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

well, you can add mace (the spice), nutmeg, and tea to the list pregnant women should stay away from if they want to protect their custody rights and freedoms in the american society!

Speaking of the D-L test, they wrote that “mace, nut-
meg and tea reacted with the modified Duquenois-Levine [test]

This from a 44 page reports. That particular quote can be found on page 8 (going by adobe acrobat page counter).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This two-year scientific/legal investigation reveals a drug testing regime of fraudulent forensics used by police, pros-
ecutors, and judges which abrogates every American’s Constitutional rights. The report is a call to action by former
FBI chief scientist and narcotics officer, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst and writer and forensic drug expert, John Kelly, for
lawmakers to enact a moratorium on the use of these tests and to create the necessary oversight and control of drug
testing to protect the public’s basic freedoms. While the report does not examine blood or urine drug tests, it does
examine in depth lab tests as well as field tests used by police, jails, schools, border guards, parents and others to de-
termine if a suspected substance is in fact an illegal drug.

False Positives Equal False Justice
www.cacj.org...

a reply to: dawnstar
Do you feel owned? Going to the doctor is stressful enough. Even when you know you can pass a drug test, the what if is in the back of mind. I would go midwife.

a reply to: MOMof3

well I know I don't have to worry about it personally, don't think you do either?
but, well, someday I would like my sons to find a nice girl, marry, and well give me a few grandkids.
I would much rather have a daughter in law raising my grandhchildren than me because she ate a poppy begal on her way to the hospital to give birth.

a reply to: dawnstar

But we can feel for our sisters who have to deal with crap we never had to worry about.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I find this whole thread very strange. I haven't read the entire thread, so correct me if I'm wrong. You went to an OB for prenatal care and the OB required a urine drug screen. You're unhappy because you feel that it was unnecessary, an unlawful search, and that it was coercion because if you did not submit to testing you would not be treated which you considered a threat.

You're not entitled to OB care. A physician does not have to treat you if they do not want to unless it is emergent. The physician felt it was necessary as drugs can harm a fetus (obviously). The physician does not need probable cause to do a drug test as you voluntarily went to the physician and asked for service. A drug test is standard in this scenario. You are more than welcome to go somewhere else if you do not agree with your physician. No one is forcing you to see a physician at all, much less a specific physician. Also, if you do not follow the direction of the physician, for example not taking medication the physician prescribed, the physician can fire you.

Furthermore, people are complaining about drug screens having false positives or have a true positive from prescribed medication. Let me put those fears to rest. We know that false positives occur and we know what causes those false positives. This does not take us by surprise. There are plenty of resources (pg. 69) for clinicians on this topic. If you do have a positive on your drug screen, we investigate further because we know that false positives exist. We can do gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to see exactly what compound is in your urine. For example, if you are positive for opiates, GC/MS will show exactly which opiate. As for prescribed controlled substances, there is a database that physicians can access where we can see what controlled substances you have been prescribed. Google "Prescription Monitoring Program". Methadone is commonly used in pregnancy for opiate addiction (ACOG Committee Opinion on Opioid Abuse, Dependence, and Addiction in Pregnancy). No one is going to report you for following a prescribed opioid addiction treatment program. If you read this on the internet, it is untrue. If someone told you that you will be reported for following a prescribed drug addiction treatment regimen, it is untrue.

Full disclosure, I'm a physician.

a reply to: alkali

That is fine. But this is about involving the law. That automatically removes the trust between care giver and patient.

a reply to: alkali

I'm the main one saying they are unreliable. I've posted a few stories where women tested positive, after eating food that contained poppy seeds, these women had their babies taken away. It's kind of hard to deny this after they have received settlements after court cases.
another point..
I take ibprofen quite a bit for inflamation, without it, my feet and ankles hurt quite a bit...more than I want to go through. I'm sorry but I have found your doctors, the prescriptions you write, the tests, well, we never could afford it. It was a doctor way back over a decade ago that told me to take the ibprofen. so well, no matter how hard you look in your database, more than likely there is no indication that I have taken it. Ya know, it's funny. I ran across this page on the internet here:

www.merckmanuals.com...

this page is written for the professionals, or to put it another way...you doctors.

