Harm F-acilitation

Maletzky, Barry M.

doi:10.1177/107906329801000201

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Harm reduction applies only to alcohol and drug abuse, and not to anything else. This is the Pare (1997a,b) and Maletzky (1998) position. It is simply not true.…”

Section: Common Misconceptions About Harm Reduction With Sexual Offendersmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Looked at this way, relapse is an expected part of treatment (which, by the way, is what Marlatt (1985) argued in the first place). If, however, you believe that one more victim is one too many (Maletzky, 1998, p. 79) then, of course, this argument will not convince you. However, even the most provictim among us would have to admit, albeit reluctantly, that the very essence of relapse prevention is lapsing and recovering.…”

Section: Common Misconceptions About Harm Reduction With Sexual Offendersmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…I have become equally aware that the persons who were most upset appear to be those who understood it least. Most recently the article was attacked in a symposium by Pare (1997b) and in this journal by Maletzky (1998). Many of the assertions made by both these individuals contained misreadings and misinterpretations leading to inappropriate conclusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Harm Reduction or Harm Facilitation? A Reply to Maletzky1

Laws¹

1999

Sex Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of harm reduction applied to sexual offending is very upsetting to some clinicians. This paper attempts to anchor harm reduction within the larger framework of relapse prevention. It is argued that reducing harm more accurately represents what clinicians do with sexual offenders rather than preventing or eliminating relapses. There are numerous common misconceptions about harm reduction with sexual offenders and explanations are provided for each of these. Finally, it is argued that harm reduction acknowledges that sexual abuse and all forms of interpersonal violence are actually public health issues. Adoption of this viewpoint, however, requires acceptance of a more humanistic perspective rather than a medical, psychological, legal, or political solution to a grievous social problem.

show abstract

“…Harm reduction applies only to alcohol and drug abuse, and not to anything else. This is the Pare (1997a,b) and Maletzky (1998) position. It is simply not true.…”

Section: Common Misconceptions About Harm Reduction With Sexual Offendersmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Common Misconceptions About Harm Reduction With Sexual Offendersmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Harm Reduction or Harm Facilitation? A Reply to Maletzky1

Laws¹

1999

Sex Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Supporting a harm reduction viewpoint does not mean giving up on abstinence as a goal (see Maletzky, 1998). It does mean that we are not always going to be successful in achieving that goal.…”

Section: Harm Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rise and Fall of Relapse Prevention

Laws¹

2016

The Wiley Handbook on the Theories, Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offending

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The original relapse prevention model was a natural outgrowth of the behaviourist movement and the introduction of the cognitive–behavioural model of treatment for sex offenders. The application to sex offenders was an extremely promising development, so well accepted that the fact that it was not suited to many offenders was ignored. It was not until the 1990s that an alternative based on varied styles of offending emerged. This alternative has since morphed into an outline for a more comprehensive rehabilitation approach. This rehabilitation model today actively competes with another approach that is focused primarily on risk reduction and community protection. In either case, we again run the risk of overacceptance and the reader is cautioned to take notice of and incorporate other models and ways of thinking in order to broaden the overall treatment approach and improve clinical service provision.

show abstract

The rise and fall of relapse prevention

Laws

2003

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper initially surveys the development of sex offender treatment from its beginnings in the late 19th century, through the behaviourist phase, culminating in the introduction of cognitive‐behavioural treatment in the 1960s and 1970s. The original relapse prevention model was a natural outgrowth of this movement as was the alteration of the model for use with sex offenders. The application to sex offenders was an extremely promising development, so well accepted that the fact that it was not suited to many offenders was ignored. It was not until the 1990s that an alternative based on varied styles of offending emerged. This is, once again, a very promising development. However, we again run of risk of over‐acceptance and the reader is cautioned to take notice of and incorporate other models and ways of thinking in order to broaden the overall treatment approach and improve clinical service provision.

show abstract

Harm F-acilitation

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Harm Reduction or Harm Facilitation? A Reply to Maletzky1

Harm Reduction or Harm Facilitation? A Reply to Maletzky1

The Rise and Fall of Relapse Prevention

The rise and fall of relapse prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About