Good Morning Fellow inhabitants of Nazi Monitoring Land:
Well friends yesterday was my first day of my last semester of my DNP studies. To say that I'm overwhelmed is a little like saying the late great John Candy should have lost a couple pounds. These studies are not meant to be resumed after a year's absence. Presently I feel lost and disoriented. I took today off work so I can take the next four days to at least develop some sort of plan on how to salvage this part of my life. I've lost a lot I ain't getting back but I don't want to lose this too.
I didn't really sleep much last night so I checked my phone to see if I had a pee test today and I did. I gave my sample at about 3AM & the first thing that stuck my mind was that a drink would sure be nice. I can do the math. I can drink today and almost certainly pass the ETG test even in the unlikely event that I get tested again Monday (I doubt it its a holiday). I'm not going to drink today. Why? I'm not going to drink because I made a deal with PNAP. If I comply with the terms and conditions of this hellish program they will get out of my life in about 4 years. I'm gonna hold up my end and will not give them the satisfaction of beating me.
My question is weather any of you think this spite and hate driven goal of not letting PNAP win recovery? I don't think it is. Do any of you? Can recovery be imposed on somebody or is it an individual choice.
After reading many of the above posts I must state..."recovery" depends...like so many things "medical" upon the definition...as this word is so often thrown around in this atrocious world of 12 step mumbo jumbo and snake oil puffery, I crave then the day when those so freely ready to compromise that evidence which allowed them to practice in the first place the ability to mind their own business...I simply cannot be sold the Brooklyn Bridge and therefore...in the best spirit of Hitchens may proclaim: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" The epitome of this tragedy best summised by my "appointed" "therapist" (From what I can gather somebody with a certificate that was gotten by merely having the experience of being drunk or high before and perhaps taking a "recovery" lecture...also perhaps shaping opinion through 12 step meetings and the absurd book touted as fact...) who in the most serious tone and composure stated: "Its all subjective anyway" I used all my "willpower" to simply not laugh out loud in his face! Onward!
Hate keeps me warm at night and gives me the ability to keep going in this jungle of BS. I simply hate the do-gooders too much to let them win. I'll finish this nonsense absolutely but even more certain than that is that I will never, ever, under any circumstances give this program any modicum of respect. Compliance sure. Respect Never
I'm not so much at hate as I am disgusted and sad. I am not angry at the BON because "they" , at least in my state are outside the operations of this thing. I am disgusted at the profits that are made at the expense of nurses in need and I am disgusted at the conflict of interest that nobody even seems to try to hide. It's so obvious a blind person could see it.
So yeah, compliant, okay, because I want the license that I worked so hard for and I will be ****** if I let them take it away from me for the crime of having an illness. Respect? Never. Not on a cold day in Hades.
...in the best spirit of Hitchens may proclaim: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Malamud69:
That is a truly excellent quote. I have to remember that. Recently my appointed therapists stated that the ONLY way to maintain sobriety was the 12 step process. I asked her how she knew that? That if she really believed that there were no people who maintained sobriety without 12 step meetings? At first she said that yes the only people who got sober were active 12 step participants. After some discussion and pointing out two members of the group who maintained long-term sobriety without going to meetings for 7 and 10 years respectively she merely redefined "sober". She relented and said that some folks simply choose to quit drinking / drugging but they were not "sober" just "white knuckling" it. Both of these folks had great lives without 12 step voodoo and were simply sucked into the vortex for old stints in treatment before deciding to go to nursing school. Now both have to attend mandatory 12 step meetings and if you think I can't stand them you should hear their weekly rants
Sounds like your therapist is truly one of the 12 step robots hook line and sinker. I thoroughly disagree with the premise of the 12 step thing, but I respect that people have found, in it tools for maintaining sobriety. I also disagree with the Jehovah's Witnesses but I respect that there are people that find religious agreement there. Of course, unlike 12 step, I am not being mandated to attend the local JW congregation to retain my license, so I suppose there is that difference.
