Question
1:
a)
Would the Fellowship discuss and share experience of disabled AA
members suffering progressive diseases who require a full-time
professional carer to accompany them in their AA Home Group
meetings?
b) Would the Fellowship discuss the implications within Tradition 12 of the professional carer attending meetings, thus enabling the disabled group member to continue to attend the AA meeting of their choice?
c) Would the Fellowship discuss and make recommendations on how best the special needs of disabled AA members who need professional carers might be met in closed AA meetings?
Background
1. The Information Sheet on AA Special Needs Organisation in the United States:
b) Would the Fellowship discuss the implications within Tradition 12 of the professional carer attending meetings, thus enabling the disabled group member to continue to attend the AA meeting of their choice?
c) Would the Fellowship discuss and make recommendations on how best the special needs of disabled AA members who need professional carers might be met in closed AA meetings?
Background
1. The Information Sheet on AA Special Needs Organisation in the United States:
''SPECIAL
NEEDS / ACCESSIBILITIES COMMITTEES''
Some A.A. entities are attempting to meet such needs by forming Special Needs-Accessibilities Committees.
Since the goal is to make A.A. accessible, some committees refer to themselves as Accessibilities Committees. In some localities committees name themselves according to the specific need addressed, such as "Hearing impaired" committee".
When one or more members of an A.A. group have special needs (such as the need for American sign language interpreter or *wheelchair accessibility, or has an illness which prevents them getting to the meeting room or needs special physical help, i.e., getting to the toilet during the meeting, A.A. members from that Group will see their needs are met.
The Members of Special Needs Committees explore, develop and offer resources to make the AA message and participation in our AA PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WHO REACHES OUT FOR IT.
A G.S.O. Staff member who serves on the Special Needs Assignment is available as a resource and communicates with the local Special Needs Committees. In the interests of good communication and working together, Special Needs Committees are encouraged to keep their area Committees and local central/intergroup informed of their activities.
It is also helpful to work closely with committees handling Public lnformation and co-operation with the Professional Community in terms of keeping the public and appropriate agencies informed about A.A. BEING ACCESSIBLE TO ALCOHOLICS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.
Some A.A. entities are attempting to meet such needs by forming Special Needs-Accessibilities Committees.
Since the goal is to make A.A. accessible, some committees refer to themselves as Accessibilities Committees. In some localities committees name themselves according to the specific need addressed, such as "Hearing impaired" committee".
When one or more members of an A.A. group have special needs (such as the need for American sign language interpreter or *wheelchair accessibility, or has an illness which prevents them getting to the meeting room or needs special physical help, i.e., getting to the toilet during the meeting, A.A. members from that Group will see their needs are met.
The Members of Special Needs Committees explore, develop and offer resources to make the AA message and participation in our AA PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WHO REACHES OUT FOR IT.
A G.S.O. Staff member who serves on the Special Needs Assignment is available as a resource and communicates with the local Special Needs Committees. In the interests of good communication and working together, Special Needs Committees are encouraged to keep their area Committees and local central/intergroup informed of their activities.
It is also helpful to work closely with committees handling Public lnformation and co-operation with the Professional Community in terms of keeping the public and appropriate agencies informed about A.A. BEING ACCESSIBLE TO ALCOHOLICS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.
2.
This has been a local experience:
My Home Group has a long term female AA member with 24 years unbroken sobriety who suffers from a progressive disease.
She is unable to walk and has to use a wheelchair. She has valiantly attended her home group meeting regularly for some years since it was first started. She is an ex Journalist, in possession of a brilliant mind which is unaffected by her illness, but unfortunately, she is physically trapped in an extremely poorly functioning body.
When her health deteriorated she made a request to the members of her Home Group, which is a Closed Meeting, for permission for her Professional Carer to be present. There was minor dissent within the Group and the question could not be resolved as it was said that it only takes one member to raise an objection.
This incident has raised very serious, broader present and future issues for ALL AA Group members who may develop a serious progressive disease and who would eventually need a Carer present in the AA meetings.
My Home Group has a long term female AA member with 24 years unbroken sobriety who suffers from a progressive disease.
She is unable to walk and has to use a wheelchair. She has valiantly attended her home group meeting regularly for some years since it was first started. She is an ex Journalist, in possession of a brilliant mind which is unaffected by her illness, but unfortunately, she is physically trapped in an extremely poorly functioning body.
When her health deteriorated she made a request to the members of her Home Group, which is a Closed Meeting, for permission for her Professional Carer to be present. There was minor dissent within the Group and the question could not be resolved as it was said that it only takes one member to raise an objection.
This incident has raised very serious, broader present and future issues for ALL AA Group members who may develop a serious progressive disease and who would eventually need a Carer present in the AA meetings.
[See
also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]
“It
seems some groups have forgotten AA Traditions and are now on rule
making benders with dictators making their own rules up as they go
along. Regarding ….....'s and …......’s experience of a
minority being able to veto a group conscience decision to make a
meeting open, there ought to be no such veto rules in AA groups. This
question raises the sort of situation that Traditions and Concepts
are supposed to prevent. Over the past two decades I have
participated in more group consciences and business meetings than I
care to remember. I have never heard of one alcoholic or a minority
in an AA group having absolute power to veto the majority vote. I
have also read AA literature relating to AA Traditions, Concepts and
history more times than I care to remember. I have not yet read
anything to suggest that one alcoholic or a minority in an AA group
can have absolute power to veto a group conscience decision. The veto
rule is the reverse of the democratic principles in Traditions Two
and Nine. Minor proposals can be decided by a simple majority vote,
major or controversial proposals are best not carried unless there is
a two-thirds majority in favour. Either way, the guide to the group
conscience ought to be the AA Traditions, group guidelines and
Concepts. Adhering to these principles ought to be the overriding
factor in any group decision, not based just on the intellectual or
emotional froth that bubbles up in alcoholics' heads when they think
about what might be the right thing to do. The decision taken by
majority vote and no minority in the group has power to veto the
majority. If there is discussion on whether the matter ought to be
settled by a simple or a two-thirds majority, then this could be
decided by simple majority vote.
