Stanton kicked off of Addiction Medicine list

I. Stanton Peele kicked off of Add_Med

Stanton was kicked off of the Addiction Medicine list when he created this controversy section from postings on the Add_Med list. The owner of the list, Dr. Peter Mezciems, wrote him as follows:

Dear Mr. Peele: [snipped out is a visit Dr. Mezciems made when he began thinking about this problem] You posted those materials WITHOUT asking my permission, or discussing it on the add_med list, which shows a lack of respect for your fellow health professionals that quite frankly stuns me! You also quoted only one of my two initial messages to you, and in a similar vein quoted quite selectively from many posts about the topic.

Stanton Peele replied to Dr. Mezciems:

Please let me know any specific material from you (or from any others) that you wish should be included in that debate. I welcome giving your point of view full force.

Stanton then wrote to the Add_Med list (through an intermediary):

Someone else (or two) requested an abject apology from me. I am very sorry for putting up people's comments on my web site without asking permission. Peter (Mezciems) said that I left off material (specifically citing his second post). I propose to remedy my callous use of material without approval by promising to put in any comments -- already made but not included and any other comments people would like to make -- at this controversy site. I very much wish to post Peter's second post which he felt was missing at the site, and I request again that he or someone else send it to me, so that I can do so.

However, since I believe that the Internet is for the open exchange of ideas and expression of points of view, while I'll add any material, I won't subtract any. I think it belies the entire purpose of this enterprise.

Stanton Peele notes here:

I didn't leave any posts out that I thought were important, and thought I included complete postings. As of this date, Dr. Mezciems has never sent me his second message to post in the site. As readers of this site previously could see, many of the posts were short and negative, and the longest single quote was from Dr. Bill Jacyk, longer than any of mine.

Others from the list wrote to complain that the section hadn't been changed after I was expelled -- although no one other than Dr. Mezciems wrote that I had left off something they had written or to complain that they didn't want what they had written reproduced. Nonetheless, they are still right that I shouldn't include anybody's writings without their permission. I have therefore removed nearly everything written by Add_Med list members and my responses to them, except as described below.

Dr. Mezciems continued when expelling me:

Your prime purpose from the day you joined this list seems to have been to stir controversy and I for one have had enough. Life is too short.
I have removed you from add_med as of this posting.

II. Including material from Add_Med that directly affects (or slanders) me

I include Dr. Mezciems' expulsion post to me since it directly affects me. Add_Med members have been debating my expulsion ever since, both favoring and arguing against it, with perhaps somewhat more people favoring expulsion. I include one post favoring me (with permission). I include Mark's original post, and my response to Dr. Mezciems' reaction to Mark's first post (although I had to remove his reaction itself!). Mark wrote me his reactions to the postings, which I include (although I have Mark's permission to quote him, I have changed his name).

However, as one last foreword, I add here a comment about me and my work from Gael S. Macleod, a nurse who wrote on Add_Med the following:

He (Stanton Peele) has been removed from other closed lists for the same reasons you removed him. The operative word is 'integrity.' It's my opinion that without integrity, no real growth occurs and no one really "benefits.

I responded:

I have been removed from no other lists. What information do you have to say this, Gael?

Gael S. Macleod never responded, never retracted her statement, and never apologized. I wrote Dr. Mezciems, asking, "Is it an ethical problem in your view when one professional publicly makes a false and pejorative claim against another professional, is notified this is the case, and does not retract or apologize for this statement or acknowledge the notification? How serious is this in comparison with my sins?"

III. Original message

On October 7, I forwarded to THE ADD_MED (Addiction Medicine) list without comment the following mail from Mark from the CD list (CD@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU):

Mark wrote:

I just briefly read over Stanton Peele's article that was mentioned in a previous post and it strikes me as so common sense oriented that I can't see how any clear thinking person could argue with the beliefs expressed.

I went through a 28­day treatment program based on the 12­steps about 3 months ago and I have been trying to be a good boy and stick with the AA dogma but I just CANT. I don't believe any of it. I don't believe abuse of alcohol is a disease.

My "sponsor" is an MD and he believes the AA dogma utterly and completely. That makes it hard for me to believe that I could be right; that addiction is not a disease. Also, the people that I met when I was going to meetings were so sincere, so caring that its hard to believe that so many people believe in something that isn't based on reality.

How has AA managed to squash all other beliefs about treatment of alcohol and drug abuse? Why don't more people stand up and demand options in their treatment? I live in a community of over half a million people and if there are any other organizations around that offer treatment and or support they sure are keeping themselves well hidden.

Mark

IV. My reaction to Mezciems mail

Dear Dr. Mezciems:

In response to a letter from a person with a drinking problem who is asking for information and help, and is possibly in a good deal of conflict and pain, you indicate you have little time to give and then present a lecture, express exasperation and boredom at the request, and provide no help­oriented information for Mark or even a thought that help is needed or deserved. Dr. Mezciems, if someone like Mark presented at your treatment program, would you respond in the same way? Or do you reserve this response only for requests for help you encounter on the Internet?

Best regards,
Stanton Peele

V. Comment on Stanton's expulsion from Neal Buchman, Ph.D.

Peter,

As one who mostly lurks, occasionally posts, and neither bashes nor lauds 12-Step groups on the list, I find it appalling that you have banished Stanton Peele from the list and that others find this admirable. Of course his posts are provocative, as are posts from others who disagree heartily with him. So what? I find provocative posts, even when they irritate me, to be *thought- provoking*, to cause me to re-examine what might be entrenched ideas & prejudices. Occasionally, they even cause me to change my mind or modify my views. If, upon reflection, I believe these provocative notions to be without merit, I discard them. What's the big deal? As others have pointed out, you can ignore the posts or hit the delete key to quickly dispose of anyone you consider to be a complete clod & do not have to become embroiled in the back-and-forth to which some list members seem to object. But to banish someone whose views or style you find annoying seems more than a little over-reactive & I can't help but think it would have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas on this list. And banish Stanton Peele, for crying out loud? C'mon, the man was writing about addiction long before many (perhaps most?) people on this list even got into the field! Yes, it was a breach of netiquette to quote the posts without permission & your consternation about that is appropriate. But banishment?!? What next, burning at the stake? Lighten up please.

Regards,
Neal A. Buchman, Ph.D.

VI. Mark responds to hub-bub

Hi Stanton,

After you posted the responses to my original message I was surprised and upset to see those doctors respond in the way that they did. In at least one instance it seems that a doctor believes you in fact fabricated my message and attributed it to a fictional Mark!

I also want to offer my support to you in your work to further our knowledge about addictions and its treatment. It must get discouraging sometimes to see so many negative responses to your work. Keep it up Stanton, and if I can be of any help to you just drop me a line.

Mark

VII. Dr. Mezciems reconsiders and invites Stanton to rejoin, which he declines

Stanton: There have been many posts, pro and con, as you seem to be aware. Some of the more thought out posts caused me to look at my own feelings, and in retrospect, I think I acted too quickly, and in that, owe you an apology. It probably would have been better and more fruitful to lay the issue out to add_med before I acted. So... the retrospectoscope is a good instrument indeed. However, given your post to me I will respect your feelings and leave you off add_med for now. Peter

VIII. Stanton responds in kind

Thank you for your gracious words. Naturally, I'm gratified that you have changed your mind; obviously, I was insensitive for my part as well. It is big of you to be so generous in spirit.