p10-11 FDAP.qxd
29/10/04
8:05 pm
Page 10
Feature | FDAP code of practice
The Federation of Drug and Alcohol Professionals
(FDAP) have just launched a new code of practice
for workers in the substance misuse field.
What is the thinking behind it and what will it
mean for practitioners and clients?
Making the code
‘FDAP IS ALL ABOUT HELPING
Simon Shepherd: ‘We need to acknowledge
that former users often have a particular
contribution to make... Can a person provide a
good service to the client, and is it safe for
their own wellbeing for them to do so? If the
answer to both questions is yes, there’s no
reason why they shouldn’t do the job.’
10 | drinkanddrugsnews | 1 November 2004
to improve standards of practice across the
field, and we see our new code of practice as
one key element of this’, says FDAP Chief
Executive, Simon Shepherd. The code is
intended to give clear guidance on issues of
professional and ethical practice, and ‘although
we are only able to enforce it with our members
(through our complaints and disciplinary
procedures), we hope that it will also help to
inform practice across the field,’ he says.
The code is based on core values of
fairness, dignity and respect – between
practitioners and their clients, and between
practitioners and their colleagues – and was
drawn up in consultation with a wide range of
practitioners and other agencies (including The
Alliance, EATA, DrugScope, Alcohol Concern
and the NTA).
According to Shepherd, one of the key
aspects of the code, and the one which
generating the greatest amount of debate during
the consultation process, is the issue of ‘fitness
to practise’ for people who have, or have had,
problems with drugs or alcohol themselves.
‘Traditionally there has been a view that
people with on-going drug or alcohol problems
should not work in this field. And many take
the line that they should not do so for at least
two years of having had a problem (the so-
called ‘two-year rule’). While some
practitioners felt that this made sense, many
more felt it unfair and short-sighted, and we
ultimately concluded that a more flexible
approach was needed.’
The code makes it clear that practitioners
‘...should never practise while their
competence is impaired by the use of any
mood altering substance’.
Yet there is no blanket ban here on people
with recent or even on-going drug or alcohol
related problems from working in the field.
‘It is true that an ongoing drug or alcohol
problem is likely to compromise a person's
ability to practice, and that working in this field
if you have had recent difficulties in this area
may also be potentially problematic, not only
for the client but also for the practitioner
themselves', says Shepherd. ‘Yet we need to
acknowledge that former users often have a
particular contribution to make’. He believes
that the same can also often be true for people
on an ongoing methadone script for example,
pointing to the excellent work of service-user
advocates working for The Alliance.
‘There are two fundamental questions here,’
according to Shepherd: ‘Can a person provide
a good service to the client, and is it safe for
their own wellbeing for them to do so? If the
answer to both questions is yes, there’s no
reason why they shouldn’t do the job.’
The line taken in the code is that workers
have a professional responsibility to
acknowledge where their fitness to practise
might be impaired (whether by a drug of
alcohol problem or some other issue); to not
practise where this is the case; and to seek
professional guidance from a senior colleague
where they are in any doubt about the matter.
Another potentially contentious area is that
of relationships between practitioners and
clients. Here, the code acknowledges that
‘practitioners must recognise that they hold
positions of responsibility and that their clients
and those seeking their help will often be in a
position of vulnerability’ and makes it clear that
they must not abuse their position in any way,
including by ‘[engaging] in sexual relations, or
www.drinkanddrugs.net