Counselor Responds-Why Drug Addicted Kids Can't Be Forced Into Treatment (The Fifth Estate)

Should someone struggling with an adult, should someone struggling with a drug addiction be forced into addiction treatment against their will? How about minor children? Should parents be able to sign their teenage child into addiction treatment even if they don't want it? That's actually the subject of a YouTube video I just watched by the Fifth Estate, which is a Canadian broadcast children channel. Now, this video raises a lot of issues, and I really appreciated the way they looked at this question from every angle because it's a complicated question, full of legal issues and ethical pitfalls and medical stuff and family rights. This is a very complicated issue. I thought they did a pretty good job with it. But there were some things I'd like to add in, and I want to hear what you have to say on the subject. So the premise of this video is really about parents in a particular sector, Canada, not being able to basically sign their children into addiction treatment. And they interview a lot of parents. Some of these parents have actually lost their children to addiction. But not only do they look at this from a parent point of view, they also interview several people who are currently struggling with addiction or who have struggled with an addiction. They also talk to lawmakers involved in this process, doctors, counselors, really trying to take a look at it from every single angle. And what's interesting about it is every one of those people had a totally different viewpoint on the issue. The opinions are all over the place when it comes to this. Now, one of the interviews I found most interesting was an interview that they did with a particular lawmaker, and she was talking about how children. That's Anyone less than 18, I assume that's the rules in Canada. That's what it is here in the US has the right to decide whether or not they want any sort of medical treatment. And this doesn't just go when it comes to addiction. This is across the board. But to be honest with you, where this really shows up, up as a issue is really in addiction, because there's not as much controversy around other kinds of medical treatments. You don't find people refusing other kind of medical treatments that they may need outside of addiction. I mean, occasionally you do, but it's not that big of a thing anyways. This lawmaker was talking about how that children should have the right to decide. One of the things that she noted was that oftentimes if you force someone, especially a young person, into addiction treatment, it can backfire on you because they become angry, they lash out. You hold them in there for a few days, you let them out, and they go right back to the same thing. She also noted that because their tolerance was down, because they haven't used in a. In a short period of time, that they may have a risk of overdose, which are somewhat valid points. I would have to agree with some of that, but maybe not all of that. One of the sort of standpoints that this lawmaker was coming from was the idea of forcing someone into treatment for four, five, seven days, like a short period of time. Now, in the United States, there are laws that will allow you to do that with a young person and, or an adult. But I got to tell you, it is very, very difficult to get that to happen. Essentially in the United States, what you have to do is prove that someone is an imminent threat or danger to themselves or others. And when it comes to drug or alcohol addiction, that can be complicated, gray and hazy, and a little difficult to show. And one of the things she said has a little bit of merit to it. If you, if you force someone in for five, seven days, they're just going to be angry and come out. They're not going to engage in treatment. One of the things she noticed, she noted, was that you haven't addressed the underlying issues, which I would agree with. I think if you are going to mandate someone to treatment, it should be longer than five to seven days. The reason I think this is because the brain, a person's brain who's struggling with an addiction isn't clear. In five to seven days, they may be out of danger from withdrawal, like, they're not going to die of withdrawal, but they are definitely not fixed for addiction. In fact, if you put any person in treatment those first, that first week, most any person, even people that sign themselves in, want to leave. You know, they're changing their mind. They have a. What she calls a backlash to it. So I agree with her on that respect. So, but my counterpoint is, is that you, if you're going to do this, you need to leave someone in treatment long enough for their brain to clear. Now, I do think that putting someone in treatment for four or five days does at least allow a person the chance to think through what do they really want to do. Because as we all know, with the nature of addiction, it inhibits your ability to make rational decisions. So, yes, a person may be old enough to make decisions for themselves, but are they able to cognitively to make decisions for themselves when they are under the influence of an addiction? I would say no. I think that that inhibits your ability to reason and think through. A lot of people make statements about how you have to want it in order to recover, which is kind of true, but kind of not. Most people don't want it until they're cleaned up long enough for their brain to work and start to function normally again. And then they can decide whether they want it or they don't want it. But to take someone in a very active addicted state and think that they have to decide that they're going to want it and make a good choice for themselves, chances are pretty low that someone can even do that. And there is a ton of science that explains why that is. In fact, I'll link some videos up at the end of this video that will explain exactly why that is, if you're wondering. Now, in addition to talking to this lawmaker, they