The Stanton Peele Addiction Website, July 5, 2000

Stanton responds to a critic who blamed him and others for Audrey's behavior

Stanton responds to a critic who blamed him and others for Audrey's behavior, writing, among other things:

"Now two people are dead and Audrey Kishline is headed for jail. What do those who have advised, encouraged and counseled her in the past have to say about all of this?"

"It seems to have been during this quest that she met [professionals] claiming to possess scientific and moral expertise on this topic. These people encouraged her to believe that she and others with serious drinking problems could at least under some circumstances and using certain specific methods safely drink again."

To which Stanton replied:

I wrote the introduction to Audrey's book, Moderation Management. But I wouldn't say the above description applies very well to my experience with Audrey. When I first heard from Audrey in June, 1993, she was already striving to create groups for moderate drinkers. By the time I read her writings, within about nine months, she already had a very well-developed package, a clear idea of who she was approaching (problem drinkers) and a good familiarity with the literature (a la Bill Miller and Martha Sanchez-Craig — two highly experienced clinicians who had treated and conducted outcome research with problem drinkers/alcoholics for decades). When I encountered Audrey, early in her quest, she had formulated her own ideas on moderation and alcoholism.

Indeed, I only met Audrey once, in 1994 or 1995, when she was highly directed towards creating a national moderation program. I dined with her and her husband (with my wife and a friend of mine from SMART Recovery, Rich Dowling, and his wife) in Morristown, along with which each had a glass of wine — except for Rich, who abstains, as is the official policy of SMART. I don't believe I ever heard directly from Audrey again — and I certainly didn't speak to her by phone or in person — although I was listed on the board of MM.

Now, to more recent history. According to an article in the Seattle Times about a press conference Audrey gave following her pleading in Washington: "Two months before the crash, she said, she dropped out of the program and joined Alcoholics Anonymous. But it wasn't long before she was consuming so much wine at night she would drink herself to sleep."

I have never heard of Audrey being drunk between 1993 and the beginning of 2000, when she officially dissociated herself from MM. I am not aware that she was arrested for DUI in that period — which I think would have been hard to cover up. And I am fairly confident that, in this period, she never achieved a .26 BAL and drove on the wrong side of an Interstate highway -- which would, I think, have been impossible to cover up.

In January, she joined AA with a goal of abstaining, but was soon drinking herself to sleep (note her statement indicates that joining AA occurred first), and after two months of which she drove, highly intoxicated, the wrong way on an Interstate highway. I simply don't see how this supports the abstinence and AA model and disproves the MM model. Furthermore, I have read the NCADD statement and statements by professionals (such as George Vaillant) which indicate that Audrey's case proves moderation efforts will fail. My reaction is that such organizations and individuals are ethically deficient and intellectually dishonest not even to mention that Audrey had already switched to an abstinence goal and AA attendance before her drunken homicide. When this individual wrote, "She received support and encouragement for her conviction that there simply must be some way she and others with a history of alcohol problems could learn to drink again without getting into trouble." Could I write, "She received support and encouragement for her conviction that there simply must be some way she and others with a history of alcohol problems could learn never to drink again without getting into trouble"?

Finally, the writer, taking a Christian tack, wrote, "Two biblical cites come to mind in regard to the above: Matthew 7:15, and the story of Job and his comforters. With friends like these neither Audrey Kishline nor any other alcoholic needs enemies."

I am certainly not an expert on the bible, but doesn't Christianity encourage humility and self-examination, rather than self-satisfied preening?

SP

Floyd Garrett wrote:

I have wondered what the story is behind the founding and support of Moderation Management and am grateful to Professor Schaler for beginning to shed some light on the topic.

It is clear, at least to me, that Audrey Kishline is an alcoholic. She went through what sounds like standard treatment for alcoholism and like every alcoholic I have ever known did not care for the permanent abstinence solution to her problems with alcohol. Alcoholics after all are people who "can't live with it and can't live without it." Simple and obvious as the solution seems to those who observe us before, during and after our drunken escapades, the idea of just don't drink the stuff is not acceptable to most of us until we have exhausted every other avenue — including our own version of controlled drinking.

So there is nothing unusual about an alcoholic emerging from rehab and trying to find a way to drink again. It happens more often than not. Sometimes it happens while the alcoholic is still in rehab.

Audrey Kishline, like most alcoholics in her circumstances, was skeptical of what she had been told about her drinking problem and how to cope with it. Rather than doing what most alcoholics in such a state of mind do, i.e. rather than just trying on her own to drink again but "this time not so much," she seems to have studied the medical literature on alcoholism and its treatments in search of guidance. Naturally she would have been specially attracted to studies and authors which supported her desire to be able to drink again and her conviction that some how, some way, this must be possible.

It seems to have been during this quest that she met Dr. Schaler and subsequently others claiming to possess scientific and moral expertise on this topic. These people encouraged her to believe that she and others with serious drinking problems could at least under some circumstances and using certain specific methods safely drink again. They would just have to avail themselves of modern scientific knowledge and of course be very careful. If they did this, the chances were great that "next time it will be different."

She wrote a book and founded a movement, Moderation Management based upon her own belief that controlled drinking could work in some cases - beginning of course with her own. She appeared on TV and gave interviews to the media that were widely circulated. She and Moderation Management became poster children not only for the alcoholic's inveterate desire to drink without serious consequences but also for a certain ideology or congeries of ideologies in modern alcoholism studies. She became, perhaps without intending or fully realizing it a cause celebre. She must have finally felt that she had got a wolf by the ears — especially when she began to realize that her own drinking was getting out of control.

Professor Schaler subsequently dissociated himself from both Moderation Management and Audrey Kishline for reasons which the article and links above do not make completely clear but which seem to have to do with the way the infamous Larry Froistad case was handled and with Audrey Kishline's insistence upon retaining the concept of alcoholism for those serious cases that Moderation Management could not help. Professor Schaler seems to have wanted her to claim that there is no such thing as alcoholism and that anyone with a severe drinking problem could if sufficiently motivated or possessed of strong enough values learn to drink normally. He says in the article above that he tried to warn the world about the kind of person Audrey Kishline was — though this ominous statement is not really explained by what follows. Audrey Kishline seems to have been the kind of person who did not agree with Professor Schaler about everything but nothing more serious has thus far been adduced. Pehaps that alone is serious enough.

Audrey Kishline appears also to have consulted closely with others claiming to be expert and up to date in matters relating to alcoholism and problematic drinking. She received support and encouragement for her conviction that there simply must be some way she and others with a history of alcohol problems could learn to drink again without getting into trouble. She was assured that this is indeed the case and that the latest scientific literature establishes this fact beyond question even as it devalues and overthrows the popular current wisdom about alcoholism and recovery that she was unfortunately and mistakenly given during her own rehab.

Now two people are dead and Audrey Kishline is headed for jail. What do those who have advised, encouraged and counseled her in the past have to say about all of this?

Professor Schaler says good riddance to bad rubbish and hints strongly that if she had any dignity at all she would kill herself. He is not interested in the least in why she did what she did:

Also, there is no point in speculating about the reasons for her behavior. The fact is nothing caused her to do what she did. She drank for reasons that will likely remain unknown.

Two biblical cites come to mind in regard to the above: Matthew 7:15, and the story of Job and his comforters.

With friends like these neither Audrey Kishline nor any other alcoholic needs enemies.