. The new Act, however, has provision for a magistrate to make a committal for up to two years. He is guided by the opinion of two doctors. A relative, the police, or any reputable person may Initiate the committal. The addict has the right of appeal every six months. The medical superintendent of the institution may order the patient’s discharge at any time. A welcome sign of flexibility in the act, and one we should hope to see in action more often than not, is committal of a victim of drink or drugs to the care of an individual or a community agency on a stay-at-home basis. This use of community resources in a manner of outpatient treatment as distinct from specialist institutional care, is wise. Not all sick people require hospital treatment. It is also a tribute to the good will and co-operation that exists between the medical profession and a variety of other workers in the field. Complex Treatment

Addiction Is so complex that no one section can helpfully “go it alone.” When the necessary blend of professional and amateur, with their considerable collective skills, becomes a working proposition the victims of alcohol and drugs receive optimum aid.

This does not mean devalugtion of mefllcal serivces. These are so necessary for initial understanding of the patient and for early treatment of effects of overindulgence. Here are very sick people who, for Jong years in most cases, have made the bottle or the hypodermic the centre of their world, Malnutrition and other physical effects arising from neglect of the elementary rules of health must be treated. Whilst acknowledging the physical complexity of alcohol and. drug addiction and all that can be done to restore damaged bodies, we are dealing with persons. The basic condition of the addict is mental illness. Some would say spiritual sickness. Certainly it is a disordered personality we are dealing with in this act No “cure” is on the way until the patient admits he is powerless to help himself; that he has indeed a problem; that further drinking or is not possible; and that be welcomes the fact that there are therapists and knowledgeable friends who will help him. The keener he is on amendment of life the better his prospects of restored health. If he sees a power outside himself, spiritual resources that are not his own but freely available, so much the better. “Make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him . . . improve our conscious contact with God” are the keys that have liberated thousands from the prison of Inebriety.

However dimly expressed, the act is indicating an essential to recovery: good relationships between the patient and the therapist. At this point the labours of love should be officially recog-! nised and supported. So long as trained clergymen or lively groups of Alcoholics

Anomymous can produce “cure” rates in excess of the best equipped clinics the place of the amateur therapist is justified. By some strange unplanned irony. Government policy and professional medical prestige has almost monopolized the market “We are the experts" is no worthy attitude when only a few of the 35,000 sufferers are being treated. The fact that more victims of addiction are coming forward for treatment is encouraging. This is related, of course, to the increase in public knowledge and sympathy. The stigma is being removed. Another factor making for urgent acceleration of treatment services is the production of at least another 800 casualties a year from our thrill-seeking society. When it is remembered that every victim of addiction directly affects 8-10 other lives the total pictow of suffering is immense. Yet the needs of the addict’s spouse and children dare not be overlooked. What are the next steps from the act? The Government must be more honest, more courageous in measuring the exten. of our use and abuse of alcohol. Unless the broad issue is faced as a public relations task, including prevention of alcoholism and education in schools, there is unlikely to be substantial progress with problem drinkers. Government must be more generous in grants for training voluntary personnel as well as extending its own treatment facilities and staff. Government must see that public and professional attitudes toward addicts improve or these will remain major factors in impeding development of urgently needed remedial services. Official apathy or inaction at this stage will make the most .(enlightened social welfare ; | legislation null and void. ■(That would be both tragedy ;;and crime.