When entering drug treatment for the first time, most people are assured that they will receive person-centred support that’ s individually tailored to their own specific wants, needs and circumstances. Included within this is the expectation that services will also take a personcentred and holistic approach to risk management – however, for two Release helpline callers working within regulated professions, excessive risk management overshadowed the care and support they were expecting to receive. In this article we have merged these two accounts to ensure anonymity. In the UK,‘ regulated professionals’ are those whose jobs require them to meet specific legally mandated requirements. These professions – which include teachers, solicitors and doctors – are overseen by independent regulatory bodies, who are responsible for ensuring that those in these professions meet these requirements.
The first time Alex accessed treatment they were still in university. They had been using ketamine and had started to feel that their use was getting beyond their control, so registered with their local treatment service. When they disclosed what they were studying, they were told by
|
their keyworker that‘ because of your job you’ re going to think you’ re different or you’ re better, but addicts are all the same’ – an unfair and unwarranted judgement of Alex’ s character based entirely on their vocation. This early negative experience would set the tone for what was to come.
A few years later, Alex was now a regulated professional. They were no longer in treatment but still experiencing difficulties with their drug use. However, their prior experience, coupled with the fact that they were now regulated, prevented them from returning to treatment and accessing what could have been more preventative support until the problems escalated and they could put it off no longer. Given these anxieties, they requested to move into a non-client-facing role and were signed off sick before they even approached a treatment service.
Once engaged with their local service, Alex considered whether to disclose their profession. They had been advised not to, but decided that they wanted to be honest and informed the service during their initial assessment, explaining that they had never practised while under the influence, and never would. Once they had decided they needed to make changes to their drug use, they had immediately signed
|
themselves off sick. They thought things were going okay until they were suddenly notified – not even by their keyworker – that a referral for an investigation by their relevant regulator had taken place due to‘ safeguarding concerns’.
Due to the stress of this situation, their drug use escalated. They were suspended from working while the investigation continued, and they could do nothing but wait for the regulator’ s final report. No contingency plan for their wellbeing had been put in place by the service, and when asked if they could start the process to go to rehab, they were told that a rehab would not accept someone actively in crisis. Ultimately, they applied for funding themselves through a bursary scheme, and it was granted. After their discharge, the report from the regulator came through, saying that‘ Alex is entitled to a life outside of work’, and they were deemed fit to practise.
I spoke to both professionals about their experiences, and asked if they would start treatment again if they ever felt that they needed to. From one, the answer was unequivocal:‘ No, absolutely not’. The other told me they probably wouldn’ t,‘ until it was too late’.
Alex made a complaint against their service and had a sit-down meeting with the
|
When systems punish disclosure, they don’ t safeguard the public – they ensure that drug use remains hidden.
management, telling them that‘ I recognised I was not fit to practise, which was why I had signed myself off sick. All the service had to do was tell me that if I returned to work while I was using, they’ d have to report me. Instead they took all the power away from me and made my life hell.’
These experiences are not unique. Regulated professionals are not asking for exemption from accountability, but for care that responds to actual risk rather than the hypothetical. When systems punish disclosure, they don’ t safeguard the public – they ensure that drug use remains hidden, risk escalates, and people delay accessing help until crisis point. If drug services are serious about saving lives, they must become places where honesty is met with care, not consequence.
Riley Johnson is drugs support advisor and NSP specialist at Release
|
ajijchan / iStock |
||||
24 • DRINK AND DRUGS NEWS • JUNE 2026 |
WWW. DRINKANDDRUGSNEWS. COM |