Alcohol & drug counseling studies

Drug and alcohol counseling is an interesting profession. Traditionally. most counseling was undertaken by addicts who have transcended the experience to non-use or limited use. Professional counseling from people who have not been addicts is a relative recent entry into the therapeutic process.
Processes like AA and similar organisations are still dominated by the person who has transcended addiction. It is the mainstay of the twelve step process. I guess places like California have introduced standards that reflect that a large number of counselors have a background in addiction and are in need for some training to supplement their addiction experience in the therapy setting. It must also be said that most of these "untrained" counselors have been doing an excellent job because of their commitment to the professional objectives and their understanding of the person who is addicted. Competency based training rather than academic education to supplement their skills is not a step backwards. It is, in effect, a step forward.

This is not to say that university trained counselors are not invaluable in the treatment process, but to acknowledge that the drug and alcohol counseling profession had its origins in the person who recovered or was recovering from addiction and that many of these may remain in the therapeutic setting doing great work. Most services require that the person to be in non use for several years before entering the therapeutic setting.

It is interesting in another thread that it is being raised that universities have spread their arms over profession or trade based training and eliminated other alternatives. Here is an example of industry where the university has not managed a monopoly over the training and probably won't.

 

Direct quote from John Bear / Allen Ezell:

"Fake medical degrees are an urgent problem. It is easy to buy a medical degree from a fake school, or a counterfeit diploma in the name of a real school. Twenty-five years ago, a Congressional committee calculated that there were over 5,000 fake doctors in the United States, and there are many more now. People have died because of these fakes."

If you don't like or believe my comments about fakes in the health-care industry -- go argue with those guys (Bear/Ezell). They're the experts - and Dr. Bear is a long-time member here at DI. :sad:

Johann

 

It was both. :sad: Also, it's a nation-wide problem. Go ask the experts.

Johann

 

My apologies! The point I desire to make is that, my hat is off to all those folks (fakes not included) that are involved in addictions counseling! It requires a lot of work, patience, and numerous other virtues in addition to poor monetary compensation. I certainly don't have those virtues so yes, may God bless them! As far as witch doctors go, that's a global problem!

 

Addictions counseling training/certification is not a "medical degree"! Not even close! Ebbwvale's commentary was informative and illuminating!

 

No - but both are health-care related. There are bogus, unqualified people who B.S. and defraud their way into all levels of health-care. Do some research.

Johann

 

I'll kickstart that research for you, Delta. Here's a guy who posed as a psychologist for several years. He supplemented the income he received from his bogus practice of Psychology by selling marijuana.

DA: Man posed as psychologist, sold pot, too

That's just one. Loads of others, any end of health-care you want.

Johann

 

LOL. That reminds me of that Bob Newhart skit on SNL where he was a therapist. Bob Newhart on SNL

 

I'm not into this stuff so I don't know but it seems a little bit like giving a convicted criminal advanced standing if they're working on a cj degree.:indifferent:

 

"Posing" as someone and getting licensed are two separate things as well! Just because I slept at a Holiday Inn last night doesn't mean I can perform brain surgery! The fact is, licensing standards and State Boards of Medicine, Nursing, Psychology are acutely aware of false credentials when applicants apply for licensure!

Thanks in part to Dr. Bear's research, I believe the standards are much higher than they used to be and holding a fake diploma is not going to get you a State license nowadays! Sure there will be people that "pose" as a professional but that just means that the public needs to be made aware of who is at a minimum, "licensed to practice". Hence, professional license databases available on State websites. Now when it comes to unregulated professions...that's a whole different story! Also, there have been cases of unlicensed Physicians, Dentists, Surgeons, etc. trained in foreign countries caught practicing their trade in a basement. So there is also a "blackmarket" for healthcare that presents a major problem even though the individual may have gone to a bona fide University but was unable to get a license to practice in the USA for whatever reason!

 

I don't think that the analogy works that well. AA was formed by two former alcoholics in the 1930's from memory. Without them, we would not have been any treatment options. Other drug users copied their model of doing business. Nobody else was interested. It was viewed through a moralistic lens rather than a therapeutic one. It was a personal, moral fiber failing, not a health condition.

