I am a retired advanced-practice psychiatric registered nurse and the mother of a daughter who succumbed to opiate addiction. I have some thoughts about the recent story about sober homes ("A risky last resort for addicts," Dec. 31) and the letters to the editor in response ("Sober homes are likely here to stay," Jan. 2, and "Complicated, expensive and hard," Jan. 3).
My daughter's chemical dependency issues were very severe. Her condition was complicated by psychiatric illness and developmental issues. She was referred to and attended inpatient and outpatient treatment programs in three different states. She lived in residential facilities and sober homes. I lost track of the number of these referrals. She was kicked out of many of these programs/facilities for breaking rules and, at times, relapsing — in other words, acting like an addict, displaying worsening symptoms of her disease. She overdosed several times before the final fatal one. She had been referred yet again to a 28-day outpatient treatment program three days before her death.
My daughter wanted to get better. Not at the beginning of her illness, but certainly for the last three to four years before she died. So please don't think she wasn't trying hard enough or hadn't "hit bottom" yet. If multiple near-fatal overdoses, incarceration and homelessness isn't the bottom, I don't know what is. Nothing available or accessible to her helped.
I share this because I think the focus of articles like the recent one and others in the past are missing the point. The current treatment model for chemical dependency does not work. In what other treatment model are you punished or banned for displaying worsening symptoms of your disease? In what other treatment model is it acceptable to shower blame and shame on the patient in the midst of a crisis because they are not responding the way the treatment team hoped? Does this happen to people with heart disease? Cancer? Infections? No. As your symptoms worsen the intensity of treatment increases. You are not dismissed for getting sicker, you are treated more aggressively.
I do not know what the answer is. I'm just a mom who lost her daughter — one of many in the same circumstance. I just know that what's being done to treat addiction right now is clearly not adequate in many cases. We must do better.
Mary G. Alberts, Eden Prairie
• • •
Thanks to the Star Tribune for its article on sober homes on Dec. 31. Unfortunately, the article's tragic stories imply that government regulation is necessary. Maybe modern journalism just doesn't have the resources or interest in doing objective and thorough overviews of many topics, such as the actual role of sober homes in the addiction recovery process.
Sober homes are a tool used in treatment aftercare. They are not controlled, clinical facilities, nor can they be. Patients who need that level of care can stay in treatment. Most providers, including Hazelden, provide such post-treatment options where patients leaving residential treatment can live on the treatment campus in a less structured setting that gradually provides increasing freedom of movement, communication and choice. Patients stay until they (together with staff) feel genuinely safe with self-sufficiency.
Of course this is expensive. It's not as expensive as full residential treatment, but more than sober houses. Sober homes, depending on the city and services offered, cost about as much as an apartment. You can't swing a dead cat in St. Paul without hitting an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, treatment clinic or sober house. It has an excellent recovery community.
