Nonmedical prescription opioid abuse is an ongoing problem in America, with data showing an increase in this phenomenon in every state. This phenomenon found its genesis and growth within the masculine context of care. As this epidemic continues its threat on public health, it is time to consider alternative approaches to its treatment. One such approach is to implement a feminist ethic of care to improve the patient-provider relationship, foster autonomy, and to nurture national milieu
Nonmedical prescription opioid abuse (NPOA) is an ongoing problem in America, with data showing an increase in this phenomenon in every state (Paulozzi & Xi, 2008). This phenomenon found its genesis and growth within the masculine context of care. As this epidemic continues its threat on public health, it is time to consider alternative approaches to its treatment. One such approach is to implement a feminist ethic of care to improve the patient-provider relationship, foster autonomy, and nurture the national milieu through interdependence. The means to this end may vary, but the nature of this perspective demands effective communication. Motivational interviewing represents a consistent, evidence-based means for exercising this approach to care.
The current perspective in treating the rising threat of NPOA relies on the masculine ethic of care. This view derives its treatment approach from the obligation of justice. That is to say, the masculine ethic of care is strongly concerned a more "hands off" approach to treatment. This duty of justice considers the patient as the sole, responsible party and, therefore, the fundamental agent of change and wellness. The way in which this is carried out is via a power dynamic in which the provider maintains an omniscient, fatherly role that emphasizes provider knowledge and patient obedience. Put another way, the masculine view stresses the notion that strong willpower and knowledge give rise to success. This method routinely omits empathy and patience from treatment and discounts the addiction research demonstrating impaired freedom of will (Vohs & Baumesiter, 2009). The result is a sense of failure and hopelessness felt by the patient.
The feminist approach highlights the importance of the patient-provider relationship through the exercise of empathy. Central to this perspective is interdependence and the balance of power between the provider and the patient. By maintaining this symmetry, then the provider may foster open-communication, elicit change-talk, and identify barriers and strengths to recovery. Furthermore, the nurse and patient can work together to use those factors to tailor the treatment plan and evoke patient autonomy in a way that increases the chance of positive health outcomes. This framework arises from a fundamental philosophy demonstrated throughout feminist history in which the marginalized provide the best insight into the provision of care within a society (Green, 2012).
In this model, the provider lessens the burden of responsibility by sharing that weight with the patient through a feminist ethic of care. That is not to imply that the provider strips the patient of power, but, instead, nurtures that power within the patient. This "motherly" role stands in strong contrast to the masculinity of the "fatherly" role. In this way, the provider-patient relationship takes a similar shape as a mother-child relationship, in which the provider guides the patient through treatment, fostering more and more autonomy along the way, until the patient ultimately becomes the sole decision-maker. This enables coping mechanisms and caregiving that equip the patient with the necessary skills to maintain wellness, rather than metaphorically kicking the patient from the nest. This feminist lens sets up the philosophy of care, but practice must align with this framework.
Ultimately, there are many ways to implement this approach. No matter the means in which one seeks to do so, the most important factor will be communication. Communication remains a tool in which the provider can cultivate relationships, derive patient-centered data, and tailor the plan of care. One method for communication is motivational interviewing. This form of counseling has demonstrated success in addiction treatment and in agreement with the feminist perspective. Motivational interviewing is a goal-oriented method that facilitates change by provoking intrinsic motivation from the patient, preserving patient-centered care (Miller, 1996). The practitioner remains nonjudgmental and maintains an open, equal relationship with the patient. As the provider paces with the patient, then the provider consistent demonstrates empathy, and allows the patient to argue for behavioral change. This provides the same level of autonomy and interdependence relative to feminist care models and, therefore, a practical match in implementing such models.
In conclusion, the feminist perspective of care in the treatment of NPOA offers an approach predictive of success. This ethic focuses on the patient-provider relationship to foster patient autonomy. By exercising empathy, then the caregiving, interdependent nature of feminism is preserved in a way that is congruent with the most recent research into addiction. Although there are many ways in which one can implement the feminist model, communication must remain a central component. Because of the caring, empathetic nature of this perspective, a nonjudgmental approach is paramount. Motivational interviewing is consistent with feminist approaches to care and, therefore, can be a valuable tool in effective communication.
References
Green B (2012) Applying Feminist Ethics of Care to Nursing Practice. J Nurs Care 1:111. doi:10.4172/2167-1168.1000111
Miller, W. R. (1996). Motivational interviewing: Research, practice, and puzzles. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 835-842. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(96)00044-5.
Paulozzi LJ, Xi Y. Recent changes in drug poisoning mortality in the United States by urban-rural status and by drug type. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(10):997-1005.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Addiction and free will. Addiction Research & Theory, 17(3), 231-235.
