Please no plagiarism and make sure you are ab

25 Aug Please no plagiarism and make sure you are ab

Please no plagiarism and make sure you are able to access all resource on your own before you bid. Main references come from Van Wormer, K., & Davis, D. R. (2018) and/or American Psychiatric Association. (2013). You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation regarding treatment. I have also attached my discussion rubric so you can see how to make full points. Please respond to all 3 of my classmates separately with separate references for each response. You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation like peer-reviewed, professional scholarly journals. If you draw from the internet, I encourage you to use websites from the major mental health professional associations (American Counseling Association, American Psychological Association, etc.) or federal agencies (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc.). I need this completed by 03/03/19 at 3pm.

Expectation:

Responses to peers. Note that this is measured by both the quantity and quality of your posts. Does your post contribute to continuing the discussion? Are your ideas supported with citations from the learning resources and other scholarly sources? Note that citations are expected for both your main post and your response posts. Note also, that, although it is often helpful and important to provide one or two sentence responses thanking somebody or supporting them or commiserating with them, those types of responses do not always further the discussion as much as they check in with the author. Such responses are appropriate and encouraged; however, they should be considered supplemental to more substantive responses, not sufficient by themselves.

Read a your colleagues’ postings. Respond to your colleagues’ postings.

Respond in one or more of the following ways:

· Ask a probing question.

· Share an insight gained from having read your colleague’s posting.

· Offer and support an opinion.

· Validate an idea with your own experience.

· Make a suggestion.

· Expand on your colleague’s posting.

1. Classmate (A.Mc)

Historical Development

Aside from the initial discovery of state-altering substances, it is difficult to pinpoint a specific development that has contributed the most to addictive disorders. However, in the 15th century, it was discovered that the process of distillation would increase the potency of alcohol (Van Wormer & Davis, 2018). In my opinion, this development may be representative of people’s increased dependency on alcohol and their increased desire to suppress emotions and pain. The original development of alcohol distillation may have changed the mindsets of buyers and sellers of alcohol, with parties always searching for the next strongest “downer.” Ultimately, this mentality facilitates the process of becoming addicted to a substance.

Current Trends and Contemporary Variables

As time passes, I think it is becoming more apparent that each individual experiences their addiction quite differently. In fact, some research has concluded that there is no universal approach to addiction (Hester & Miller, 2003, as cited in Van Wormer & Davis, 2018). Neuroscience research reinforces that alcohol and drugs target the brain; being able to better understand what is happening in the brain, may better inform substance-use treatment and interventions (Nutt & McLellan, 2012). To complete this thought, every individual’s chemical makeup, even in the brain, is certainly unique. Thus, addictive counselors must strive for individualized treatment and intervention plans. There are arguments against neuroscience research. Some of which say that the research will blind policy makers, resulting in a lack of population-level approaches (e.g. taxation and regulations) that have been shown to work in the past (Gartner, Carter, & Partridge, 2012).

There is a gap of services for those on different ends of the socioeconomic pole. For example, those with lower socioeconomic status do not have access to high standards of mental health treatments (Van Wormer & Davis, 2018). Further, different tiers of insurance plans may cover different treatments or different parts of treatments. Thus, the treatments provided to individuals in need may be dictated by insurance companies, rather than by the practitioner (i.e. the treatments given might be the most cost effective, not necessarily what is needed).

Field Advancement

I have seen a lack of communication and many gray areas in the field of addiction treatment. An individual’s addiction treatment is primarily their responsibility, however, oftentimes a supportive environment is important. This environment might consist of therapists, family, friends, sponsors, and other mental health and medical professionals. My brother, who struggles with addiction, was doing very well before he got into a car accident with a semi-truck. With numerous back injuries, he was admitted to the hospital. Upon initial care, my mom took the time to let his doctors know that he struggles with addiction and that addictive pain killers (for his back) would not be healthy. What felt like seconds after I walked out of the hospital with my mom, leaving him in the hands of medical professionals, he was given addictive pain killers, which ultimately led him to relapse. I understand that it is a physician’s job to treat pain, and they can face legal consequences for undertreating pain (Dineen & DuBois, 2016); however, I have been unable to find any guidelines which encourage medical professionals not to prescribe addictive treatment methods to patients like my brother. In fact, during a breakout session during pre-practicum 1, I asked the session instructor about this, and she told me that doctors are not required to refuse addictive painkillers to those who are struggling with addiction. To advance the field of addiction treatment, I believe that we need to advocate for individuals like my brother who have a hard time saying no. Further, I would love to see a more collaborative effort, more communication, and more understanding between all players moving in and out of the environment of these individuals.

References

Van Wormer, K., & Davis, D. R. (2018). Addiction treatment: A strengths perspective (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.

Dineen, K. K., & DuBois, J. M. (2016). Between a rock and a hard place: Can physicians
prescribe opioids to treat pain adequately while avoiding legal sanction? American
journal of law & medicine, 42(1), 7-52.

Gartner, C. E., Carter, A., & Partridge, B. (2012). What are the public policy implications of a
neurobiological view of addiction? Addiction, 107(7), 1199–1200. Retrieved from the
Walden Library databases.

Nutt, D., & McLellan, A. T. (2012). Can neuroscience improve addiction treatment and
policies? Public Health Reviews, 35(2), 1–12. Retrieved from the Walden Library
databases.

