By Catherine Rush
Dr. Benjamin Rush was a leader and maverick in many areas of early American life. Besides his most renown accomplishments such as being a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, a dedicated physician to the poor and celebrated alike, and the “father of American psychiatry,” he was also an early outspoken supporter for the abolition of slavery, a champion for the humane treatment of the mentally ill, a founder of schools, a dedicated teacher, prolific writer, devout Christian, adoring husband, and father of 16 children - thirteen of whom made it into adulthood. But for those of us in the field of alcoholism, Dr. Benjamin Rush holds a special place as the first physician to regard alcoholism as a disease.
In re-reading the treatise in which he makes this claim I was struck once again by what a remarkable observer he was. Written in 1785, Dr. Rush provides a detailed account of the alcoholic with uncanny accuracy. It was with this in mind that Richard Stockton Rush chose the image of Dr. Benjamin Rush as the organization’s logo when he founded the Recovery Institute in 1993. Stockton, his descendant, felt Dr. Rush’s contribution in the field of alcoholism was also of importance - especially to those of us who fight against the barriers that exist to recovery and champion for the rights of those who have achieved it.
In 1998, The Recovery Institute (later known as the Rush Recovery Institute) commissioned Peter D. Hart Research Associates to conduct the first national survey with the goal of uncovering what barriers stood between the alcoholic and their recovery. Questions were asked of physicians, counselors, clergy and families with an alcoholic in the home. The results showed that thirty-eight percent of clergy still believed alcoholism to be a moral weakness, despite the American Medical Association’s acceptance of it as a disease in 1956. The study also showed that families in crisis from the ravages of the disease would go their clergyperson or physician first for help and guidance. Both professions confessed to being unable to handle the questions posed to them by families in need. They admitted to deflecting any addiction related questions when they arose.
But all was not doom. Clergy said that they would welcome education and training about alcoholism. They were willing to learn and ready to help. The Recovery Institute began designing training for clergy, so they no longer had to feel inadequate when asked for guidance. In three years, The Rush Recovery Institute produced weekend workshops in Austin, TX, Princeton, NJ, San Francisco, CA and Madison, CT. Such speakers as Gerald May, Keith Miller, Jay Geisler, William Cope Moyers, Dr. David Smith and Jerry Moe spoke to openhearted and open-minded clergy from all denominations. For those of us in attendance, they were remarkable events.
In 2003 the Rush Recovery Institute joined with two like-minded organizations: The Johnson Institute and Faith Partners. Together we are stronger and more effective. But we have miles to go before we sleep. I was struck by a passage I read in Dr. Rush’s treatise:
The loss of 4000 American citizens, by the yellow fever, in a single year, awakened general sympathy and terror, and called forth all the strength and ingenuity of laws, to prevent it recurrence. Why is not the same zeal manifested in protecting our citizens from the more general and consuming ravages of distilled spirits?
We have learned a lot about addiction in the last 223 years. But we still have so much ground to cover.