BACKGROUND:Moral philosophers have debated the extent to which persons are individually responsible for the onset of and recovery from addiction. Empirical investigators have begun to explore counselors' attitudes on these questions. Meanwhile, a separate literature has investigated counselors' negative attitudes towards naltrexone, an important element of medication-assisted treatment for alcohol addiction. The present study bridges the literature on counselor views about responsibility for addiction with the literature on attitudes towards naltrexone. It investigates the extent to which a counselor's views of individual responsibility for alcohol addiction are related to that counselor's views of naltrexone.METHODS:Using a vignette-based survey of 117 addiction treatment professionals, the study analyzes the relationship between an addiction counselor's views about individual responsibility for alcohol addiction and using naltrexone to treat it.RESULTS:We find a significant difference in counselors who assign greater responsibility to a person for the onset of alcohol addiction. They agreed more strongly with several objections to naltrexone, including worries about compliance, naltrexone's side effects outweighing its benefits, naltrexone treating symptoms but not underlying causes, and the idea that medication may undermine a person's motivation to recover. Combined views of greater responsibility for addiction's onset and recovery also significantly predicted stronger agreement with objections.CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that there is a strong relationship between a counselor assigning higher individual responsibility for addiction and holding more negative views about naltrexone. The study also sheds light on one reason why the model of addiction as a brain disease has had limited impact on clinical practice.

This 1-year longitudinal study of adults who have recently transitioned from homelessness to Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) focuses on quality of life as a primary outcome of interest. Eighty of 103 new tenants participated in structured interviews at the time of entry into their new home and at 12-months post-housing. t-tests assessed differences in community participation and quality of life measures at the 2 time points. Mixed effects models examined the impact of community participation on quality of life. Results show that time in independent housing was significantly associated with several domains of quality of life. Symptom severity was also significantly and negatively related to quality of life domains. Community participation was significantly related to frequency of social contacts only. These findings suggest that community participation is not critical to improving quality of life, and that despite concerns that individuals may feel isolated and lonely when living independently, satisfaction with one׳s living situation and family relationships nevertheless improves with housing tenure.

Objective: The goal of this study was to test the degree to which client clinical characteristics and environmental context and social workers' practice values and experience influenced support for client's autonomy and willingness to engage in shared decision making (SDM), and whether willingness to engage in SDM was mediated by support for autonomy.Method: A randomized factorial survey of social workers working with adults with severe mental illness was employed. Eighty-seven social workers responded yielding 435 vignettes.Results: Hypotheses were partially supported. Diagnosis, symptomology, threats of harm, treatment adherence, substance use, and social workers' values and experience predicted support for autonomy and willingness to engage in SDM. Willingness to engage in SDM was modestly mediated by support for autonomy.Conclusion: Helping social workers avoid bias in decision making is critical to the goal of supporting clients' autonomy, building their capacity, minimizing disempowerment, and promoting recovery.

The mental health recovery movement promotes patient self-determination and opposes coercive psychiatric treatment. While it has made great strides towards these ends, its rhetoric impairs its political efficacy. We illustrate how psychiatry can share recovery values and yet appear to violate them. In certain criminal proceedings, for example, forensic psychiatrists routinely argue that persons with mental illness who have committed crimes are not full moral agents. Such arguments align with the recovery movement’s aim of providing appropriate treatment and services for people with severe mental illness, but contradict its fundamental principle of self-determination. We suggest that this contradiction should be addressed with some urgency, and we recommend a multidisciplinary collaborative effort involving ethics, law, psychiatry, and social policy to address this and other ethical questions that arise as the United States strives to implement recovery-oriented programs.