Validity of testing depends on the type of test done. Screening tests are typically rapid qualitative urine immunoassays. Such screening tests are associated with a number of false-positive and false-negative results, and they do not detect meperidine and fentanyl. Lysergic acid diethylamide ('___'), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), mescaline, and inhaled hydrocarbons are not detected on readily available screens. Confirmatory tests, which may require several hours, typically use gas chromatography or mass spectroscopy.

and then here:

False positives can result from ingesting prescription and nonprescription therapeutic drugs and from consuming certain foods. Poppy seeds may produce false-positive results for opioids. Pseudoephedrine, tricyclic antidepressants, and quetiapine may produce false-positive results for amphetamines, and ibuprofen may produce false-positive results for marijuana.

and at the top of the page you will find a statement that basically says that it's for the professionals, and gives a link to a page for consumers...

On the consumer's page it does discuss drug screening but it says nothing about poppy seeds, or ibprofen, or cold medications, and all the other stuff that could produce a false negative.
the consent form involved in the op of this thread clearly stated that all positives would be turned over to the legal authorities.

and yet, the drug tests themselves are not accurate. people get fired from jobs, new mothers have their babies taken away from them... and well, it's obvious from that site that it's well known in the medical community that ibprofen can cause a false positive for mj... but well, it also seems that that fact is something that the medical community wants hidden from the consumers- we the people, the ones who are being tested... the ones who lose jobs because they didn't know enough to stay away from the ibprofen and just live a pain filled life! or put up with the symptoms of that cold and not take the cold medicine. babies are ending up in foster care because mom didn't know enough to stay away from the poppy begel. and well, even if we are informed enough to know a few things that can cause a false positive there is no way that we could know all of them, because it seems like more things are still being discovered, like the baby shampoo and soap in the hospital that found it alarming that so many babies were testing positive.

are employers given a full list of known substances that will cause a false positive along with the drug tests they plan on using on their employees? does this doctor involved in this op get a full list? does he spend any time with the patient to find out if there might be another source for the positive outside of drug usage? or does he just ship the results to law enforcement?

a reply to: dawnstar

Your search on The Merck Manual reiterates what I said, "Confirmatory tests, which may require several hours, typically use gas chromatography or mass spectroscopy." This will rule-out a false positive. If you have a doctor that didn't exercise due diligence, it's likely that you have a case for a lawsuit. The vast majority of physicians aren't taking infants from their parents willy-nilly. Of course, there are crappy doctors who are not very good at what they do, but they are the minority. Don't let the actions of a few distort your view of physicians as a whole.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: alkali

That is fine. But this is about involving the law. That automatically removes the trust between care giver and patient.

That is a totally legitimate argument and it's one that the medical community needs to have. A lot of difficult questions have to be answered. When is it okay to take away someone's child? Does a pregnant woman have the right to knowingly harm her unborn fetus? Does parental drug use constitute child abuse? If so, what about cigarettes or alcohol? Does doctor-patient confidentiality trump the law in this case or should doctors report? Are outcomes better if you take the child or leave the child with his/her drug abusing mother? Should physicians even be involved in removing children from the parents? If physicians should not be involved, what about in cases of physical abuse? You could come up with questions like these all day. This is a complicated topic.

a reply to: alkali

I think doctors have forgotten who they are,are you a healer or cop. The system already comes at drug addicts and child abusers with the full force of laws.

a reply to: alkali
If the doctor wants to drug test me (among the million other things they are testing for) I don't have a problem with that. I am not pro-illegal drug, nor am I pro-pregnant women getting high all the time and popping out babies with defects that could be prevented.

Here's my problem: This form they expected me to sign says "We're going to randomly test everyone and report you to law enforcement if it comes up positive." The minute you bring law enforcement into it, you have to play by the rules AKA The BIll of Rights and the Constitution. You can't just go around gathering evidence of crimes, for the sole intention of prosecuting people, without probable cause or a warrant. That's the law of the land.

I'm not on drugs, so I don't worry about failing a drug test. I did leave that doc and find another one just on a matter of principle. Maybe it's technically legal because it's a private doc, but to me it seems unconstitutional.

