So you refuse to CONSENT to a drug test, they can refuse to treat you? And your fetus.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

About five years ago there was a train derailment that I remember reading about. What struck me was this was a new chemical that they were transporting and well a large area had to be evacuated. Because this chemical was so new, they had no idea just what health problems is would cause.

And yet, the were shipping it by rail across the country, I imagine to someplace where it would serve some industrial purpose...which more than likely would require some human workers to come into contact with it... possibly pregnant, who knows. Doesn't really matter since they have found that even if it was men who were working with it, well, it can effect the sperm and well, if any of those sperm does become fertilized, there are quite a few chemicals that can cause low birth rates, miscarriages, and birth defects.

isn't it nice to know that pregnant women need to stop eating those poppy begals for fear of failing a drug test, and yet, the same gov't so hell bent on on preventing the women from harming that fetus will allow drug companies to, either threw bribes or whatever, let lose a bunch of drugs that only god knows what effect it has on not only the fetus, but the everyone else. or allow potentially dangerous chemicals to be transported across the county to be used in our factories or put into our products without any testing whatsoever?

More than 80,000 chemicals available in the United States have never been fully tested for their toxic effects on our health and environment.

www.nrdc.org...

so while you are avoiding that half a vallium because the law says you have to, the shampoo you are using might be having far worse effects on you and your baby...

ya see, it's alright for them to kill your unborn child if there is money to be had, but it's not okay for you to, even if it's a matter of drinking a tad bit of cannabis tea instead of taking their more dangerous prescribed pain killers, or maybe they would prefer you just endure the pain and well put the fetus in the self perpetual stress loop or whatever it was called.

a reply to: dawnstar

I 100% agree. Big Pharma and Corporate America/Worldwide have waaayyy too much freedom while we seem to have less and less every day.

Personally, I think drug laws, prostitution laws and seatbelt laws should be thrown off the books (kids must be in car seats of course because they're not of age to make decisions for themselves). If a grown ass person wants to shoot bleach into their veins, that's their body, their decision. My dad is 70 and REFUSES to wear a seatbelt. Hell, let him have at it. I also think that rehab and confidential health care should be more readily available. If someone becomes addicted to drugs (a medical issue, not a criminal one) they should be able to seek help. It never ceases to amaze me how they (govt) won't do a damn thing to help you, but will throw the book at you if you try to help yourself.

Like the one example of the girl trying to wean herself off an addiction. No money, no insurance, no one would help her with rehab. But she tries to take matters into her own hands and gets locked up.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

another thing is that if cps takes your kids, the court will appoint a lawyer for your child, but well, if you want one, you better have the money to pay them. so, here you are self medicating yourself for a drug addiction to prescription pain killers because there's no money for rehab, and then they take your kids and well, you screwed probably because the court system will probably run over you, heck family court is a joke even when you have a lawyer!

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I believe such drug testing has more to do with protecting them from liability. If your blood pressure is high and they treat your high blood pressure, but don't realize the reason is because you have illegal stimulants coursing through you, they're probably worried about being held liable for your death or the death of your unborn.

Maybe there's more to it and they'll throw you in jail and take your baby away. Not my first guess, but perhaps checking into whether a positive result would result in any such actions would be a good idea.

a reply to: dogstar23
I've addressed this several times already, but I'll say it again:
1. I've gone through 2 other healthy pregnancies without this just fine. So it's not medically necessary.
2. If drug interactions were their true concern they would drug test everyone before prescribing medication. My 70 year old father for his blood pressure med? Drug test first. And I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would consider it due diligence. Although, if Bob's snorting coc aine all the time and doesn't tell his doctor and the doctor prescribes meds and Bob dies...I don't see how the doctor is responsible for that. Plausible deniability. He can't be held responsible for Bob's actions that he didn't know about.
3. If it were TRULY about health and only health, they would drug test but the results would be kept confidential between patient and doctor. I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Then the doctor could counsel patients with positive results about the dangers of such behavior and offer help. In safety and with trust. After counseling and being given options, the patient continues to use then I wouldn't have a problem with the doctor reporting to the law at THAT point. Doctors are already allowed to break confidentiality if they believe someone is a threat to themselves or others so they wouldn't need a consent form. I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Of course that also depends on the drug and the levels in the system. Marijuana is illegal, but it's never been proven to cause birth defects. So it's kind of BS to charge a woman with 'assault on a fetus' if no harm is actually done to it. Alcohol and cigarettes cause all types of harm, but aren't likely to show up on a test.
4. The form specifically said: random testing, positive results being reported to CPS. Again, not about health care, about law enforcement. THAT is my problem. For anyone else in this country to be drug tested you need a warrant, a court order, or at least some good probable cause. Me being pregnant isn't probable cause. Me refusing the test isn't probable cause. And the fact that they are extorting patients (withholding medical care if they don't sign a VOLUNTARY consent form) is straight up coercion.

