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

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm in Texas. I haven't even looked to see if they do as it's a non-issue. I'm doing everything correctly to ensure a healthy pregnancy...and I know what I'm doing, this ain't my first rodeo! Lol!

I've got nothing to hide, it's just the principle of the matter. If they had tweaked their wording or gone about it a different way, I would have no problem. But "We're going to randomly drug test you and report you to the authorities" is some gestapo BS. And the fact that they refused to treat me because I refused to sign a 'voluntary' consent form is just cuckoo crazy.

We refuse to check on the health of your fetus....for the sake of the health of the fetus.

a reply to: Phage

You keep bringing up employment as a parallel example, when it's not the same at all. An employer would be paying ME to work for them. They would be liable if I screwed up. They would be out all kinds of money for training an such if I turned out to be a crappy employee (like a lot of drug and alcohol addicts are).

I'm going to this doctor for a service. I am paying them. I should not be forced to do anything I'm not comfortable with and they should not have the right to coerce me into doing anything or hold my healthcare hostage over unnecessary procedures. I was never drug tested before. Trust me, they can provide totally adequate prenatal care without a drug test.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I'm in Texas.

Awesome! I got it right without even knowing where you live.

We refuse to check on the health of your fetus....for the sake of the health of the fetus.

It's not just about the health of your fetus. Did you even read the Texas rules which I quoted? Did you look at the link?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Give up all your rights and please, sign here, here, and initial. . . . . . here.

No. Not all. Just a bit of privacy, with good reason.
You do that when you strip down, don't you?

But you understand that the form does not say you will be drug tested, right?

A loss of freedoms always starts off with the best intentions.

At least, that's the excuse used.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I'm going to this doctor for a service. I am paying them.

And any service provider can refuse service to anyone, as long as it is not based on discriminatory criteria. You can be kept out of a fancy restaurant because you are not dressed properly. Are you the only one who was subject to this requirement? Are you a minority? Any particular religion? Gay (does that matter in Texas)?

I should not be forced to do anything I'm not comfortable with and they should not have the right to coerce me into doing anything or hold my healthcare hostage over unnecessary procedures.

You are not being forced to do anything. You are not being coerced. You did not want to agree to random drug tests so you refused to sign the form. Done.

a reply to: DBCowboy

where was the forced part?
she didnt want to consent so she didnt.
i dont see the forced in that.

they wanted her to agree to something before they treated her. she didnt agree and they didnt treat her.
im sure she has a good sawzall for cord cuttin

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

thats not comparable because said people go to the dr. in your scenario the drs are coming to you.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

People in the medical profession can only do their job correctly if they have all the available information. If you refuse to give them the information by way of taking a test then you only have yourself to blame.

Try thinking about someone else rather than yourself.

But lets face it..the only people who complain about having to take a drug test are the ones who they might fail...

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
I'd bet money that they tested my urine after I left, just out of curiosity.

No, they didn't, you can get sacked if you do a test without the patient's consent (at least in the UK, but I'm sure it's the same in the US). Consent is 'the' word in healthcare nowadays and I agree: doctors are giving you a choice, the choice is yours and only yours to make. They cannot do their job properly if they don't have all the necessary information, hence they can refuse care. They are responsible for what happens to you and your baby under they care, so they have the right to create rules to protect their practice.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: dawnstar

I'm in Texas. I haven't even looked to see if they do as it's a non-issue. I'm doing everything correctly to ensure a healthy pregnancy...and I know what I'm doing, this ain't my first rodeo! Lol!

I've got nothing to hide, it's just the principle of the matter. If they had tweaked their wording or gone about it a different way, I would have no problem. But "We're going to randomly drug test you and report you to the authorities" is some gestapo BS. And the fact that they refused to treat me because I refused to sign a 'voluntary' consent form is just cuckoo crazy.

We refuse to check on the health of your fetus....for the sake of the health of the fetus.

Seems to me like you are protesting using your baby, and not doing EVERYTHING (though maybe most things) correctly. Denying your baby medical care because you want to protest is very careless.

