30
Share on bsky
When I first entered the addiction treatment world, I found myself sitting around a table discussing the opening of a rehab centre, listening to what felt like a well-rehearsed certainty about how addiction should be treated, spoken with confidence and conviction, as though the answers had long since been settled and no further questioning was required.
The prevailing approach was rigid and abstinence-led, largely rooted in 12-step ideology, with an unspoken but ever-present belief that people needed to be confronted, broken down, and held firmly accountable through a therapeutic community model that often carried an air of shame disguised as responsibility.
I remember offering something different, not as an act of defiance but as a genuine belief in another way of working, speaking about person-centred care, about meeting the individual rather than the behaviour, about safety, relationship, and curiosity as foundations for change, rather than control, fear, or moral correction.
What came back was not curiosity, but resistance, and in some cases open ridicule.
I was told it wouldn’t work, that I was being naïve, that you had to be hard-lined and rigid with addicts, because without firm boundaries and confrontation they would manipulate the system, relapse endlessly, and take advantage of kindness, as though compassion itself were a liability.
What struck me most was not just the disagreement, but the underlying fear that seemed to sit beneath it, the idea that treating someone with humanity could somehow make things worse, or that safety might undermine recovery rather than support it.
I knew this wasn’t true, not only because I was a practising psychotherapist trained in integrative, person-centred work, but because I had lived inside addictive cycles myself for many years, long enough to understand what shame does to the nervous system, how quickly people shut down when they feel judged or reduced to a diagnosis, and how survival strategies get mistaken for moral failure.
I had originally trained as an integrative counsellor because the person-centred philosophy spoke to something deeply human in me, the belief that people naturally move toward growth when they are met with empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard, and that meaningful change happens in relationship rather than through force or compliance.
As I worked more deeply in addiction services, something continued to feel off, not in a dramatic way, but as a persistent discomfort that wouldn’t settle.
The work was overwhelmingly focused on abstinence, on behaviour management, on stopping the substance, while the reasons someone needed to numb, soothe, escape, or regulate themselves in the first place were often sidelined or postponed, treated as secondary issues to be addressed later, once sobriety had been achieved.
It felt blaringly obvious to me that this was like placing a plaster over an open, festering wound, hoping that if it stayed in place long enough the injury beneath would somehow resolve itself, even though the conditions that caused it remained untouched.
Eventually, the plaster would fall off, and when it did, the person was often left feeling even more broken than before, carrying yet another confirmation that they had failed, that they were incapable of change, that something about them was fundamentally flawed.
What we were often reinforcing, without meaning to, were deeper fractures in self-worth.
I held onto the idea, sometimes quietly and sometimes stubbornly, that treating the individual as a whole person mattered, that addiction rarely exists in isolation, and that self-medication is far more often about survival than pleasure, about regulating overwhelmed bodies and minds rather than chasing escape.
I was also told, more than once, that this approach was dangerous, that by focusing on the person rather than the addiction we were somehow colluding with it, that without rigidity and confrontation people would spiral, relapse, or deteriorate.
Fast-forward to the present day, and much of this feels far less controversial than it once did.
We now understand far more about trauma, attachment, and the nervous system, and the links between substance misuse and mental health are no longer fringe ideas but well-established realities, even if practice has not yet fully caught up with theory.
For years, the prevailing belief was that you couldn’t treat mental health until the addiction was addressed, as though the two were separable, as though someone could simply remove the substance without understanding the conditions that made it necessary.
What we began doing instead was deceptively simple, though far from easy.
We treated the person.
We listened, not with suspicion or a search for manipulation, but with curiosity about what substances had provided when nothing else felt available; we slowed the work down, focused on safety and consistency, and prioritised relationship as the container within which change might eventually occur.
What unfolded was something I will always hold with deep respect.
When people felt seen, genuinely seen rather than managed or monitored, their sense of worth began to shift, and when shame softened, defences loosened, making space for honesty where secrecy had once lived.
Instead of repeatedly slapping on a plaster, we began gently cleaning the wound, carefully and patiently, allowing it to breathe, trusting the body and psyche to do what they are wired to do when the conditions are right, which is to heal.
There was less scar tissue, and more resilience.
What emerged wasn’t just abstinence, but agency, not just compliance, but choice, not simply sobriety, but a growing capacity to stay present with discomfort rather than needing to escape it.
This work has taken me into a depth of relational engagement I could not have anticipated, teaching me humility, challenging my own limits, and reminding me repeatedly that people don’t heal because they are forced to, but because something within them finally feels safe enough to change.
I’m grateful that the field is slowly evolving, even if unevenly, and I remain proud of the early conviction I was once encouraged to abandon.
As I look ahead, I feel far less interested in rigid answers and far more committed to curiosity, less drawn to certainty and more to presence, and far less willing to participate in systems that ask people to continue abusing themselves in the name of treatment.
Because recovery, at its core, was never about becoming someone new.
It has always been about being allowed to be someone at all.
~
Read 2 comments and reply