It is often said in Al-Anon that the programme is 'selfish'. Now, the programme is not in itself selfish or altruistic, but the actions, if taken, and the person thus taking them, could be construed as such, and it is the actions and the person that are in question.
OED definition of 'selfish':
Concerned chiefly with one's own advantage or welfare, to the exclusion of consideration for others; self-centred. Also of a feeling, quality, motive, etc.: characterized by or exhibiting a self-centred concern with one's own advantage or welfare.
The definition contains two elements: concern with self, and the exclusion of consideration for others. Any act that includes consideration of others and is in fact to their advantage or furthers their welfare is by definition not selfish.
It is well and validly recognised that service in Al-Anon benefits the server as well as those served. But this, by the definition above and in the general understanding of the language, is not selfish: it is acting in concert, in the interests of all, for the good of all, which includes the person so acting.
The 30 April ODAT reading is excellent in presenting the benefits of service:
The highest form of selfishness is to give of ourselves so that we, in turn, may broaden our understanding and confidence. The richest rewards come from helping others with no thought of reward.
The phrase with no thought of reward, however, lifts the action in question quite out of the domain of selfishness, which presupposes thought of reward. Selfishness is measured not by reward but by motivation.
The reason this is not a trivial point, a pedant's question of semantics, is that, by reframing altruistic action as selfish action on the grounds that the altruistic action is not to detriment of the altruist (for, if it were, it would be martyrdom), it gives carte blanche to those wishing to justify actual selfishness, namely concern with one's own advantage to the exclusion of consideration for others.
When 'it's a selfish programme' is adduced as a justification for a course of action, it's usually presented not as the motivation for acting altruistically but as the motivation for disregarding the interests of others and instead pursuing one's own immediate advantage.
The generous extension of selfishness to include altruism then reduces our categories from three to two: instead of choosing between martyrdom (excessive sacrifice of self), altruism (enlightened sacrifice of self), and selfishness (pursuit of self), we are now choosing between martyrdom (which is bad) and a broad-church selfishness (which is good). With selfishness now classified as a virtue, true selfishness is given an alibi and smuggled in along with the virtue of altruism: the risk is that it will make itself at home and expel altruism, its competition, altogether.
This is why I operate with the three categories above, avoiding the extremes of martyrdom and selfishness and pursuing altruism as the action that is best designed to further the interests of all.