Denied medical / Alcohol & Drug Rehab

The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly tested
and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That sounds
unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.


Why would that seem unreasonable?

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.


Why would that seem unreasonable?

When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.


Why would that seem unreasonable?

When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

--
Peter

The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol treatment
is around 70%.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:23:15 -0400, "Peter R." wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

Why would that seem unreasonable?

When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

I'm not a professional in the field, but I do have some experience
with folks coming out of rehab.

Just doing some time away from one's drug of choice is a
great way to get started on the "clean and sober" life, but
it is no guarantee of success.

Someone who has put together two years is much, much more likely
to be able to keep up with the process of staying in recovery
than someone fresh out of rehab.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
the two-year rule.

Marty

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.

Why would that seem unreasonable?

Because they no longer use drugs or alcohol. I don't see how the risk is
significantly changed by waiting. I'm curious as to whether everyone who
goes through rehab gets their medical revoked for two years. I really doubt
it.

moo

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr
When one completes rehab, isn't one supposed to be clean?

--
Peter

The two year recidivism rate for those undergoing drug & alcohol treatment
is around 70%.

So wouldn't five years be reasonable then? Just to be safe? How about ten?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me. I understand that they're going to appeal.


Based on the procedure outlined in the AIP (LRA 3.4.5), it does not look
promising :-(

Even if you "win" the appeal, that only gains you "reconsideration".
Basically, "winning" just seems to kick the case upstairs to the National
office, and having the Director make the decision, instead of the Regional
medical officer.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message

The latest on this is that this student has been told they must wait two
years, attend AA or other counselling, have liver function regularly
tested and regularly be tested for any use of drugs or alcohol. That
sounds unreasonable to me.

Why is that unreasonable?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote
I'm not a professional in the field, but I do have some experience
with folks coming out of rehab.

Just doing some time away from one's drug of choice is a
great way to get started on the "clean and sober" life, but
it is no guarantee of success.

Someone who has put together two years is much, much more likely
to be able to keep up with the process of staying in recovery
than someone fresh out of rehab.

So? Whay not make it ten years just to be sure?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the folks who made the ruling have
got some good stats as well as field experience to back up
the two-year rule.

I'll bet they don't. I think it's a CYA rubber stamp policy for which
numerous exceptions are made. Do you think that every person with a Medical
who goes through rehab gets it revoked for two years? And, I'll also bet
that this sort of policy encourages people to lie to their medical
examiners.

moo