I know, I know I’m constantly banging on about language, however I consider it very important that when we’re discussing a topic we’re all on the same page, talking about the same thing at the same time.  So why then when I refer to Abstinence – I am clear that I mean free of all mood altering chemicals (drugs and alcohol) except those prescribed for a recognised physical or mental health condition – am i now discovering the word is being used to mean  free “from presenting issue” and in fact the PbR report: Performance of Payment by Results pilot areas: April 2012 to February 2013 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194007/Agenda_item_3.2_-_Pilot_data_for_publication_on_the_web.pdf) refers to “the improvements in abstinence from illicit drug use” when actually they are referring to substitute prescribing.  Why not say what it is?  Why not say substitute prescribing?  Why not say methadone maintenance?  Is this another way of misleading the outcomes and using statistics to meet the needs of the bureaucrats?

When residential treatment services use the term, like me, we’re clear about abstinence and have an acceptance that it would include not only “presenting substance” but also other illicit items and alcohol also.  Why then are we expected to accept other treatment options delivering rehabilitation, bastardising terms to suit their outcomes?

Contentious? of course, your thoughts as always are welcomed dear folk…