In the US federal standards decreed that funding had to be accompanied by qualifications. There was a lot of bootstrapping. Professionalization is more likely to stand along side the former addicts, but their role has been instrumental in the provision of therapy. There may be big money treating elites, but the bulk of the client base is at the bottom end of the business where there is little money. I cannot see a time when there would be sufficient university graduates who would be prepared to work as hard for as little as the former addicts.

It is an interesting field because not all addiction is equal. Alcohol is a drug and it causes the most social harm of all drugs. Any police officer will tell you that. It is not as stigmatised as other drug use. Marijuana use produces the lower crime stats, yet it is illicit. Cocaine use in this country may differ from the US. The importation of cocaine is significant, yet it is not coming up in prison or hospital intakes. The drug here is expensive and used by elites who can evade enforcement and the record keeping in hospital intakes.

The other myth is that all drug users are dyfunctional. If that was the case, then everybody who has a drink would be dyfunctional. There is, however, a social class system around drug use which is reflected in therapeutic regimes and in funding. Here hospital beds assigned to drug users are often reported to have been reassigned to other patients based on a moral positioning.

Without former addict participation, it is difficult to see how people addicted to substances would get therapy on the scale that is needed. The issue should be structured around the addiction process, not the drug of choice. When that moves, then I think more professional entry into the therapeutic process will occur. Governments have to do what they can with the resources the people want the issue to have.

 

Good one!!!!

 

Maybe it's because Penn Foster's program is a career diploma and non-credit granting. The undergraduate certificates and associate's degree programs at Penn Foster are more expensive. Penn Foster's program might be enough for California, but it's not enough for many other states. In Texas, for example, Penn Foster's program would be enough to qualify one for registration as an intern, but an associate's degree or higher would be needed in order to become fully licensed. City Vision College's website is not working for me right now, so I can't compare.

 

I'd agree. Reason it's not stigmatised - massive government revenue (here and elsewhere) from the sale.

Same deal with tobacco in China. Any doctor there, who speaks out about the harm caused by smoking, can lose his medical license -- and probably risks jail, as well. Reason - China gets approx. 10% of its tax revenue from the sale of tobacco.

"Money doesn't talk - it swears." - Bob Dylan

Johnan

 

If everything is so squeaky-clean nowadays, why do we need organizations like this one? National Council Against Health Fraud Archive

You objected to my mentioning fake doctors, rather than other health workers, then you go back to discussing MDs. OK - I'll talk about either...

There are likely many more bogus counsellors of various kinds than fake MDs. Reason - it's easier to pull off. In many fields, you don't even have to pretend you're able to diagnose ailments or prescribe medicines. Money's good and many fakes have been able to bill insurers, etc. for high fees over substantial periods. Sometimes the patients have money they can be conned out of, too. Great hunting ground, especially when your patient/client/victims come to your office prepared to reveal all their secrets!

Heck. There are even certification mills that will make you "board-certified" in your chosen "specialty." Trouble is - the "board" in these cases is not a real professional body at all. We've discussed them at length on DI. Nice-looking diploma, though. Fools some!

Johann

 

I never said it was sqweeky clean! States require licensure which means the applicant met some standard. Are there frauds? Absolutely! Board certification from a fraudulent organization won't pass the State licensure requirements! Your argument is flawed and you are confusing imposters with licensed healthcare providers! Bogus credentials won't get you a license to practice nowadays! So it's left to the consumer to either choose a state licensed provider or an unlicensed and possibly practicing illegally one!

 

It seems I can only confuse you, Delta. My argument is not that one can readily obtain licenses by false pretenses. It is - that "credential crackdown" has not in any way eliminated frauds - those with fake, questionable or milled qualifications - from illegal practice in health care and allied professions.

Another fraudulent "doctor" here:

Fake Doctor Is Sentenced to Prison

Johann

 

you can post fakes until you are blue in the face and my point is that there is a system in place and consumers are ignorant!

 

Good points by you for my edification.

 

Without wanting to put words into Johann's mouth, I'm thinking that there is a system in place and not only are the consumers ignorant but the system itself is ignorant. You can't realistically expect the consumers to be better at spotting frauds than the very system that certifies them. Can you? I mean. this is why we pay our taxes, right? So that people who specialize in this stuff can do things for us so that we don't have to do it ourselves. Right? Division of labor. You go make some spear points and I'll go kill a bison. Right?