Overall, my beef with a policy like this is it does NOTHING to actually prevent babies being born with defects due to drug ingestion. All it does is frighten pregnant addicts into 1. lying about what they're doing or 2. not seeking prenatal care at all which are both the worst possible outcome. They should have a position of trust with their doctor where they can be honest about what they're doing so that hopefully they can get treatment for it. But the looming threat of handcuffs and children being taken away from them drives a huge wedge in the doctor/patient trust. Policies like this DO NOT actually decrease drug use and the subsequent defects, in fact I would be willing to bet that they INCREASE them (addicts not receiving care at all out of fear).

And since researching all this I've found that: doctor's already can drug test without consent if there's probable cause AND they are mandatory reporters, which means if a pregnant woman is doing a bunch of drugs they HAVE to turn them in anyway. So the matter is already covered. There is absolutely no reason to even ask consent to drug test EVERY pregnant woman.

Just because there is a POTENTIAL human inside me, doesn't mean my rights are out the window.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: dawnstar
Do you feel owned? Going to the doctor is stressful enough. Even when you know you can pass a drug test, the what if is in the back of mind. I would go midwife.

OMG! I wish to God I could just go back to my midwife. I was so comfortable with her. Unfortunately I HAVE to have a c-section.
Yesterday I went to the new doc. It was a miserable experience. Even though their intake paperwork isn't blatantly unconstitutional, they were still "You HAVE to do this, you HAVE to do that." I'm disabled due to medical malpractice and I have a crippling phobia of doctors and hospitals. I started having an anxiety attack just being in the office (aka crying like an idiot, it's embarrassing, but I can't help it). The nurse says she will ask the doc about anxiety meds that are safe to take (I don't think there are any- except MJ but I'm sure as hell not going to do that- and good old western medicine will load you up with Xanax before they admit MJ might have medicinal properties). They tell me I HAVE to have a pap smear...umm...severe (as in unable to function normally) PTSD/Anxiety, I CAN NOT do that. I started freaking out just thinking about it. Well you HAVE to. Basically I'm fine until I get around these damn doctors, then I'm a stressed out mess, which is proven to be bad for the baby.

They don't have any care or concern for mother or baby. You're just a number. An item on an assembly line. They have their rules, regulations and checklists with no option for individual tailoring of treatment. They couldn't give two sh*ts less how much you may be suffering, suffering isn't factored into their equation.

I just keep telling myself this is my last baby, the last time I have to put up with this dehumanizing sh*t. But I feel bad for all the women who come behind me. Despite what they say, it doesn't HAVE to be like this.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

First, no one is taking away your rights as you freely chose to go to the doctor. If it was being forced on you against your will, that would be against your civil rights. However, as the drug test is not being forced on you against your will and you are free to get up and leave the office at any point in time without hindrance, it is not a violation of your rights at all. You can agree or not agree to the test. If you agree and sign the document, you agreed to have the drug screen and accepted that social services will be notified if it is positive, it is not a violation of your rights as you agreed to the conditions. If you disagree, you can leave without penalty which is not a violation of your rights. No rights were violated. I don't know how to make that anymore clear.

Second, with the Pap smear, they are testing for group B strep which is often present in the vagina and can be transferred to your child during birth and can result in the child's death. If you're having a c-section, you should bring this up with your doctor as strep can only be transferred via vaginal delivery if I'm not mistaken. However, I'm not an OB and may be wrong.

Third, if you suffer from crippling anxiety and can't function whenever you see a doctor or get near a hospital, you need to see a psychiatrist or psychologist and attend therapy.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

If all this is true, you need to calm down. Happy mothers have happy children. Just get through this, then I would leave the state that allows care givers to treat people like that. You have made your point, but the blind will never see.

a reply to: alkali
As I posted before the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST a hospital for conducting drug tests for the purpose of law enforcement without consent. When it stops being about medicine and starts being about law enforcement then they have to play by the rules: probable cause and warrants.

Now, since this is a private doctor, maybe they have the right to make up whatever policy they want. And as a consumer I took my business elsewhere.

They took blood and urine yesterday. I would think everything they need to know would be in that. The nurse said some STD's don't show up on blood work, but I would think I would be showing some symptoms of say, gohorrhea. And yeah, strep B in the vagina could effect the baby....if I was having a vaginal delivery. But they're going to cut it out anyway. And I never had a pap with my last one (and possibly not even my oldest, I can't say I remember) and he was born 100% healthy. Everything in medicine is about risk v. benefit. If a Pap smear would definitely cause me a severe anxiety attack and because of the pregnancy they can't give me any medication to help....and all my blood work is fine and I show no symptoms of any kind of dangerous infection.....then maybe they could skip it this once.

