"Addiction" Nursing is an outdated term.

Every twenty years we change the words used, but it's all the same, with the same stigma once people become familiar with the nomenclature.

On 10/27/2019 at 7:32 PM, canoehead said:

Every twenty years we change the words used, but it's all the same, with the same stigma once people become familiar with the nomenclature.

As I always say....... Same soup?, just RE-HEATED!

Same with co-occurring and dual diagnosis. I'm a CARN...I wonder if they'll eventually change the name of the certification too.

I remember a while back we were told to not say PTSD but to say PTSS (replacing Disorder with Syndrome). The goal was to improve patient participation in care with the thinking that no one wants a Disorder, but hey, a Syndrome, not so bad, anyone could have one of those!

Yeah. Didn't last long because the terms don't matter.

On 2/13/2020 at 5:35 AM, DAL2010 said:

I remember a while back we were told to not say PTSD but to say PTSS (replacing Disorder with Syndrome). The goal was to improve patient participation in care with the thinking that no one wants a Disorder, but hey, a Syndrome, not so bad, anyone could have one of those!

Yeah. Didn't last long because the terms don't matter.

PTSI (injury) now. It does make sense actually.

Disagree. Until there is no longer any moral component to addiction/substance abuse/substance use, it will always be a controversial topic.

It depends how you look at it. I see "addiction" as actually laying less moral responsibility on the user, as the substance is inherently flawed by having addictive properties. Whereas, substance use/misuse means to me that the person is in control, and continues to make unhealthy choices.

I am also a CARN, 5 years in psych dual diagnosis and mood disorders, though now I have the opportunity to focus on inpatient detox. The term "addiction" does not solely encompass substances. There is gambling, sex, relationships, food, sugar, drama, etc. Evidence shows the same parts of the brain are engaged when the individual is partaking in their drug of choice, even when it comes in the form of a donut. Naltrexone is being used for craving management in prevention of opiate use (IM-Vivitrol), alcohol abuse (PO-Revia), and binge eating disorder (PO-Contrave). Similar interventions and therapies are used to teach our patients no matter what they are recovering from. Why do you think you can find a 12 step recovery program for alcohol, narcotics, overeating, gamboling and sex? Because people have successfully learned a different way of life through the same concepts. Words only have power we give to them as a culture. In my experience, "addiction" is a condition, period. "Addict" can carry the same stigma as "alcoholic" or "dope fiend", and whether or not to identify with the label is up to the individual who is living the experience. Do some research on the use of person first language. I believe you are correct in a clinical "PC" or diagnostic regard of using SUD over the term addiction. I'm uncertain there is a DSM-V diagnosis for addiction, though I do know SUD and AUD are in the DSM-V. But, when we are talking with our patients, we use the terms they prefer. For many, it will be addiction. 

On 3/30/2020 at 11:23 PM, Luke79AU said:

It depends how you look at it. I see "addiction" as actually laying less moral responsibility on the user, as the substance is inherently flawed by having addictive properties. Whereas, substance use/misuse means to me that the person is in control, and continues to make unhealthy choices.

You can't completely remove ALL moral responsibility from a disease process that chiefly manifests through behavior and is highly likely to hurt other people. If that's the case and you want to do that, everyone should be committed and have substituted judgment/guardianship in place because, hey, they can't be held responsible- it's the "disease's fault". 

All rights and no responsibilities does not make for a functional society.

On 10/13/2020 at 4:54 AM, Jedrnurse said:

You can't completely remove ALL moral responsibility from a disease process that chiefly manifests through behavior and is highly likely to hurt other people. If that's the case and you want to do that, everyone should be committed and have substituted judgment/guardianship in place because, hey, they can't be held responsible- it's the "disease's fault". 

All rights and no responsibilities does not make for a functional society.

Respectfully, I suggest that this is the exact archaic attitude that causes patients suffering drug and alcohol addicts to be treated so poorly. They are often seriously undermedicated for anxiety and pain, in the hospital, and physician office setting. "Oh, that junky/addict just wants to get high, even though they may be in actual serious 9/10 pain.

The addict HAD a choice. They made the wrong one. Once that physical and mental addiction started, with drugs like heroin, that can take a remarkably short period of time, they then have zero choice. These people often despise themselves, as they are well aware of the pain they are causing to family and friends. Do you know that well over half of this population are also suffering mental illness or serious mental illness? 

Talk to them! You'll often find a common theme, serious mental illness and/or serious childhood trauma. And THAT is why they made that first initial bad choice, because the pain they were experiencing, all day, every day overwhelmed their coping skills.

Please reflect on this: Would you and other nurses with similar attitudes take such a moralistic viewpoint/treatment position for the 50 year old MI patient, who has trashed his or her life for the last 30 years with a diet of McDonalds and no physical activity. That's no different at all. In fact, if you can't stop eating rubbish food, you'd have ZERO chance of quitting hard drugs. 

We are nurses. Try to treat everyone with compassion. Addicts always have a reason why they are addicts.

29 minutes ago, Luke79AU said:

Please reflect on this: Would you and other nurses with similar attitudes take such a moralistic viewpoint/treatment position for the 50 year old MI patient, who has trashed his or her life for the last 30 years with a diet of McDonalds and no physical activity. That's no different at all. In fact, if you can't stop eating rubbish food, you'd have ZERO chance of quitting hard drugs. 

We are nurses. Try to treat everyone with compassion. Addicts always have a reason why they are addicts.

AMEN

1 hour ago, Luke79AU said:

The addict HAD a choice. They made the wrong one. Once that physical and mental addiction started, with drugs like heroin, that can take a remarkably short period of time, they then have zero choice. 

We are nurses. Try to treat everyone with compassion. Addicts always have a reason why they are addicts.

It's not an "all or nothing" thing. You can have compassion for a person with a substance use disorder and still recognize that they have to take responsibility and be an active part of their own recovery. If in fact they have zero choice, well, that leads back to what I said- a person who has truly lost all agency and and is doing harm to themselves and others should have substituted judgment/guardianship.

If "zero choice" were in effect, no one would ever decide to go their first meeting...