It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: NautPsycho
I tried that with my last one. VBAC at home. The midwife was fantastic! She let me do my own urine dipstick every appointment (for pH, glucose, protein, etc....not drugs) and show her the results to record. So I knew exactly what was being tested and the results of those tests. I was extremely pleased with my care and she was very knowledgeable and thorough. Unfortunately after 13 hours or labor, I went from 8cm to 7!!! and had to go to the ER for a c-section.
And they treated me like a criminal. Because I didn't have an admitting doctor, they acted like I was just some POS off the street who had received no prenatal care whatsoever. They drug tested me without my consent. They acted like surely a crack baby was going to pop out. And... to their surprise it was a completely healthy 8 lb boy. Because I had taken excellent care of myself and the pregnancy.
If I could die without ever seeing another doctor, I would die happy. Unfortunately I HAVE to have a c-section. But I'm getting a tubal, so at least this is the last time.
One large barrier to seeking treatment is that the substance addict is afraid that if they seek help they will lose their children
In fact, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it is illegal for birthing hospitals to provide law enforcement agencies the results of drug screens performed in the hospital. It is unconstitutional for hospital workers to test maternity patients for illegal drug use if the purpose is to alert the police to a crime
The reluctance of drug treatment programs to accept pregnant women is a large problem that has plagued the treatment approach to state intervention.
So, they won't help you get treatment, but they'll sure as hell throw the book at you if you get caught using.
Finally, women may not seek treatment because they do not have transportation to and from programs and for economic reasons. They may not have insurance, money to pay for treatment, childcare, or treatment programs that are even available to them.
We mentioned earlier that many pregnant drug-using women receive little or no prenatal care and it is known that fear of detection because of potential punitive actions against the women and the potential for removal of the child drive pregnant drug using women away from the health care system. As a result many prenatal substance exposure cases are not identified until birth. For prevention to be effective, the health care system needs to be perceived as friendly and supportive by drug-using pregnant women, not as punitive.
The plaintiffs were ten women, including nine women of color, who were arrested directly based on the hospital's policy. Four of the women were immediately arrested, while six were offered the option of drug treatment, but either failed to comply or failed a second drug screen. The women challenged the practice on the theory that warrantless and nonconsensual drug tests conducted for criminal investigatory purposes were unconstitutional searches . The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the women, saying that the women's Fourth Amendment Rights had indeed been violated. Because MUSC is a state hospital, its staff members are government actors subject to the Fourth Amendment's strictures. They found that a state's performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient's criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure. The interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using coc aine cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant [183,225]. This ruling will change the relationship between hospitals and law enforcement with respect to reporting of evidence of illegal drug use during pregnancy.
Reasons for the rejection of criminalization include that criminalization has no proven effect on improving infant health or deterring substance abuse by pregnant women. In fact, criminalization may in fact deter the pregnant woman from seeking out necessary prenatal care for fear of losing their children or being arrested.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie
Also, your analogy is flawed. What you did was the equivalent of calling 911 for assistance then refusing to let them in the house because they said if they find anything incriminating you could be held accountable under the law.
It is a Texas DFPS policy that any time a medical person suspects the mother of illegal drug use they may have them tested without consent of the mother, as they are mandatory reporters for suspected abuse. I am afraid that Furguson v. Charleston was a 1988 court ruling and was based on a hospital policy, but now this is based on a state Department of Health policy for the safety and protection of children and with medical staff being mandatory reporters they must report any positive tests to DFPS in Texas. You can see the policy at: www.dfps.state.tx.us...
The doctor or medical personnel have to have reason to believe or suspect drug use before they test, but they can do so without consent of the mother and must report positive results to DFPS.
Read more: Source
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the women, saying that the women's Fourth Amendment Rights had indeed been violated. Because MUSC is a state hospital, its staff members are government actors subject to the Fourth Amendment's strictures. They found that a state's performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient's criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure.
Coercion- The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.
Coercion, as an element of duress, is grounds for seeking the Rescission or cancellation of a contract or deed. When one party to an instrument is forced against his or her will to agree to its terms the document can be declared void by a court.
any time a medical person suspects the mother of illegal drug use
But, legal or not, I feel their policy is wrong and counterproductive
there is no Texas law mandating testing for all pregnant women.
You can, however, make all patients sign a consent to drug testing as part of their consent for you to care for them and treat them which would then give you the right to do such testing, but it would then be consensual. I do know several OBGYN who have a patient contract with their patients for care and as part of that contract the patient consents to testing.
The DFPS rule is that you can test them if you suspect them and it does not provide mandatory testing of every patient.