Third, if you suffer from crippling anxiety and can't function whenever you see a doctor or get near a hospital, you need to see a psychiatrist or psychologist and attend therapy.

Gee thanks. I never thought of that.
My condition is so severe I'm on disability. I DO see a psychiatrist. I can cognitively KNOW that something is not a threat to me, but my brain DUMPS stress hormones anyway. Like yesterday, there was no REASON for me to have an anxiety attack, but because of my negative experiences with doctors and medical staff in the past, it just started happening anyway. And the nurse started throwing out rationale for things. And I told her "I UNDERSTAND intellectually, I can't control my brain's reaction." It's a chemical imbalance and there's nothing I can do to help it except avoid stressors and medicate. Only I have to see a doctor while pregnant- stressor. And I can't take my medication while pregnant- causes birth defects.

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

If this OBGYN is private practice, their policy is their policy. They have as much of a right to determine that policy as you have a right to tell them to stuff it about that drug test. Find a different OBGYN. You have the right to decline the test but they are not obligated to see you. They will probably call CPS on you anyway because you refused to take that test. Don't be surprised when there are social workers at your door.

I think a policy like this is unethical and counter productive. You simply prevent women that are drug users from seeking prenatal care. Denying care to a population of the unborn that is likely to need that care more than average is just stupid and mean. Also, as you said, they are essentially refusing to see to the health of the unborn because they are making a moral judgment about the mother.

Ethically, I think that they are out of line but you can't require them to see you unless... You can successfully make the argument (as in you would probably have to take it to court) that they are your ONLY option for prenatal care. Find someone else. I would let it go.

Congratulations by the way. I hope all goes well.

I think you and the OP are over reacting to the test. What you, the OP and many others are failing to realize is SO many babies are being born addicted to drugs. The OP should know this because you said you were a police officer. You should know exactly how out of control the drug problem is. And not all drug addicts look like the stereotypical tweeker. The doctor refused service because they don't want to be liable for treating you for something and having it react to drugs you might be taking, or under treating you because they have no knowledge of your drug abuse. If you disclose you use and take the test the doctor will be better prepared to form special treatment for you and your baby around any addictions you might have. They will find the best way to try and keep the baby as healthy as possible despite every dumb act of their drug abusing parents. So its not to punish you and take away your rights, but to help the baby. I don't remember anyone saying the doctor wouldn't treat anyone who came back positive. I bet they do it all the time. They just don't want to be lied to then sued later for something they knew nothing about.

And CPS should be called if you have a mother doing drugs. Oh lets just ignore the damage shes doing to her baby and then lets just let her take it home to continue the cycle of abuse. Sadly CPS doesn't do enough to help kids. I have a stupid step brother and his girlfriend who have had 7 drug addicted babies, SEVEN! It took baby #6 before they actually did anything. CPS is a freaking joke.

a reply to: ZenTam
For what it's worth, babies with defects due to recklessness of the mother make me sick too. Not just drugs. Like I said, I knew a woman who's daughter had chronic asthma and was always doing breathing treatments and being rushed to the ER...she smoked cigarettes through the whole pregnancy. When she told me that I seriously could have slapped her (after complaining all the time how sick her daughter was).

The problem is when doctors try to play law enforcement.

And the fact that threat of law enforcement doesn't deter these women, it just drives them to hide it better. If they could be open and honest with their doctors without threat of legal action, they could have a much more open dialogue and maybe actually make some progress. Instead they just skip prenatal care altogether, which is the worst possible thing.

I will fully admit that I am skeptical of doctors AND law enforcement, which is why I took major exception to the policy in the OP. You're right, they don't do near enough to stop the real sh*theads. BUT, what so many naive posters don't realize, is that just as often they break it off in the a$$ of people who have done nothing wrong. And there's no recourse. In the past I've fallen into this latter group. Doctors/med staff and LE...broke the law, broke the rules, left me disabled...I filed complaints, filed reports and tried to get a lawyer. Absolutely nothing happened to any of them. People have way too much faith in a seriously jacked up system.