If 12 step is anonymous, then there is no possible way to provide evidence that the only way to stay sober (defined by Merrimam-Webster as "not addicted to intoxicating drink, not drunk.") is through 12 step. Then if no evidence can be submitted, Spanked's "appointed therapist's" assertation also has no evidence, therefore in agreement with Mr. Hitchens, her evidence AKA opinion can be dismissed. So there.
I'm a huge fan of "The Sober Truth"!!! I think in many ways 12 step processes hurt more people then they help. Mixing moralistic spiritual weakness nonsense and that which is supposed evidenced based medicine is crazy
Yeah what's worse than an absence of evidence is ignoring evidence contrary to a desired result. In the case I used as an example we had two people in a group of 12 who maintained sobriety for 7-10 years without going to 12 step meetings since they got out of rehab. You had most of the rest of the group stating how these meetings were not helpful at all. This evidence and input was simply ignored or even denied. How is this supposed to be scientific? Its anti-scientific and cult-like. In an age of scarce resources and soaring healthcare costs how do we justify spending all this money on a "treatment" that is not based in science and seems to have dismal results. Think of it this way if there a medication or medical procedure out there that had single digit success rates would we invest billions in it? I think we only do this because the 12 step model has become a mantra of sorts
Yeah what's worse than an absence of evidence is ignoring evidence contrary to a desired result. In the case I used as an example we had two people in a group of 12 who maintained sobriety for 7-10 years without going to 12 step meetings since they got out of rehab. You had most of the rest of the group stating how these meetings were not helpful at all. This evidence and input was simply ignored or even denied. How is this supposed to be scientific? Its anti-scientific and cult-like. In an age of scarce resources and soaring healthcare costs how do we justify spending all this money on a "treatment" that is not based in science and seems to have dismal results. Think of it this way if there a medication or medical procedure out there that had single digit success rates would we invest billions in it? I think we only do this because the 12 step model has become a mantra of sorts
Indeed...I was actually told recently what would "help my case best" is...are you ready?...a "sponsor letter"
Yeah the whole anonymous thing is really transparent BS. I need to get a paper signed every time I go to a meeting. Where is the anonymity? It outs the guy who signs it and me. Compulsory attendance at these things does all matter of bad not the least of which is take away the meaning of half of the name of all these groups; AA, NA, CA.... How is it anonymous when role is taken? Further, one of the many things that they say which I totally agree with at AA meeting is something like "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking". I presume they are referring to the attendee's desire not the monitoring boards so I don't even meet the most basic requirement of being there. My attendance is a farce and a continuing act of disrespect to people I have no ill-will towards. I think the meetings are religious based voodoo but most members seem like well meaning folks looking to help one another
Yeah the whole anonymous thing is really transparent BS. I need to get a paper signed every time I go to a meeting. Where is the anonymity? It outs the guy who signs it and me. Compulsory attendance at these things does all matter of bad not the least of which is take away the meaning of half of the name of all these groups; AA, NA, CA.... How is it anonymous when role is taken? Further, one of the many things that they say which I totally agree with at AA meeting is something like "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking". I presume they are referring to the attendee's desire not the monitoring boards so I don't even meet the most basic requirement of being there. My attendance is a farce and a continuing act of disrespect to people I have no ill-will towards. I think the meetings are religious based voodoo but most members seem like well meaning folks looking to help one another
Besides the fact that I agree with you in that my attendance is an ongoing disrespect to those who chose to be there (you're right, they seem like nice folk, I don't hang around long enough to find out honestly). The most basic requirement being the desire to stop drinking? I don't drink. How can I want to stop doing something I don't do. That goes for NA also. So I find my forced attendance quite perplexing to start with.
Actually not perplexing at all. We wind up back at the Pot of soup easy money, lazy providers, no ethics, and stirred by zealots who think this stuff beats all in spite of zero evidence.
LucyLou88, MSN, RN, NP
56 Posts
Sorry, didn't realize that.