hello-kitty

This was taken from another site for family members of addicts but might be very helpful in answer a question, "How can I tell if I am enabling?" I just thought I would share. Just replace the word addict with alcoholic.



Enabling: Helping the substance abuser hurt himself with kindness, money, love or general generosity. The theory of enabling a substance abuser is a complicated issue, and one of the most misunderstood and misused theories in modern conventional treatment. The first aspect of this theory is whether generosity given to an addict by a non-addict is hurtful to the addict. The second facet to examine is how the non-addict should react if the addict squanders the kindnesses handed to him or her. And lastly, how much of a role does the non-addict have in regards an addict's attempts at sobriety.

Addicts very rarely say no to the generosity of others. Based on this, the addict will almost always be on the taking side of a relationship. That being said, non-addicts should not kid themselves into believing that the addict will be selfless if given the chance or that they will use that generosity for their own betterment. Almost across the board, substance abusers have a deep sense of emptiness that drives them to seek relief in whatever form that presents itself, and taking and squandering that which is given is the norm. Anyone with experience with an addict can attest to that.

Hurting someone with generosity is oxymoronic. You cannot hurt an addict with love, generosity, or kindness of any kind regardless of how misdirected it is when given. The addict will find relief one way or the other, no matter what. If it is not the generosity of those close to him or her, it will be generosity from someone else they are able to manipulate. They are masters at getting what they want, and no one will stop them from getting it, until they decide to change.

So what can influence an addict to get sober and stay that way? And how does someone close to a taking addict remain feeling good knowing an addict is going to be selfish almost 100 percent of the time?

The fact that addicts are good manipulators is not in question. Where the enabling theory goes wrong is when it states that anyone besides the addict has any power to promote sobriety or force or coerce the addict to be pushed towards a goal, such as abstinence, that he or she is not interested in. As an example, if a husband gives his crack-addicted wife money to bail her out of jail on drug charges, this would be considered enabling her to return to the streets for more crack. But, is that true? The professionals in the field of drug addiction and psychiatry would say yes.

Let us look at the inverse scenario. The husband does not bail her out of jail to teach her a lesson. Is her chance of not smoking crack any greater when she gets out? The answer is probably not. Statistically, bailing someone out of jail leaves you with the same results.

In other words, punishing an addict does not promote sobriety. However, using jail as a temporary means to house an addict while a solution is found and then offered when they get out is a move in the right direction. This is a lot different than punishing them.

Does this mean that the husband should continuously give money and affection until the addict dies from an overdose? Obviously not. If the husband feels in his heart that if he bails her out of jail she will have a greater chance of finding sobriety he should try that. But there is a caveat. If this option does not work he must have the strength to try something new immediately.

The non-addict does not have to participate in an addict's chaotic lifestyle. The non-addict has the right to a sane life, devoid of the chaos that drug addiction causes. Many times, it is the non-addict's decision to break away that makes the addict realize what is important to them, and the needed life change occurs. Unfortunately, just as often, an addict will choose not to abstain or moderate no matter what situations or confrontations are brought to the table.

So what does a family or friend have control over in such difficult situations? The answer is resources.

Family and friends do have control over the resources that could be spent on others instead of the substance abuser. Resources such as time, money, and emotional energy are limited. A substance abuser, if given the chance, will drain a family or anyone close to them of all they have. Eventually, a family is forced to make a decision. When do they stop helping the addict and save their resources so the rest of the family has an opportunity to live a sane life? What if you say enough is enough and then the addict dies alone and in the street? What if you never say no to the addict's requests and they die in the home after you supported them over and over in their crazy exploits?

Take a family with a father, mother, and three teen-agers. The middle child is a 15-year-old boy, and his sisters are 12 and 17. The young man has a heroin problem and the rest of the family is totally drug and alcohol abstinent. The young man used to play sports, was on the honor roll, and was a sociable, likeable sort, but his life has now spiraled into a desperate antisocial state. Almost all of the family's time and resources have been spent on bailing their son out of trouble and on two rehab stays. Emotions are consistently on edge as the young man's fits of self-pity and spoiled anger are a constant disruption. Dad wants him out of the house and Mom could not bear to even think of it. Yet, both are at the breaking point. Both sisters are tired of being put on the back burner as their brother's extreme problems take precedence. Resentment in the household is at an all time high. What are they to do?

Current "tough love" thinking would say put him on the street and change the locks on the house. Emotions say to love their son back to health. Which method is right? Both.

No one is wrong, but eventually practical choices become more limited as new methods are tried and fail. Their son could be tossed into the street, the family could get a second mortgage and pay for another lawyer to get him out of trouble yet again. Or they could simply do nothing and let the son run the show until 18, and then kick him out of the nest.

Through all this confusion and heart-wrenching decision-making, there is only one rule that gets results and it has nothing to do with enabling, tough love, co-dependency, interventions, denial, or diseases. Because time is always running out on a substance abuser, this rule must be practiced with as little emotion as possible. The rule is this: If what you are doing is not working, try something else and do it quickly.