also interview several parents. And you can feel the heartbreak and the frustration from these parents. Your heart just absolutely goes out to them. And maybe I really connected to it even more because I talk to parents just like this every single day. And not just parents of children less than 18, parents with grown children, parents of grown children that have children themselves. So, you know, you have a concern about your son or daughter who's an adult, but who's raising your grandchild. And it's just a complicated issue. What makes it to me a little sort of like just not make sense basically, is that if someone demonstrates the symptoms of addiction by doing something criminal, which are the symptoms of addiction, like driving while intoxicated, like selling drugs or alcohol, like stealing, like any of those symptoms, then it's easy, we throw them in jail. We can take away their rights if they have a symptom of the problem that we don't like, but we won't. But we're too scared to sort of infringe on the rights of someone who has the underlying problem that's going to create those issues. Not only is it an issue because, you know, you got to consider whether or not a person has the capacity to make good rational decisions for themselves. But you've also got to consider that addiction doesn't just affect that person, it affects everyone around that person. And I might add that addiction is highly contagious. That's right. When one person is addicted to guess what, they offer it and encourage more people around them to do the same thing, making it highly infectious illness. Now, we all know with the infectious illness issues as of late, that lawmakers and policy and government has stepped in and said what you could and couldn't do and take away your rights to make decisions for yourself. I'm not really weighing in on that political vape, because I'm not an expert in that area, and I don't really know what should be done about that. All I'm just saying is that there's a parallel. Someone has that illness, you know, you've got people that are stepping and making decisions about it, but not for this. Not only is it a question of does a person have the judgment, ability to make the decision, and not only is it an infectious illness, meaning it's easily spread to other people. It affects everyone around them. And let's say the person who's addicted has children, and those children are then helpless. Even very, very functional people that have addictions and alcoholism still having some pretty negative, serious impacts on the children living in those homes. So I guess the question is, where is the balance between individual rights and privacy and the rest of us? You know, you may feel like, well, this child has a right to decide whether or not they need treatment because that's their personal right. But then what if that child is sitting in English class next to your child? How do you feel about it then? This is a complicated issue, and I'm not saying that I have the answers, nor am I totally convinced that I think people should be forced into treatment. What I am saying is that we've got to think deeper about it, and it gets more complicated than that. Not only do we have to figure out should you be able to force people into treatment or not? Which, by the way, is an issue in every country, not just Canada. At one point in the Fifth Estate video, they talk about how in the United States, parents can force their kids to go to treatment up to 18. There are some states that will allow that, but not many. And to be honest with you, most of the time in the United states, if you're 16 or over, you can't do that. It just gets super complicated. Because even if you could do it, there's not enough treatment resources available. And if there were enough treatment resources available, their programs aren't typically long enough to really address the issues, to really come out of it with a positive outcome. And even if the programs were long enough, there's not good enough aftercare to be able to sustain those changes. So as you can see, this is a problem with layers and layers and layers of issues. And I don't think any of us have the clear answer about what should be done. But I will say I think something should change, right? Because the system we have right now isn't working. People are dying left and right, from addiction to drugs, alcohol, and other things. And not only that, but those people are destroying the lives of many of the people around them, right? Addiction affects people for generations and generations. How many of you watching this video had a parent or grandparent that was addicted to substances, right? Did that affect, does that affect you now? Did you have a sibling? Did that affect you? I would venture to say most of you that are in that circumstance would say yes, it had a very large effect on you. Now, in some ways that could be a positive effect, but in a lot of ways, most of the time it's a not so great effect, especially if you grew up in an addicted household. Like I said, super complicated. What do you think? Where do you stand on this issue? What do you think needs to be changed? This is definitely a discussion worth having and I want to know your thoughts in the comments below. If you're struggling with a family member who's addicted and you are powerless like many other people in the fifth Estate video and you don't know what to do, there are tons of free resources on our website. I'll put a link in the description. And many of those resources are about how to engage someone who's in denial, how to motivate someone to take steps towards recovery. Because as of right now, you really can't force someone to do it. So we've got to have other options. And you will find some strategies and techniques in the link in the description below. Up next, those videos about the brain science of addiction and maybe we why Scientifically, a person may not have sufficient insight and judgment to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.