Please no plagiarism and make sure you are able to access all resource on your own before you bid. Main references come from Van Wormer, K., & Davis, D. R. (2018) and/or American Psychiatric Association. (2013). You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation regarding treatment. I have also attached my discussion rubric so you can see how to make full points. Please respond to all 3 of my classmates separately with separate references for each response. You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation like peer-reviewed, professional scholarly journals. If you draw from the internet, I encourage you to use websites from the major mental health professional associations (American Counseling Association, American Psychological Association, etc.) or federal agencies (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc.). I need this completed by 03/03/19 at 3pm.

Expectation:

Responses to peers. Note that this is measured by both the quantity and quality of your posts. Does your post contribute to continuing the discussion? Are your ideas supported with citations from the learning resources and other scholarly sources? Note that citations are expected for both your main post and your response posts. Note also, that, although it is often helpful and important to provide one or two sentence responses thanking somebody or supporting them or commiserating with them, those types of responses do not always further the discussion as much as they check in with the author. Such responses are appropriate and encouraged; however, they should be considered supplemental to more substantive responses, not sufficient by themselves.

Read a your colleagues’ postings. Respond to your colleagues’ postings.

Respond in one or more of the following ways:

· Ask a probing question.

· Share an insight gained from having read your colleague’s posting.

· Offer and support an opinion.

· Validate an idea with your own experience.

· Make a suggestion.

· Expand on your colleague’s posting.

1. Classmate (A.Mc)

Historical Development

Aside from the initial discovery of state-altering substances, it is difficult to pinpoint a specific development that has contributed the most to addictive disorders. However, in the 15th century, it was discovered that the process of distillation would increase the potency of alcohol (Van Wormer & Davis, 2018). In my opinion, this development may be representative of people’s increased dependency on alcohol and their increased desire to suppress emotions and pain. The original development of alcohol distillation may have changed the mindsets of buyers and sellers of alcohol, with parties always searching for the next strongest “downer.” Ultimately, this mentality facilitates the process of becoming addicted to a substance.

Current Trends and Contemporary Variables

As time passes, I think it is becoming more apparent that each individual experiences their addiction quite differently. In fact, some research has concluded that there is no universal approach to addiction (Hester & Miller, 2003, as cited in Van Wormer & Davis, 2018). Neuroscience research reinforces that alcohol and drugs target the brain; being able to better understand what is happening in the brain, may better inform substance-use treatment and interventions (Nutt & McLellan, 2012). To complete this thought, every individual’s chemical makeup, even in the brain, is certainly unique. Thus, addictive counselors must strive for individualized treatment and intervention plans. There are arguments against neuroscience research. Some of which say that the research will blind policy makers, resulting in a lack of population-level approaches (e.g. taxation and regulations) that have been shown to work in the past (Gartner, Carter, & Partridge, 2012).

There is a gap of services for those on different ends of the socioeconomic pole. For example, those with lower socioeconomic status do not have access to high standards of mental health treatments (Van Wormer & Davis, 2018). Further, different tiers of insurance plans may cover different treatments or different parts of treatments. Thus, the treatments provided to individuals in need may be dictated by insurance companies, rather than by the practitioner (i.e. the treatments given might be the most cost effective, not necessarily what is needed).

Field Advancement

I have seen a lack of communication and many gray areas in the field of addiction treatment. An individual’s addiction treatment is primarily their responsibility, however, oftentimes a supportive environment is important. This environment might consist of therapists, family, friends, sponsors, and other mental health and medical professionals. My brother, who struggles with addiction, was doing very well before he got into a car accident with a semi-truck. With numerous back injuries, he was admitted to the hospital. Upon initial care, my mom took the time to let his doctors know that he struggles with addiction and that addictive pain killers (for his back) would not be healthy. What felt like seconds after I walked out of the hospital with my mom, leaving him in the hands of medical professionals, he was given addictive pain killers, which ultimately led him to relapse. I understand that it is a physician’s job to treat pain, and they can face legal consequences for undertreating pain (Dineen & DuBois, 2016); however, I have been unable to find any guidelines which encourage medical professionals not to prescribe addictive treatment methods to patients like my brother. In fact, during a breakout session during pre-practicum 1, I asked the session instructor about this, and she told me that doctors are not required to refuse addictive painkillers to those who are struggling with addiction. To advance the field of addiction treatment, I believe that we need to advocate for individuals like my brother who have a hard time saying no. Further, I would love to see a more collaborative effort, more communication, and more understanding between all players moving in and out of the environment of these individuals.

References

Van Wormer, K., & Davis, D. R. (2018). Addiction treatment: A strengths perspective (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.

Dineen, K. K., & DuBois, J. M. (2016). Between a rock and a hard place: Can physicians
prescribe opioids to treat pain adequately while avoiding legal sanction? American
journal of law & medicine, 42(1), 7-52.

Gartner, C. E., Carter, A., & Partridge, B. (2012). What are the public policy implications of a
neurobiological view of addiction? Addiction, 107(7), 1199–1200. Retrieved from the
Walden Library databases.

Nutt, D., & McLellan, A. T. (2012). Can neuroscience improve addiction treatment and
policies? Public Health Reviews, 35(2), 1–12. Retrieved from the Walden Library
databases.