In the immortal words of Jay Z:
"Well I ain't passed the bar, but I know a little bit. Enough that you won't illegally search my sh*t"

The 5th Amendment guarantees the right NOT to testify or give evidence against yourself. They are gathering this info for law enforcement and it's my constitutional right to decline. The fact that they refused to check my vital signs and the baby's heartbeat at that point is messed up and just proves that my health is not their priority.

Logical fallacy. None of those have anything to do with a non invasive drug test.

a reply to: dawnstar

Ahh, but Bob's family sued the doctor. It happens ALL THE TIME.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Hope you and baby are well. So because there are bad mothers in the world, you are under suspicion without probable cause. That will not change as long as others believe they have a certain amount of ownership over your body. I would leave that state.

a reply to: raymundoko

I responded to a post by you that stated that obviously, I never had any kids...
I have, three times. I then proceeded to describe what the experience was like back then....
I was in control...
No sonogram was ever forced on me...
No c section or labor induced was forced on me when I was close to my 10th month of pregnancy, nor was it forced on me when I was in labor for over 15 hours, or when I was having trouble dellivering the baby, I was in control the whole time.
All those stories I have been posting, when compared to my experience, well it just serves to show just how much control women seem to have lost when it comes to pregnancy is all. the drug testing is just one little segment of the whole picture. and gee, it seems to try to control more than just what illegal drugs a women takes doesn't it? it might force you change your diet, it takes half the danged over the counter medication off the list.
and this is just the beginning if we allow this trend to continue. I just can't wait for them to start trying to control daddies actions before, and during the pregnancy.. Then I bet, the uproar will start big time.

a reply to: raymundoko

you do realize that if she had walked out of that doctor's office after she refused to sign that consent form (that clearly disclosed that any positive test would be turned over to the officials) and well they was something drastically wrong and she ended up in the hospital having a miscarriage before she found another doctor. She could have just as easily sued that doctor??

all she would have had to say was that she was aware that some things would cause a false negative and since she had eaten that poppy begal she knew there was a possibility.. and well, there's that thing in the constitution..... ya know, about self incrimination, about warrentless searches, and I do belief there is such a thing as doctor/patient confidentiality, also....

a reply to: dawnstar

No, she could NOT have sued the doctor. He was never her physician. You should inform yourself.

Also, I just learned that Drug testing randomly is LAW in Texas, and a drug test without consent it also LEGAL in Texas if the parent is suspected of doing drugs.

Here is a good conversation about this issue: Source

a reply to: dawnstar

No, I said:

If you actually believe that then you've either never had children or are just extremely ignorant about why people become doctors.

a reply to: raymundoko

I kind of had a feeling it was the law, doesn't make it right. and I still say that she could have sued. she went to seek medical care, they refused her that care unless she submitted to drug testing, but well, the second part or what you posted that they don't need consent changes my view of the doctor she went to. it's now more like it is at least warning the patients. where she is going now, probably will do the testing without her knowledge, and well turn over the positive results anyways...

so we are back to women being afraid to eat breakfast bars and begals, or take a few ibprofens to that pain, or whatever, just like many employees in this country have to... only, but well, if poppy seeds cold medicines, ibprofens, and the rest of the crap that is found to cause false positives are gonna cause parents to lose their children, or their incomes, ect....well, why don't we just take all these products off the market since well, it seems more and more people are being forced not to use them because of mandated drug tests!

oh ya, that would do a number on some company's bottom line wouldn't it. heck they won't even accept the idea that their stupid drug tests aren't that accurate and are causing harm to people.

a reply to: dawnstar

Exactly. I think the doctor who had the consent form probably is giving them the option, whereas the other doctor is just not asking for consent and if they get a positive will just say they were justified because they suspected it anyway.

a reply to: raymundoko

they don't have to say jack if the law says they can do it without their consent and well it's the gov't that wants the pregnant women tested....

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of drug testing maternity patients only once, in Ferguson v. Charleston in 2001. The justices found that a policy at a South Carolina public hospital to involuntary test women (in this case, almost exclusively black) and turn positive results over to law enforcement solely for prosecution purposes violated Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure.