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

For those of you who are all- "the doctors just need all the information to do the best job possible"
That's BS. If that were the case, doctors would drug test everyone all the time before prescribing anything. And they're not talking about doing a full lab draw blood panel. They are talking about checking your urine for illegal drugs...ie searching your person/bodily fluids, without a warrant...so they can turn you over to the authorities.

1. I refuse to sign a 'voluntary' consent for one test. They can continue on with checking my vital signs etc. without that just fine. I've gone through 2 other pregnancies where they didn't need to do this and everything was fine. I refuse to consent to one test, they can do everything else besides that test. Threatening to not treat me if I don't consent to something is coercion. They are trying to force me to do something I morally object to.

2. If they're so concerned about my health/the health of the fetus, why can't the wording be: "We will randomly test you, and any positive results will be discussed in confidentiality with the doctor." Then if someone IS using something, the doctor could counsel them and refer them to rehab, or prescribe a safer alternative, etc. Why is a health care provider acting as law enforcement?

3. For those of you who accuse ME of being on drugs, all I can do is shake my head. If you want to bend over while someone violates your civil rights (ie search of your person without a warrant for law enforcement purposes) I guess that's your prerogative, but it just doesn't sit well with me. Unfortunately there's plenty more like you and that's why our country is in the state it's in.

4. To Agartha: You say they 'can't' do a drug test without my consent? I would almost bet money that they did, because like some other people on here they would take my protest as a sign of guilt. They would see it as their duty so that they could report me to CPS. They don't have to do a whole detailed blood panel. There are drug dip sticks that they can stick in your urine to check for illegal drugs.

5. To the people who think I'm reckless because I walked out of one doctor's office: Melodramatic much? In the first 2 trimesters you only see the doctor once a month. They check your vitals, your urine (for protein, glucose and pH), and the baby's heartbeat. No one will be harmed if it takes me a couple more days to find another doctor.

Oh yeah and at dinner last night my mom said my grandmother (age 96) was filling out paperwork with her doctor and there was the question:
"Do you own a gun?"
Now what does that have to do with anything? Other than report back to LE? So now it's not just testing for illicit substances to turn results over to LE without a warrant, they're collecting information too?

Some of you think it's no big deal, but I have a very bad feeling about where this is going.

you do realize that drug tests aren't 100% accurate, right? I mean everything from poppy seeds, to breakfast bars, to cold medicines, to ibprofen, to some brands of shampoo are known to cause a false positive.
you should also realize that in some states, a positive drug test is just as likely to land you in jail...

obviously what you don't know is that pregnant women seem to have trouble gaining access to prenatal care in jail!

www.kens5.com...

inthesetimes.com...

Besides the nausea, vomiting, and shakes of a sudden detox from opiates, being denied methadone in jail could also have ended DeSamito’s pregnancy. According to a May 2012 opinion issued by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), abruptly quitting opiates while pregnant can result in “preterm labor, fetal distress, or fetal demise.” The opinion recommends methodone or buprenorphine during pregnancy, and even says it’s safe to breastfeed.

In 2013, NAPW published a study titled Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States. The study found that medical misinformation, primarily around drug use, caused an uptick in arrests and detentions of pregnant women. In many cases, the women were reported to police by hospitals and other medical staff.

According to the study: “The data revealed that pregnant women were denied a range of fundamental rights normally associated with constitutional personhood, including the right to life, physical liberty, bodily integrity, due process of law, equal protection, and religious liberty, based solely on their pregnancy status.”

Basically, if you’re pregnant and you don’t do exactly what your doctor says, you could go to jail.

DeSamito’s trip to jail last week coincided with a similar high-profile arrest in Tennessee. Mallory Loyola, 26, became the first woman convicted under the state’s new law that criminalizes drug use during pregnancy. Loyola was arrested and charged with assault on July 8, just two days after giving birth, because she and her newborn tested positive for methamphetamine.

The Tennessee law legislates against newborns suffering from withdrawal symptoms, or neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), as if it were the “crack baby” scare of our time. But, according to ACOG, NAS is an “expected and treatable condition that follows prenatal exposure to opioid agonists.”

