Anyone have any experience dealing with addictionologists?

[mmonk]

How legitimate are they concerning their initial anaysis in reference to someone who has been asked to be evaluated by an employer or license board?

[NMDemDist2]

1. you may also want to ask this in the Addiction and Recovery Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=336

[sui generis]

2. it depends

they have to justify their jobs, so I'm rather cynical. I've actually heard one in my ex-SO's MSSW program claim that the corporate standard for alcoholism was set at more than three alcoholic beverages in a month where she worked.

If your friend is in front of a license board, they need to completely cave - they have zero remedy especially if there's a question.

What harm is there - go through their evaluation, be honest, participate, learn. If someone has a perception that someone else is an addict, then whether there is addiction or not, there is a problem. What harm is there exploring the idea of addiction first, then deciding if it fits?

Being cooperative and open minded and not prejudging is probably the best strategy. At worst it's an inconvenience, and at best it may save somebody's life, personal relationships, and career.

[mmonk]

4. No problem with finding out.

I've never heard the term before. Therefore, how much of it is just speculation concerning an evaluation? Does that person then have to go on probation in their work and be monitored for drugs or alcohol for an extended period of time on speculation or is it scientific?

[sui generis]

8. good question

Another reason to be a bit cautious here: those people are often affiliated with the treatment center they recommend . . . and it's in their business to stay in business.

Here is what I would suggest - take charge. That person should agree to be evaluated (to keep job at the very least) but should also have an agreement that their full case notes, recommendations, detailed criteria used and graded, and any taped record of the interview in its entirety be made fully available to the employee immediately following the evaluation process, ostensibly for the purpose of getting an independent second opinion. If they are going to attempt what constitutes a forced medical diagnosis on you to determine your suitability for continued employment, it is a health record, and you own it and it must be made available to you in its entirety.

If they are unwilling to do that then they're hiding something.

Just the same if your friend has the beginnings of a problem, he or she would be advised to talk directly to their supervisor and seek some form of counseling anyway (resolve to attend an NA or AA meeting once a week for three months) as a good faith effort and let the supervisor/manager know. This simple effort may spare the larger corporate bureaucracy from getting involved.

[mmonk]

9. I'll pass the advice onto her

but she is being evaluated today.

[sasha031]

3. I have never heard of the term addictionologists

perhaps it's a newer term from my day, we use to call it intervention, whereas the family members and employer would confront the person having a problem with a particular substance ie. alcohol. The motivation would be tough love so that the person involved would go into treatment.

I hope we are talking the same thing and it was helpful.

[mmonk]

5. Not exactly.

The board, instead of taking a person's word for it after an investigation, is covering the bases all based on an unproven accusation.

[sasha031]

6. this doesn't sound good

if I were the person, I might contact an attorney right away,

[mmonk]

7. She took the remedy

because they held her license over her head and the attorney route would have been expensive and going before the board isn't a court of law.