Blog #3 ‘Recovery’ means ‘cure’?
The notion that supporting recovery implies that the person must first be ‘cured’ has plagued the movement right from the beginning. But it is surprising that it has hung around for so long. In 1993 Bill Antony made it very clear that, ‘The concept of recovery from physical illness and disability does not mean that the suffering has disappeared, all the symptoms removed, and/or the functioning completely restored’ (Anthony, 1993). Similarly, Mike Slade built his book around the distinction between ‘clinical’ recovery and ‘personal’ recovery (Slade, 2009). In ImROC we have repeatedly stressed the importance of this difference, but the confusion persists. Maybe anything that has anything to do with ‘health’ has to have a ‘cure’? I have to say that anyone who still thinks that supporting recovery is impossible without complete symptom relief is either fearfully ignorant, or has other fish to fry. What might these be?