The "Pain is whatever the patient says it is" theory of patient care was a nice idea in theory, but once it was exposed to real patients kind of fell apart. There is that group of patients who believe they should experience NO pain EVER, and a generation of physicians who will tell them what they want to hear. "The nurses will make sure you don't have any pain." Once they've heard that, they don't believe me when I tell them that if I ensured that they had no pain ever, they wouldn't be breathing.
This. This is a large portion of our problem. I work ER and I can tell you 90% of my patients state they have 10/10 pain. 2% of that 90% probably do. 1% of the less than 5/10 pain likely does as well.
I live with chronic pain and I'm still convinced I can do things I shouldn't with my previous injuries, so I occasionally have acute pain as well. I have experienced pain where I would think "Man if I could just die..." At no point have I ever ranked my pain at a ten.
I decided long ago that that ranking was reserved for being skinned/burned alive. (10 is the worst thing you can imagine right?) Maybe I have too good of an imagination? Or I'm too literal? I figured if I ever reached a ten you could just kill me because I don't want to live with only half my skin. I'm kind of fond of it.
I wrote an article in which I argue that the current system is paternalistic, emphasizing things like willpower and personally responsibility in a way that may color provider's their approach to care. I argue that this approach may erode the provider-patient relationship with negative outcomes.
The trend away from willpower and personal responsibility is what has gotten us into the current mess we are in today. The "I broke it but it's on you to fix it" mentality leads to more broken and less fixed. If teaching someone to have even a modicum of personal responsibility is "paternalistic" then count me in.
The "Pain is whatever the patient says it is" theory of patient care was a nice idea in theory, but once it was exposed to real patients kind of fell apart. There is that group of patients who believe they should experience NO pain EVER, and a generation of physicians who will tell them what they want to hear. "The nurses will make sure you don't have any pain." Once they've heard that, they don't believe me when I tell them that if I ensured that they had no pain ever, they wouldn't be breathing.
I probably shouldn't admit this on a public forum, but I find myself increasingly apt to believe pain is what I say it is. It's not a position I'm entirely comfortable taking, but also not entirely unjustified. There have been several interesting points raised in this discussion, and I'll be considering them for a while to come, but one that instantly resonates is that paternalism isn't so much a masculine/feminine issue as parent/child one. Crudely put, I think a "Mommy knows best." approach is just as condescending as "Daddy knows best." I am not my patients' daddy, or their mommy, or even their friend, but I do try to be their nurse. In a real way, it's my job to know best--or, at least, to bring to our relationship a level of education, training, and experience they probably don't have and work together with them to further their best interests.
I love the many times when that sort of collaboration happens, but it's worth considering why it often doesn't. It seems to me that pain and the so-called epidemic of opioid addiction are one symptom of a broader conflict between a medicine/nursing driven approach and a media/regulatory/financial one. I don't deny the numbers--there's nothing "so-called" about the number of people addicted to pain meds, and clearly some have become addicted through therapeutic use. But there's an epidemic of methamphetamine abuse, too--and I'm not sure how we blame the healthcare system or big Pharma for that.
We are living in a society with a pretty serious mood disorder. I say this as an American, but I'm not at all convinced it's confined to the US. Still, let's look at the past few US Presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump. It doesn't seem like we are evolving toward a middle ground where nobody wins everything but everyone wins something. And it seems to me there's a parallel in the swing from a "pain meds for everybody!!!" approach and the current "opioids are evil" mindset. I firmly doubt there is one person on this discussion board who doesn't agree pain sucks, pain can't be eliminated but it can often be managed, narcotics aren't magic, and every tool has a purpose. Trouble is, nobody is asking us.
it is true that you are faced with several serious societal problems. But do you really blame the regular mass shootings you have and mental illness on an "emasculated" society, the "feminized" school system and loss of religious values? Really? It would be so easy for me to point to a number of western countries with a much less noticable religious presence than the u.s., but likely equally afflicted with this blighted "feminized" school system, which don't have even a tiny portion of your mass shootings.
it's the fault of the gayz!!!!11!
The trend away from willpower and personal responsibility is what has gotten us into the current mess we are in today. The "I broke it but it's on you to fix it" mentality leads to more broken and less fixed. If teaching someone to have even a modicum of personal responsibility is "paternalistic" then count me in.
It's not about saying: "I'm broken but you fix it." It's merely about taking an approach that isn't riddled with negatives preconceptions, working with the patient to identify a treatment plan that is tailored to them and the way to do this is therapeutic communication.
Reducing it to an issue of willpower isn't consistent with a lot of the neuroscientific literature, but, more importantly, studies indicate that the more providers emphasize this view the more it creeps into the relationship and pushes the client away from treatment.
