Wow! I think this list discussion has moved to the heart of the matter. Dave says we must design ALL treatment services as if everyone will recover. This means that providers must also believe this from research such as Harding’s work but also from their clinical practice.

A lot of providers don’t believe in Recovery and I think there are two reasons.

1. Some people don’t recover because of what the AC is calling Trauma of Treatment and the System has trouble recognizing, admitting and apologizing for this. There are only so many times a person can be dragged by the police in front of their community and hospitalized where nurses can’t touch you and forced and forced. (Yet I know people in their 60’s who were in state hospitals and underwent many rounds of Shock whom I consider Recovered because of their obstinate belief in their own definition of themselves and their worth.)
2. Besides Trauma of Treatment — to make up the 25% of people who don’t recover — are the individuals Sylvia has brought to our attention over the years who are themselves victims of family trauma. These people don’t get better without lots and lots of therapy and services delivered that are sensitive to that trauma history.

On the other hand there is Richard whom I consider one of the most astute intellectually, technologically proficient, and a repository of resources to us all, who every now and then is Triggered by events, people, policies, laws to Breakdown. But he puts himself back together over and over again. I have 5 years of e-mail messages to prove this. To me Richard is a basically recovered person because he has Rage at injustice and stupidity and people who treat him as less than he is. He does not tuck his head and agree to avoid stressful topics or situations. He wants more than what Harding calls Stabilization and Maintenance. I think, and I hope I haven’t angered a wonderful person.

The other piece of this Recovery discussion is the extent to which Andrew, and I, at least, see Recovery being used by the DMH because not only is it the latest bandwagon, but also a political tool that may suit current funding. The nightmare clients think about is that counties will develop totally inadequate Recovery programs, run by the wrong people, assign clients to them for 6 mos., pronounce the clients recovered, hand them a diploma, and cease providing support services. Then without services the client goes for a SS review and gets kicked off entitlements as being Recovered. This is the fear.

Those of us with jobs running programs, no longer on SSI, and able to pay for our meds thru some insurance program, need to understand and have empathy for the majority who are not in this role.

Some of us have tough hides; some of us are fragile; few of us have broken brains; we have broken lives and expectations. Syl says this when she defines Recovery personally as how we take care of ourselves beyond any medication and how we recover from all that has come to us.

What they call Recovery can start with what Syl lists as • take your meds, • know a little about your disease, • get a small paying or volunteer job • leading to be a real person. We are first a Real Person and we have to insist that the meds be adjusted to suit how we need to function, and the provider has to listen to our description of what is called “our disease” and that little job has to connect up with our passion.

  Please keep talking about Recovery — hit it from all angles. A statement to the Planning Council would be good so they can have a heads up at least that this R word is no panacea and is reacted to in various ways by the client community/culture.

Bonnie

Dave