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

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.
* And I wasn't even thinking about drug testing, didn't even see it as an issue since I don't do drugs, but I admire HER policy even more now in light of this crap.
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.

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.

I can very much appreciate this. I hate doctors. They are judgmental even if I believe they have a right to make their own policies (within legal reason).

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

So an alcoholic literally has to turn up smashed to an appointment in order to warrant concerns for the unborn baby's health?

Right.

a reply to: GetHyped

This is really long, but extremely informative:
Substance Use During Pregnancy

Basically, as we can all agree, doing drugs, smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol while pregnant is a terrible idea. It harms (or kills) the baby and costs taxpayers billions....and it's totally preventable.

I'm paraphrasing, but basically one study showed that 11% of women admitted to using, but testing showed that it was actually 40%. And their underreporting was mainly due to fear of prosecution. If you removed the fear of prosecution and instead built a relationship of safety and trust, then women would be much more likely to be honest. And with honest input the doctor can do much better work. Out of all the women (addicts) who give birth to defected babies, I don't believe any of them WANTED to harm the child, they were a slave to their addiction and were afraid to be honest about it out of fear of prosecution. They need help, and threatening them with criminal charges doesn't help. If anything it's going to stress them out, make them avoid prenatal care, and make them use MORE. Totally counterproductive.

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.

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.

So, they won't help you get treatment, but they'll sure as hell throw the book at you if you get caught using.

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.

In my case, I feel like this doctor's policy is a violation of MY civil rights and I'm sorry but a fetuses rights don't trump mine. In any other realm of the law they would need probable cause or a warrant, I spent 8 months in the police academy studying the law and there's no such thing as a pregnancy exception. It's precisely that I know I AM innocent, that I refuse to willingly sign away my rights when no one has any reason to suspect me of any crime (no history of drug use, no criminal history, no history with CPS, not showing signs of intoxication, etc etc etc).

a reply to: GetHyped

An alcoholic who is also not an idiot will get smashed every other day of the month BESIDES the one or two days before the doctor's appointment when they know the doctor may be pop testing them for the purposes of reporting to law enforcement. She will be afraid of prosecution and will hide her addiction rather than being upfront and honest with the doctor and seeking treatment.

"If I tell them I can't stop drinking they'll charge me with child abuse and take my baby (and other children) away."

If the doctor's policy was confidentiality, trust and compassion then that addict would be way more likely to admit she has a problem. Then she and the DOCTOR can come up with a treatment plan. He could require that she come in more frequently or recommend treatment facilities (in patient or out patient) to help her.

And as long as she's being compliant the law can stay the hell out of it.

* But also remember, some people are complete uncontrollable idiots and will show up to all kinds of things smashed (doctor, school, court, a police station). THAT would be undeniable probable cause and I would have no problem testing THAT person.

Oh looky here, the Supreme Court already ruled that it IS unconstitutional for doctors/hospitals to obtain evidence for the purpose of prosecution without a warrant:

Ferguson v. Charleston

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 [223]. 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.

AND it should be noted that their drug testing policy did absolutely NOTHING to deter drug use.

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.

No, it would be like calling paramedics because you're having a heart attack. And while they're in your house they go through all your stuff and seize contraband and turn it over to the police so you can be charged with it. No warrant. No probable cause. It has nothing to do with why they were called. Not trained law enforcement doing the seizing, but sure as hell law enforcement doing the prosecuting.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I already posted that here earlier. How about you read your own thread?

That ONLY applies to Hospitals and NOT to doctors in their private office:

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

Doth Protest Too Much.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Another logical fallacy. That's like 10 for you so far.

It would be the equivalent of them finding illegal material on or around your person while helping you with your heart attack and then, as per the law, reporting what they found.

But you seem hard bent on taking this to the extreme which shows you have a strange predisposition to how you think people should view your situation. You didn't come here to debate, you came here for affirmation that you are a great mom and sticking it to the man.

a reply to: raymundoko

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.

Looks like the Supreme Court agrees with me.

And withholding treatment unless a patient will sign consent is coercion, which would make the document invalid anyway:

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.

Source

Everything they are trying to accomplish with this policy can be achieved legally and without trampling on people's civil rights.

If you have no problem giving up your rights, then that's your prerogative. But I don't care how well intentioned it is, I won't do it. Think what you will of me.

a reply to: raymundoko

any time a medical person suspects the mother of illegal drug use

Do you read your own posts? I even told the nurse I wouldn't have a problem with it if there were probable cause. But me walking through the door is NOT probable cause. Me being pregnant is NOT probable cause.

And you're right Ferguson v. Charleston involves a state hospital not a private doctor's office. If, somehow, it's legal for private doctors to have a policy like this then they are free to do so. I've already found a doctor that does not have this policy, so I guess that just goes back to private business/consumers taking their business elsewhere.

But, legal or not, I feel their policy is wrong and counterproductive.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

It's not coercion, that's a ridiculous statement. A private practice doctor can run his business how he likes, and if he/she wants to make sure they have a drug free client base that is their prerogative.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

No, the SCOTUS agrees with you ONLY IN REGARDS to state run hospitals.

Edit: I see you figured that out.

But, legal or not, I feel their policy is wrong and counterproductive

Would it not also be wrong of you to force a private doctor to treat you even though you won't agree to his terms?

a reply to: raymundoko

there is no Texas law mandating testing for all pregnant women.

Source

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.

Which is what this doctor is trying to do. But threatening to withhold medical treatment if someone refuses to sign a voluntary consent form IS coercion. The fact that the threat is made makes it NOT voluntary at all.