To do nothing or to do the same thing twice with an addict is to participate in the manipulation. This book is not saying to toss him to the street nor to keep him protected. These are decisions only the family can make. We are saying to have the courage to try something different every time an attempt fails.

It comes down to limiting the number of options until the addict either finds a solution or chooses not to. It is their choice. The family's choice is to weigh the options and try them all if that is what it takes. Remember, with an addict, you are always racing against the clock, so your courage will be tested. Make a decision and stick with it. If the attempt does not get the desired results, then move on to the next solution. Above all, do not personalize each attempt. This is not about success or failure. This is about searching for a solution that works. In the appendix there is a list of general options that are available with accompanying success rates. This can help educate you on the options available before you are forced to make decisions.

In the above scenario, let's say the addict son is unwilling to live according to the limits placed on him and the parents agree to have him leave. He moves in with a friend and dies of an overdose a week later. Although utterly tragic, addicts die every year in greater numbers than those who died in all eight years of the Vietnam War. To assume that every parent or friend or professional failed with these people is completely unrealistic. An addict who dies has selfishly imposed his or her misery on those who loved him or her, leaving them crushed by guilt and helplessly broken-hearted. But ultimately, it is not the fault of those who grieve but merely a moment's choice of the substance abuser.

Addicts make their own bed, while screaming that it is everybody else's fault. Enablers do not exist. What does exist are people who follow their hearts as best they know how. Non-addicts should ask themselves, did they continue to try the same things over and over, or did they have the courage to try something new each time the addict decided to squander the previous option given him or her. The non-addict should not wait for things to change on their own.

A non-substance abuser has control over, not the addict's behavior, but rather how that behavior affects the non-addict and the rest of the family members. The label "enabler" implies the non-addict has some control over the addict's behavior. They somehow enable the addict to behave poorly. This is just plain wrong, the bad behavior is the substance abusers fault, not the family's.

If there was a positive replacement label for "enabler," it would be "option presenter."

As an option presenter you can set the stage with an option and measure the results. This lets you know how serious an active addict is in finding a solution. If the option is given, (let's say for the sake of argument that the option was for the addict to complete this text) and then the addict hedges, you probably should go on to the next option which may or may not be to cut all ties to the active addict. Only the non-addict can be the judge of the next option and how many different options they are willing to go through before they expect results. In the option presenter role, you are taking the rightful position in the helping role. The responsibility lies on the addict to perform, not on the non-addict, and the non-addict gains the right to passively sit back and watch. If the non-addict is working for the solution harder than the addict, then the non-addict has become ineffective and has overstepped his or her responsibility.

What the option presenter is trying to find is the solution that contains the right combination of attractive and inspirational ingredients that the addict can see. Once the addict realizes the option can bring happiness, they will bite. That is why it is important to keep trying, as no two people are the same. Some addicts will want to moderate and will be able to, while others will be looking to abstain completely. Others will be looking for a spiritual route, while others will be looking for more tangible goals. Still others will be looking for a combination of all of those things. And there are still others who tragically decide to abuse substances to their death regardless of what is given as an option.

There are no victims, just choices that bring a level of happiness and satisfaction or a level of unhappiness and dissatisfaction. In the case of a family dealing with an active addict, many times there is no option for the non-addicts that can bring them satisfaction. This, then, is the conundrum of drug addiction, the obvious lack of control on the part of the non-addicted. It must be emphatically understood, that when an addict dies it is no one's fault. As an option presenter, it is important to understand that sometimes the addict simply loves to get high more than any option the world can offer, and there is nothing that can be done about it, no matter how many options are presented. Still other times an addict's life is cut short by a mistaken overdose or car accident or the like prior to them finding the solution. Although tragic, it must be remembered that those sorts of mistakes are made by addicts and have nothing to do with the option presenter.

An option presenter's job is to live happily, present options, and weigh the cost of the addict's behavior on the family resources.

parentrecovers

i am so grateful that you shared this, thank you - k

denny57

That's not how I see enabling at all. How does this author make the leap that "they somehow enable the addict to behave poorly?" Would love to know the source material. Thanks.

hello-kitty

I think another thing the author is saying is that if you keep doing the same things over and over and over to try to "help" your addict/alcoholic, you will continue to get the same results.

The article comes from a recovery center website. You may or may not agree with it, but I thought it was an interesting perspective. But, is there a rule about posting websites here? cuz I don't want to get in trouble. I will email a link to you though. And if any oneelse is interested, I'll send you a link.

hello-kitty

hi Denny, I re-read your quote from the article and what I see it saying is that the term "enabler" IMPLIES that a non-addict has control over an addicts using which is why the author doesn't like the term.

It doesn't say that "enablers" actually have control over the addicts behavior, and that's why the term, "option provider" may be more appropriate. It says they control resources (emotional, financial, etc) that can be used on the addict or somewhere else. And that it is up to the non-addict to determine what is the best use of those resources.

It also says that there is only one rule when it comes to dealing with an addict/alcoholic and that rule is "if what you are doing is not working, try something else and do it quickly."

That's all.

I hope the website I sent you is helpful.

denny57

That's what I meant, I don't see it that way. I've been sent the link and am looking forward to reading it. I'm always open to other opinions.