I probably shouldn't admit this on a public forum, but I find myself increasingly apt to believe pain is what I say it is. It's not a position I'm entirely comfortable taking, but also not entirely unjustified. There have been several interesting points raised in this discussion, and I'll be considering them for a while to come, but one that instantly resonates is that paternalism isn't so much a masculine/feminine issue as parent/child one. Crudely put, I think a "Mommy knows best." approach is just as condescending as "Daddy knows best." I am not my patients' daddy, or their mommy, or even their friend, but I do try to be their nurse. In a real way, it's my job to know best--or, at least, to bring to our relationship a level of education, training, and experience they probably don't have and work together with them to further their best interests.I love the many times when that sort of collaboration happens, but it's worth considering why it often doesn't. It seems to me that pain and the so-called epidemic of opioid addiction are one symptom of a broader conflict between a medicine/nursing driven approach and a media/regulatory/financial one. I don't deny the numbers--there's nothing "so-called" about the number of people addicted to pain meds, and clearly some have become addicted through therapeutic use. But there's an epidemic of methamphetamine abuse, too--and I'm not sure how we blame the healthcare system or big Pharma for that.
We are living in a society with a pretty serious mood disorder. I say this as an American, but I'm not at all convinced it's confined to the US. Still, let's look at the past few US Presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump. It doesn't seem like we are evolving toward a middle ground where nobody wins everything but everyone wins something. And it seems to me there's a parallel in the swing from a "pain meds for everybody!!!" approach and the current "opioids are evil" mindset. I firmly doubt there is one person on this discussion board who doesn't agree pain sucks, pain can't be eliminated but it can often be managed, narcotics aren't magic, and every tool has a purpose. Trouble is, nobody is asking us.
I think that's very fair and correct. Untreated pain can also easily lead to addiction issues that may have actually been prevented from properly managing it in the first place. Whether that's because they get them from the street in an effort to get relief or it leads to significant issues with mood that is more likely to lead to addiction.
There's probably room for a mix of subjective assessment and objective assessment. So, we can and should assess the patient's perception of pain for a lot of reasons (not the least of which is diagnostic. Pain level and quality can be valuable data in a differential). We can combine this with a functional assessment to derive a bigger picture.
You're right, opioids have a place. There's definitely a middle ground, albeit hard to find sometimes. What we often don't like to admit is that we're generally pretty bad at pain treatment in terms of figuring out effective, low risk options.
It's not about saying: "I'm broken but you fix it." It's merely about taking an approach that isn't riddled with negatives preconceptions, working with the patient to identify a treatment plan that is tailored to them and the way to do this is therapeutic communication.Reducing it to an issue of willpower isn't consistent with a lot of the neuroscientific literature, but, more importantly, studies indicate that the more providers emphasize this view the more it creeps into the relationship and pushes the client away from treatment.
Out of curiosity what is your clinical experience with addicts?
Out of curiosity what is your clinical experience with addicts?
Are you asking my experiencing in working with them?
I work in psychiatry, currently supervising an adult unit and geriatric unit. We do a little of everything, including a LOT of dual diagnosis. I've also done some other work in this area, as well, helping people outside of work to get connected with care and am part of a local group to help develop community actions to mental health issues (admittedly, my school schedule hasn't allowed me to make some meetings lately), and I'm currently planning a presentation for a local school. Interestingly, it's my old high school and we've lost a LOT of people in my graduating class to this epidemic.
I'm doing my MSN-PMHNP right now to increase my scope for treating these people.
It's not about saying: "I'm broken but you fix it." It's merely about taking an approach that isn't riddled with negatives preconceptions, working with the patient to identify a treatment plan that is tailored to them and the way to do this is therapeutic communication.Reducing it to an issue of willpower isn't consistent with a lot of the neuroscientific literature, but, more importantly, studies indicate that the more providers emphasize this view the more it creeps into the relationship and pushes the client away from treatment.
I was speaking about how the lack of willpower and personal responsibility, in general, has gotten our society in the mess we see today not just in the area of drug addiction. I understand that willpower alone isn't feasible as a cure for addiction. But to be specific regarding addiction; this idea of presenting a "gentler" approach is actually bankrupting small towns in my area due to the cost of repeatedly having to use Narcan on the same people over and over despite their efforts to get them help. Hard core addicts expect people to have Narcan available, free of charge and personal responsibility because they're broken and it's someone else's responsibility to fix them. Your experience has been with people who WANT help. My experience is with people who simply do not care who they hurt in their search for the next high.
Issaiah1332
3 Articles; 47 Posts
Thanks for articulating the same questions I had, but I didn't want to get into another big debate.