I take it to mean that she is allowed to continue to work within the medical profession under supervision and with restrictions on the type ow work she can do and that there will be a review where she will be expected to demonstrate she has made progress. (That's my summary after a quick read.)
NOT (as a rule) something extended to AHPs and Nurses
Leaving evidence/stats to one side, might the issue be around the propensity of more senior members of the profession to be legally represented?
thirdcrank wrote: I take it to mean that she is allowed to continue to work within the medical profession under supervision and with restrictions on the type ow work she can do and that there will be a review where she will be expected to demonstrate she has made progress. (That's my summary after a quick read.)
NOT (as a rule) something extended to AHPs and Nurses
Leaving evidence/stats to one side, might the issue be around the propensity of more senior members of the profession to be legally represented?
By the Medical Defence Union. Almost all doctors seem to be a member of it or a similar organisation. A trade union would provide similar representation for less senior staff.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
"... I am officially considered an alcoholic by the more stringent tests, because I have a pint a night."
Really? Tests (such as they are) for "alcoholism" only loosely linked to amount. More, damage to body and to life-ability. And give her a chance. The medical profession ought at least to recognise an illness and one which can be controlled, like say diabetes. They often don't though - like the doctors and nurses who have said to me "oh if you've not had a drink for that long (15 years, 6 months, 2 weeks and 2 days as of today) then just 1 or 2 won't hurt...". Yeah, right, I'm an alcoholic, I will be however long I don't drink (or indeed do). IF I could have a pint (or even 5) a night I'd be so happy. But an alcoholic can't.
She's young and presumably intelligent, she can stop - with help.
djnotts wrote:"... I am officially considered an alcoholic by the more stringent tests, because I have a pint a night."
Really? Tests (such as they are) for "alcoholism" only loosely linked to amount. More, damage to body and to life-ability. And give her a chance. The medical profession ought at least to recognise an illness and one which can be controlled, like say diabetes. They often don't though - like the doctors and nurses who have said to me "oh if you've not had a drink for that long (15 years, 6 months, 2 weeks and 2 days as of today) then just 1 or 2 won't hurt..." ..
I thought **everyone** knew that abstaining alcoholics were not allowed to drink at all, are alternative opinions available?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
In my not insignificant experience too many "medical" professionals really do know very little about alcoholism (and presumably other addictions), which is given very little attention in "training" despite it being a key factor/cause in many illnesses.
djnotts wrote:"... I am officially considered an alcoholic by the more stringent tests, because I have a pint a night."
Really? Tests (such as they are) for "alcoholism" only loosely linked to amount. More, damage to body and to life-ability. And give her a chance. The medical profession ought at least to recognise an illness and one which can be controlled, like say diabetes. They often don't though - like the doctors and nurses who have said to me "oh if you've not had a drink for that long (15 years, 6 months, 2 weeks and 2 days as of today) then just 1 or 2 won't hurt..." ..
I thought **everyone** knew that abstaining alcoholics were not allowed to drink at all, are alternative opinions available?
From the "AA" Website:
At the same time, it will be pointed out that all available medical testimony indicates that alcoholism is a progressive illness, that it cannot be cured in the ordinary sense of the term, but that it can be arrested through total abstinence from alcohol in any form.
djnotts wrote:"... I am officially considered an alcoholic by the more stringent tests, because I have a pint a night."
Really? Tests (such as they are) for "alcoholism" only loosely linked to amount. More, damage to body and to life-ability. And give her a chance. The medical profession ought at least to recognise an illness and one which can be controlled, like say diabetes. They often don't though - like the doctors and nurses who have said to me "oh if you've not had a drink for that long (15 years, 6 months, 2 weeks and 2 days as of today) then just 1 or 2 won't hurt..." ..
I thought **everyone** knew that abstaining alcoholics were not allowed to drink at all, are alternative opinions available?
From the "AA" Website:
At the same time, it will be pointed out that all available medical testimony indicates that alcoholism is a progressive illness, that it cannot be cured in the ordinary sense of the term, but that it can be arrested through total abstinence from alcohol in any form.
Yeah but do you know the difference between a drunk and an alcoholic? A drunk doesn't have to go to all those meetings and everyone knows who he is.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
In my youth I was a drunk for a while. I didn't combine it with driving, but it was bad for my health and it was not a good thing. I'd get really drunk several times a week. I knew I was not an alcoholic because I was doing it through choice, and occasionally I would have a week or two with no alcohol and not really miss it. I drank to enjoy the social life that came with it. I didn't drink alone. An alcoholic, as I understand it, feels compelled to drink even when they are alone, and not going out for the evening. I never craved a drink when I was alone. That is my understanding of the difference between "problem drinking" and alcoholism.
I'm happy to report that I got bored with pub life, gave up alcohol altogether for a year, and since that time I have had thirty odd years of being a very moderate consumer of alcohol, and although I don't drive after more than one modest glass of wine I rarely get to a point where I would be over the limit, even when I am not going to drive. And I just don't want to get drunk. After a couple of glasses my appetite for more goes.
djnotts wrote:In my not insignificant experience too many "medical" professionals really do know very little about alcoholism (and presumably other addictions), which is given very little attention in "training" despite it being a key factor/cause in many illnesses.
I agree. It is a specialism in itself, something I only fully appreciated whilst working for the Priory Group.