The DFPS rule is that you can test them if you suspect them and it does not provide mandatory testing of every patient.

Goes back to probable cause, which I don't have a problem with.

I've looked and looked and can't find one word about any law regarding private practices (other than the one above saying that mandatory testing is NOT required by the state). So...whatevs, as a customer I've taken my business elsewhere to a doctor that doesn't have a policy that seems unconstitutional to me. It will probably take weeks and this thread will be dead and gone, but I'm still curious to see what the Medical Board and ACLU have to say about it.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

It is NOT coercion because you have OTHER options. You can just take your business elsewhere as you did. Good for you. That's how this great economy works.

Now if it is the only doctor in a small town and the next closest doctor is 40+ miles? Now we may have a legal issue.

a reply to: raymundoko
an ob/gny serves more than just pregnant women, if he wanted a drug free client base, he would test every patient, not just the pregnant ones....

and, in the scotus case, they found that there was quite a bit of interaction between law enforcement and the hospitals in setting up this policy... which proved that law enforcement was using the medical profession as an arm in enforcements.
and because they were acting as an arm of law enforcement, they were required to basically act in the same manner....in other words, tell them their rights, inform them of the search, ect.

I really don't think weather or not they are using state run hospitals or private doctors really matters. it all boils down to weather or not the state is using the medical profession by encouraging, assisting, mandating, the medical profession to report the positive drug tests and possibly require them to do them, and weather or not those in the medical profession are informing those patients of their legal rights and other the requirements that are laid out for law enforcement to abide by.

I kind of think that this doctor has informed his patients, so he is probably alright, but to just do the drug tests without the patients knowledge with the primary intention of turning them over to law enforcement/cps, I think that goes to the heart of the ruling and wouldn't be allowed, regardless of weather we are talking about hospital or doctor's office, public or private.

my problem is with the drug tests themselves, and some people's unwillingness to even entertain the idea that they can be in error. I can't help but wonder just how many families went through hell that one hospital just because the hospital was using a shampoo or soap that was triggering false positives in the babies. I am sure that most people don't know all of the things that they have found that can produce those false positives and I am also sure that they haven't discovered everything that might produce one. the policy is wrong at it's basic core- that the drug tests are accurate enough to warrent inviting lawenforcement/cps to begin with. at the most it should just be used to tip off the healthcare provider to keep an eye on the patient, maybe ask some questions about their diets/medications, ect. but a simple positive drug test should not be grounds to take the kids and throw them into what has been shown to be a just as likely unsafe foster care environment

a reply to: raymundoko

OMG! We finally (kind of) agree! Lol!

I could totally understand saying "If you don't sign the 'Consent to Treatment' we can't treat you." Because, well, it's a consent to treat (which I did sign). But a medically unnecessary test? And I know, I know, everyone will say "Oh but they have to know what's in your system in order to properly treat you." Not really. Not sure how much every poster on here knows about prenatal care, but it's mostly passive. They check your vitals, check the fetal heartbeat and check your urine for red flags (not drugs) like glucose- indication of gestational diabetes, proteins and pH levels. They don't really DO much of anything. So, they could do all that just fine without a drug test. And if they have reason to suspect drug use, it's lawful to do that without consent anyway, so they're already covered.

That would be like your doctor saying he won't treat you for a sinus infection if you don't go for a colonoscopy. Hey, what if you don't want a camera up your butt? He could prescribe antibiotics just fine for the sinus infection without needing the results of the colonoscopy.

Anyway, going to see the new doc tomorrow and I can already feel this bean moving so everything's gravy here.


And I WISH I could stop taking the Zyrtec, I really don't like taking any chemicals while pregnant even if it's approved for use, but it's cedar season so i guess breathing is most important.

a reply to: dawnstar
I don't think the form specified ONLY pregnant women. Which means that a non-pregnant woman coming in for birth control could be spot tested and then reported to CPS.

"If he wants a drug free client base"? THAT would be a bunch of BS. Drug addicts need help from doctors more than anyone.

That's what bothers me most about the War on Drugs and automatically criminalizing drug use. There are A LOT of functional addicts. Just because someone tests positive for something, doesn't automatically make them a bad person/parent. And to speak specifically about marijuana- I believe the only reason it's even illegal is because it's competition for the cotton industry, the synthetic fiber industry, the alcohol and tobacco industry, and (with the bigge$t lobbyists) the pharmaceutical industry. I don't believe they have the public's health as a concern at all. No one's ever died from it, no one's ever been addicted to it. I believe (not saying I use) that it would probably be safe for use during pregnancy. Yet, if you test positive, they threaten to take your kids away, force you to go to rehab, etc. etc. But I guess that's a whole other thread- the War on Drugs that's been lost since it started.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

most of the drug addicts today I think were created by doctors, do you really think that they are gonna report anyone who tests positive for something that they have prescribed themselves??? it's insane what they are doing...

a reply to: dawnstar

Actually amongst the research for this thread I read about women who have been prescribed a drug by one doctor (such as hydrocodone) and then reported to CPS because of one of these OBGYN drug tests. It IS dumb. Pharmaceuticals have done waaay more damage than illegal drugs; kill more people, destroy more lives, make more addicts. But those companies have the $way with politicians to keep doing what they're doing. Personally I think rehab should be free for anyone that wants it. Decriminalize ALL drugs, then take all that money that was being spent on the prison budgets, and whatever's lacking take out of Big Pharma's pockets.

But obviously I'm not in charge of anything. And the government isn't concerned with the common man, only the interests of the 1% so...