“The reasonable expectation of privacy enjoyed by the typical patient undergoing diagnostic tests in a hospital is that the results … will not be shared with nonmedical personnel without her consent,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.

www.propublica.org...

that was in 2001, but me thinks that if someone challenged the policy of doctors doing this just might be get the same result, as law that require them to do it might.

a reply to: dawnstar

Legal Drug-Testing Policies

Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ferguson and recommendations from leading medical organizations, hospitals are now able to craft drug testing and treatment policies that are both constitutional and ethically sound. First, medical professionals should know that, if they perform testing for the specific purpose of gathering evidence of criminal conduct by patients, they have an obligation to inform the patients of their constitutional rights to protection from unreasonable search and seizure [1]. Hospitals that fail to inform patients of their rights may be open to civil liability for monetary damages. Second, testing policies that are developed with law enforcement agencies, employing their protocols, are more likely to be deemed unrelated to treatment and thus be perceived as being used only to further prosecution. To avoid such categorization, hospitals should develop testing procedures based on medical care and treatment options, independent of police or prosecutors. Third, as Lisa Harris and Lynn Paltrow note, "no state authorizes or expects physicians to use medical evidence of addiction for criminal prosecution" [1].

The Supreme Court recognizes that a physician's duty is to provide sound medical treatment to his patient, not to act as an extension of law enforcement. Physicians serve medical—not legal—roles in the treatment of pregnant women. Health care professionals who act on behalf of the state rather than for their patients breach the ethical duties of the patient-physician relationship. Such a breach erodes confidence and trust in the medical community, resulting in poor disclosure by patients, which, in turn, may dramatically reduce the efficacy of diagnosis and treatment. Physicians' duty of care lies first and foremost with the patient. Ultimately, to preserve constitutional rights and the ethical patient-doctor relationship, drug testing policies should encourage open communication between patient and physician, emphasize the availability of treatment options, and advocate for the health of woman and child.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org...

it still seems the supreme court already made a decision on this matter..

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Wow. Much respect to you, Ma'am, for having such integrity. You're really brave. And you know your rights.

Do you have ObamaCare? If so, that is why.

It's wrong. There's no probable cause--to doubt your capacity as a mother carrying a child is insulting and demeaning. Random drug testing to have a baby? My goodness. That's messed up.

Now, I could see if you were some at-risk person with a history of drug abuse--THEN I would be all for this. But you're not. You used to be a cop. FFS. This makes me angry, too. Everybody is NOT THE SAME. And treating us like we are is WRONG. What works well in one situation doesn't work in others. And under no circumstances should you, an innocent and responsible mother-to-be, be forced to undergo such a dehumanizing process as random drug testing. You didn't apply for a job. You weren't convicted of a crime. In fact, you used to help stop crime.

I can understand how you must feel that this is a kick in the face. I'm with you, girl: this pisses me off for you. And I'm very sorry that you have to deal with this added stress.

Do you think talking with a lawyer could help? There must be a way to challenge this. This is so wrong.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

If they are not also testing for alcohol use.....I truly question their motives......
www.cdc.gov...
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a common and known health issue.....so why only test for drugs if they are so damned concerned...or did I miss this part of the story...I haven't read all the many pages of this thread.

Good luck, and congrats on your pregnancy!!

originally posted by: raymundoko
Ahh, but Bob's family sued the doctor. It happens ALL THE TIME.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

1. Back in 2011 one doctor was reckless in his treatment of me, a totally separate ER doctor flat out broke the law, and an EMT used unjustified deadly force against me. Because of all this (I'm trying to keep it short here) I am permanently disabled: PTSD and and Anxiety Disorder so severe that I can't work and it's hard to even go out in public. I contacted MULTIPLE lawyers and was told that because of tort reform it's almost impossible to sue for malpractice anymore. One legal secretary even said "Unless you're dead or disabled" I said "I AM disabled" Her answer? " Yeah but you can still bathe yourself." As in, you have to be dead or paralyzed to sue. So, excuse me for not having much respect or trust for the medical or legal establishment. And not believing that this form has anything to do with a malpractice suit.

2. Me being pregnant is not enough probable cause. Period. Showing up to an appointment intoxicated would be. Me showing signs of drug addiction would be. Me being not compliant with reasonable care requests would be something. But me just walking in the door is not enough to require this. That is exactly what I told the nurse. Clearly and articulately. Not some spazzy drug addict, a completely reasonable, sober person explaining why they didn't want to sign a VOLUNTARY consent. And they still refused to treat me. I didn't even get to speak to the doctor, this was all through his pack of idiot nurses and office staff.
They didn't even test me to confirm the pregnancy. I took ONE home test back in November. What if it was a false positive? What if I'm walking around with some weird cyst that mimics the other symptoms of pregnancy? They would never know. And actually, now that I think about it, the form didn't specify pregnant patients. OBGYNs treat women for all kinds of things. So that form means that I could go in for birth control after having the baby, get popped by a random test and have CPS up my a** for the next month threatening to take away my kids.

Medicine and law enforcement have NO business tangling with each other.