Referring to "Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age" appendix E:b “THERAPEUTIC MECHANISM OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS” by Harry Tiebout M.D., [and see here] I don’t think AA can afford to have groups who exclude alcoholics by pandering to the self-centred desires of those who display the typical alcoholic personality characteristics described by Dr. Tiebout “ a narcissistic egocentric core, dominated by feelings of omnipotence, intent on maintaining at all costs its inner integrity...” If groups do pander to these narcissistic egocentric cores and in so doing allow them to exclude other alcoholics from AA group membership, then AA will have lost its therapeutic mechanism. I think in this case the therapeutic mechanism of Alcoholics Anonymous was lost, both for the physically disabled alcoholic with her need for a professional carer; and for the dissenting minority of mentally ill narcissistic egocentric cores in the AA group who objected to the presence of her carer in a meeting.
The way I see this incident is that in a healthy AA group the request for a professional carer to be present ought to have been resolved in relation to AA Traditions with little debate being necessary. The overriding factor of Tradition Three is clear: “Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover….” (Tradition Three (Long Form) Based on this principle the AA group ought to allow the physically disabled alcoholic’s professional carer to be present; it may not refuse. End of debate.
I think the group ought to get a grip on the status of the “minor dissent within the group.” In my view they represent the “senators” and “arch deacons” in Tradition Two or the “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” in Concept V. The presence of a professional carer in an AA meeting does not mean the closed status of the meeting need be changed to the status of a fully open meeting. I think the minor dissent within the group ought to be told about Traditions Two and Three; then if they don't agree, they can be left to become the “bleeding deacons” in Tradition Two if they try to cling on to their power. If this is done, then the “bleeding deacons” might leave the group, or according to Tradition Two they might sooner or later work themselves into such an resentful mental twist that they will get drunk, having had their narcissistic egocentric cores suitably deflated, chewed up and spat out by the majority. Or having accepted AA Tradition and the authority in the group conscience, they might grow through their painful experience of deflation to become more tolerant and compassionate beings to other AA members who may be less fortunate in physical or mental health than themselves. If this is not done then the mental illness in the narcissistic egocentric cores is likely to spread to make the whole of AA rotten. It happened to the Washingtonian Movement. It nearly happened to AA in the 1940s. This is why Traditions were written to guide AA group policy. So called “trusted servants and “elder statesmen” in the group ought to be taking their responsibility for turning the “senators” and “arch deacons” into “bleeding deacons;” otherwise they’ll continue to turn other alcoholics away from AA. In the experience of AA Traditions and Concepts, the narcissistic egocentric cores of the “senators” and “arch deacons” won’t bleed unless they’re made to. (Tradition Two, Concept IX)”
Referring to "Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age" appendix E:b “THERAPEUTIC MECHANISM OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS” by Harry Tiebout M.D., [and see here] I don’t think AA can afford to have groups who exclude alcoholics by pandering to the self-centred desires of those who display the typical alcoholic personality characteristics described by Dr. Tiebout “ a narcissistic egocentric core, dominated by feelings of omnipotence, intent on maintaining at all costs its inner integrity...” If groups do pander to these narcissistic egocentric cores and in so doing allow them to exclude other alcoholics from AA group membership, then AA will have lost its therapeutic mechanism. I think in this case the therapeutic mechanism of Alcoholics Anonymous was lost, both for the physically disabled alcoholic with her need for a professional carer; and for the dissenting minority of mentally ill narcissistic egocentric cores in the AA group who objected to the presence of her carer in a meeting.
The way I see this incident is that in a healthy AA group the request for a professional carer to be present ought to have been resolved in relation to AA Traditions with little debate being necessary. The overriding factor of Tradition Three is clear: “Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover….” (Tradition Three (Long Form) Based on this principle the AA group ought to allow the physically disabled alcoholic’s professional carer to be present; it may not refuse. End of debate.
I think the group ought to get a grip on the status of the “minor dissent within the group.” In my view they represent the “senators” and “arch deacons” in Tradition Two or the “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” in Concept V. The presence of a professional carer in an AA meeting does not mean the closed status of the meeting need be changed to the status of a fully open meeting. I think the minor dissent within the group ought to be told about Traditions Two and Three; then if they don't agree, they can be left to become the “bleeding deacons” in Tradition Two if they try to cling on to their power. If this is done, then the “bleeding deacons” might leave the group, or according to Tradition Two they might sooner or later work themselves into such an resentful mental twist that they will get drunk, having had their narcissistic egocentric cores suitably deflated, chewed up and spat out by the majority. Or having accepted AA Tradition and the authority in the group conscience, they might grow through their painful experience of deflation to become more tolerant and compassionate beings to other AA members who may be less fortunate in physical or mental health than themselves. If this is not done then the mental illness in the narcissistic egocentric cores is likely to spread to make the whole of AA rotten. It happened to the Washingtonian Movement. It nearly happened to AA in the 1940s. This is why Traditions were written to guide AA group policy. So called “trusted servants and “elder statesmen” in the group ought to be taking their responsibility for turning the “senators” and “arch deacons” into “bleeding deacons;” otherwise they’ll continue to turn other alcoholics away from AA. In the experience of AA Traditions and Concepts, the narcissistic egocentric cores of the “senators” and “arch deacons” won’t bleed unless they’re made to. (Tradition Two, Concept IX)”
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
See
also AA Minority Report 2013
