« ASHES, Vol. 11(11) – (Tobacco) free: Tobacco policy & mortality in the prison setting, with a focus on mental health | Main | STASH Vol. 11(11) – Impulsivity as marker of adolescent substance use »

Friday, October 30, 2015


As a long-time, recovering opioid addict, I must admit to feeling nothing but distress at reading about your “behind-the-bars” treatment program, and my instinct as to why this methodology does not sit right with me was stimulated not so much by what was stated in the description, but rather much more by what was implied, as well as what was, most crucially, left unsaid.
While I am not questioning the sincerity of your motives, i.e. it seems clear enough to me that you desire a positive outcome for those inmates undergoing this treatment program, I do seriously question the inherent biases which are revealed by your definition of a positive treatment outcome as it relates to treating opioid addiction: Although never explicitly stated, the obvious (and only) definition of treatment success that can be gleaned from reading the description appears to be total abstinence from any controlled substances.
To quote from your article,
“We can be as aggressive as we want when it comes to treating addiction on the inside, but there must be an infrastructure available once these individuals return home. Provisions included in the Affordable Care Act allow for expanded treatment for drug addiction as well as medications, such as Vivitrol, to treat this disease. Vivitrol, a long lasting form of Naltrexone, is a non-opiate based medication that differs from Suboxone in that it carries no street value and is administered by a physician. The effects of one injection can reduce cravings for 30 days and many health insurance plans now cover the cost. That is why ensuring individuals have medical coverage is key to recovery.”
Vivitrol, a.k.a. depot-naltrexone, has been nothing less than a massive, disastrously consequential failure whenever it has been utilized in newly “detoxified” opioid addicts, and what is most stunning to me is that these dismal results have been documented by multiple researchers, writing in numerous peer-reviewed journals, for almost as long as naltrexone has been available. In point of fact, the #1 FDA approved use for naltrexone, in any form, is as an adjunct treatment to decrease cravings in alcoholics. This makes logical (and evidence-based) sense, since naltrexone has been proven in multiple studies to accomplish this in alcoholics who wish to abstain or reduce their drinking. Alcoholic brains have not been “re-wire” in the way that opioid addicted brains have, and this is why naltrexone is effective in this, and only this group.
The effect of naltrexone on abstinent opioid addicts, myself included, is literally aversive, which makes sense when one considers that opioid antagonists are not in any way “selective,” meaning that they not only block exogenously administered opioids (such as heroin, morphine, etc.,) but (and this is what makes them ineffective to treat addicts) they also block our own, internal, endogenously produced opioid peptides, like beta-endorphin and enkephalin. Considering how crucial endogenous opioids like the aforementioned are to maintaining a normal, healthy sense of well-being, it cannot come as much of a surprise that naltrexone has proved to be such a failure when utilized to maintain abstinence in opioid addicts. Both from personal as well as anecdotal testimony, naltrexone is to the opioid addict what Kryptonite is to Superman: newly “detoxified” addicts will do everything possible to avoid ingesting this drug, and the depressed and anhedonic state produced by it are so aversive that addicts have been known to literally cut out their newly placed naltrexone implants, so as to produce such suffering and human misery, in the aggregate, that I am truly left scratching my head as to how this program was ever medically approved.
The hard and uncomfortable reality is that no matter how controversial and politically unpopular as it still is, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT)(and, for a smaller sub-group, Suboxone maintenance) has, by orders of magnitude, been the most successful method for re-integrating opioid addicts back into normal, healthy, drug-free and productive lives. Again, don’t take my word for it, but rather consider that no-less than the American Society for Addiction Medicine (A.S.A.M.) has come to consider MMT the “gold standard” in the treatment of opioid addiction. Perhaps this is because, as every opioid addict comes to find out the hard way, abstinence as a treatment end-point is utterly unrealistically achievable, and it is not without reason that MMT has become a life-saving treatment for an addict group that otherwise has no truly effective options. Yes, we’re all familiar with the “former heroin addict” who has been abstinent for 20 years, but these individuals are so exceptional that it begs the question of whether they were ever truly addicted in the first place. I am much more familiar with those addicts who have been shamed and blamed into abstinence-or-else, and unfortunately, far too many of them are now dead.
I should know; at age 47, I have been stabilized on MMT for 15 years, during which time I was able to get married, go back to college and eventually nursing school, and am now pursuing a career as a full-time, free-lance writer. The sad fact remains, however, that in this age of 24/7/365 multimedia news ‘availability,’ success stories like mine are essentially never covered, because (I suspect) that a story like mine is just not as salacious and headline-grabbing as one that, though the absolute exception in reality, serves to shock and horrify readers by re-affirming old prejudices and stereotypes about methadone. After all, sensationalism sells.
As a concluding thought, I beg of everyone reading this to go outside of their comfort zone, step outside of the current flawed paradigm regarding opioid addiction, and re-evaluate the way opioid addiction is treated. One thing that we know for sure is that once the brain has been “re-wired,” so to speak, from opioid addiction, abstinence is not only unrealistic, but in the most consequential sense, more often than not, ultimately a death sentence for the addict who has been afforded no other options.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

The BASIS is a product of the Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School teaching hospital. The Division is an entirely self-funded academic organization that relies on grants, contracts, and gifts in order to produce The BASIS and our other high-quality work.