CPS leaves abused kids in homes until they are literally beaten to death. Then they turn around and take a newborn away from a mother that's found to have marijuana (used to self medicate for pain or nausea) in her system but no damage to the baby.

I will fully admit I have no trust or faith in medicine or law enforcement to actually do the right thing.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

There was one family that lived in the same apartment complex as I did, two doors down. About two days before christmas, we heard one of the neighbors screaming fire, fire, as loud as she could out back, so well, I was close to the front door so I opened it to see. there were flames shooting up from that apartment. So we gathered the kids dressed them warm, and well as we were leaving the apartment, the radiators started shaking so badly it was quite scary. Well, the fire not only about destroyed that one apartment, but also my next door neighbor's. The story that circulated the neighborhood was that one of the kids was playing with a lighter and he was taken that night and put into foster care. This boy that was blamed went to the same preschool as one of my son's, so I started asking around. The teacher said she didn't think he did it. And well, I knew the caseworker who was working the case. She told me that she was pretty sure he didn't. Dad smoked a pipe and it wasn't the first time that he had fallen asleep with the thing lit in his mouth. Well, the one kid (they had about four all together) spent maybe a month and foster care and then was returned to his parents. I felt so sorry for him. Their christmas was ruined, and well, as far as everyone was concerned, he was to blame, even though both the social worker and his teacher knew different. heck wouldn't surprise me if he didn't grow up believing that he set the place on fire and ruined christmas for everyone. No one worked in this family, most of the family probably were drawing disability checks for mental deficiencies.

Then there was another family, a working family that seemed to be doing rather well. Mom was sick, and had even gone to the doctors for her problem. well, on day she passed out while dad was at work, and one of the kids managed to set one of the upstairs apartments on fire. CPS got involved, and off the kids went to foster homes. It took them a ton of counseling sessions, and other stuff before they could get their kids back....no help was ever offered to them to help with the medical condition which was the primary problem. and well, it was over a year before those kids came home.

so, in my first example, they only took the one kid, who they were pretty sure never started the fire to begin with, it was dad...and the kid was home within a week...with dad still in the picture by the way..

and in the second example, ya, the kid started the fire, but she had documented evidence that she had a medical problem and was trying to get it treated. so they took all the kids, and put them through all the ropes for at least a year before they gave them back..

the only reason I can think of for the different treatment between the two is in the first story, well, they were already all drawing a check from social security. it was probably cheaper for the state to just return them to their parents, after all they had nothing else to do with their time, no jobs or anything.
the second family though, they had money, and well, it was more profitable to place the kids in the foster homes. after all , that's job creation!
maybe I am wrong, but that was the only way I could make sense of it.

Having briefly read the OP and the ensuing thread a couple of thoughts:

1) If you are going to a specific doctor for a non emergency appointment etc. they can have conditions on providing care. For example my sons pediatrician will not accept patients who's parents refuse vaccinations. This falls under her right to practice in that setting.

2) If you showed up to say an emergency room needing treatment, taking a drug test a condition for treatment would not only be an ethical and practice violation by the MD, it would be a legal one as well covered in the EMTALA laws (which hospital administrators and bean counters fear because the fines and sanctions are no joke). However, if you came into the ER and were "altered", that is out of it or unconscious, as we like to say they may do a drug screen as part of the differential diagnosis.

In your case if the drug test was a pre condition to having that OB provide care and it was a process you were uncomfortable with, you exercised your right to refuse and move on. Many people fail to realize that you do not have to go to a particular hospital or clinic for routine services, but you can shop around so to speak (if available). You need to find a MD that you are a) comfortable with, b) are able to build a lasting professional relationship with because that usually is the recipe for better care long term.

a reply to: FredT

You are totally right. Apparently private doctors can just come up with whatever policy they want and require it as a precursor to treatment. And as a patient I have the right to refuse any test/treatment I'm uncomfortable with. It sucks that there's no middle ground, like they give a little and do everything BUT the test I'm uncomfortable with. Since I'm pregnant there is literally a ticking time bomb inside me. I've already blown through the first trimester dealing with this nonsense. I don't have a whole lot of time to 'shop around'.

* and i"m sure you get it, but the drug test isn't what I had a problem with, it was the fact that they were openly acting as agents of law enforcement without following the guidelines of such (warrants/probable cause)