Two competing models of understanding concerned significant others (CSOs) of people with addictions have emerged: codependency (CD) and stress-coping. In the context of CSOs of problem gamblers, some research has begun to examine the effectiveness of the stress-coping model, but no research to date has examined the utility of incorporating the CD concept into treatment planning. The purpose of this paper is to: critique the CD concept while highlighting possible differences between problem gambling and substance abuse (i.e., financial issues, the ability to hide the problem, cognitive distortions, and societal attitudes); identify important considerations when working with CSOs of problem gamblers; make recommendations for program managers regarding hiring and training practices; and recommend directions for research and in-depth program evaluations to assess what is actually occurring in existing practice.

C o d e p e n d e n c y (CD) is a c o n c e p t t h a t in itia lly e m e rg e d in th e a d d ic tio n s fie ld in th e 19 7 0 s t o address u n h e a lth y fa m ily re la tio n s th a t o c c u rre d as a re su lt o f su b sta n ce d e p e n d e n cie s. D e sp ite several fe m in is t c ritiq u e s o f th e c o n c e p t a ro u n d 1 9 9 0 , th e CD s e lf-h e lp m o v e m e n t has c o n tin u e d t o g ro w , re s u ltin g in o v e r o n e m illio n h its o n an o n lin e search to d ay. In th is a rtic le , w e re o p e n th e d e b a te a b o u t th e th e ra p e u tic u tility o f CD b y s u p p o rtin g p re v io u s fe m in is t c ritiq u e s , a n d b y p ro v id in g an u p d a te d c ritiq u e th a t addresses so cie ta l sh ifts in g e n d e r roles a n d th e m o v e m e n t in fa m ily la w to w a rd d e cisio n m a k in g in th e b e st in te re sts o f th e ch ild . R e c o m m e n d a tio n s are m a d e f o r fr o n tlin e social service w o rk e rs w h o use a n d /o r w o r k w ith p e o p le w h o use th e CD co n c e p t.

We would like to begin by thanking the reviewers, editors, and authors of the commentaries, for their enthusiasm for this topic and their support for our agenda to re-open the debate about the codependency (CD) concept. Our primary goal is to initiate sufficient critical discussion for service providers to be more cautious about using the CD tenets while at the same time reflecting on its origins, strengths, and limitations. While we recognize that the concept has had some utility for a large number of people around the globe, we are concerned about the societal messages that the concept conveys, such as women being responsible for others' addictive behaviour, and the devaluing of caregiver roles. Our motivation in the original opinion paper came from the experience of witnessing a service provider's first words to concerned significant others (CSOs) of problem gamblers be ''What is your problem?'' Orford's indication that this example is very widespread confirms for us the importance of initiating this debate.We thank Lee for providing the family theory perspective. We are both too young to have been directly involved with, or knowledgeable about, the emergence of the CD concept. So our statement that the conceptualization of CD was influenced by family systems theory was solely based on what we found in the literature (e.g., Krestan & Bepko, 1992;Miller, 1994). We welcome Lee's clarifications pertaining to family systems therapists like White, Haley, and Satir, and their call to ''raise sensitivity to how language is used'', and her clarifications pertaining to the fact that ''in the second wave of family therapy, the therapist is seen as a co-constructor rather than an expert in the therapeutic process.'' These points from Lee contribute further to our argument that the CD concept has failed to evolve in a way that is aligned with the direction of other supportive interventions. As Lee indicates, ''the negative assignment of blame and neediness to the partners in 'codependency' is a bastardization of family therapy's way of conceptualization and problem formulation.'' Neither of us is a family therapist, hence our individualistic bias. We agree that the CD literature focuses too much on the individual, and we support Lee's argument for the