“Because a woman has become pregnant should not mean that she can be treated separately and unequally under the law,” NAPW executive director Lynn Paltrow told VICE News. “On its face, the law discriminates against women. It specifically targets women who become pregnant. Men who procreate are not going to be charged with any crime based on the fact that they have helped to bring new life into the world and that they are using a criminalized drug.”

The bill was passed in response to reports of a growing trend in NAS cases. Yet in March 2013 a group of over 40 medical experts wrote an open letter stating that NAS “has never been shown to lead to any long-term adverse effects.”

'There's this misguided notion that the interests of the child and the interests of the mother are different.'

“Reporting about this issue that is not based on science encourages policies that undermine maternal, fetal, and child health,” the letter continued. Ironically, in Loyola’s case, meth is not usually thought to cause NAS; instead, the syndrome typically stems from opiate use.

The new Tennessee law is confusing for other reasons. It includes an exception, sort of a “get out of jail free” card, for pregnant women who stay in drug treatment programs until after the baby is born. But the law states that the woman must “complete” the program. Completion is a foggy notion when it comes to opiate addiction — many people stay in methadone treatment for years or even a lifetime.

A contradictory Tennessee law passed in 2013, the Safe Harbor Act, seems based on a more realistic understanding that drug addiction isn’t like a maternity dress one puts on and takes off at whim. This legislation makes confidential drug treatment for addicted pregnant women a priority. Nowhere does it state that addicts should be reported for arrest.

“There's this misguided notion that the interests of the child and the interests of the mother are different,” Sunderlin told VICE News. “I think we often lose sight of the fact that what is good for the mother is also what is good for the baby.”

That’s the crux of the problem, advocates say: The laws supposedly designed to ensure the health and safety of fetuses and newborns often result in their harm.

Micaela Cadena of New Mexico’s Young Women United has worked with a group of around 30 women who have experienced pregnancy and drug use in some concomitant form. She told VICE News that criminalizing pregnant drug users can have devastating consequences.

“Rather than being irresponsible, which is the prevailing stigma, these women are concerned with the safety of their families,” Cadena said. “There are really high rates of women avoiding prenatal care. When we ask them why that is, the overwhelming reason they haven’t gone to get the care they need is because they’re terrified of losing their children.”

Cadena told VICE News that even though her state doesn’t have a law criminalizing drug use during pregnancy, many medical officials think that it’s their responsibility to report the women to police. This creates a pattern that deters pregnant drug users from getting medical care.

Both Loyola and DeSamito can attest to that. Loyola was arrested two days after giving birth. Taking a newborn baby’s mom away during the initial bonding phase is not exactly recommended, to say nothing of Loyola’s need for postnatal care.

DeSamito told VICE News that prescribing methadone to recovering opiate addicts is a method of treatment that "saves lives." “Women need a chance to recover and give their baby something better.”

news.vice.com...

ladyvalkyrie thinks she's doing everything right, and maybe she knows every possible thing that can cause a false positive, I don't know. I do know that the ibprofen that I've been taking on a daily basis, many times above the recommended dosage has a history of producing false positives though. And that is the only drug that I consume. It's also quite non-negotiable, I am not going quit taking them just so an employer or healthcare professional can get his negative drug test. And there's an entire thread on the tennesee law that jails women for testing positive.
and well a few links that I just provided that kind gives you a clue as to just how well the prenatal care is in the jail/prison system.
Hopefully ladyvalkyrie can find a doctor that is willing to treat her without the drug test. But these laws, and the idea that they should be using medical caretakers and not so accurate drug test to help enforce it is doing more harm to the unborn child than it is good.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Oh yeah and at dinner last night my mom said my grandmother (age 96) was filling out paperwork with her doctor and there was the question:
"Do you own a gun?"
Now what does that have to do with anything? Other than report back to LE? So now it's not just testing for illicit substances to turn results over to LE without a warrant, they're collecting information too?

Some of you think it's no big deal, but I have a very bad feeling about where this is going.

Actually this is not the same thing as testing for drug use.
The reason is simple no amount of gun ownership will, change the way medication interacts with your body chemistry.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Phage

"Forced" consent.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

So OP was forced to sign up and do the drug test?

Or are you talking bollocks?

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Oh yeah and at dinner last night my mom said my grandmother (age 96) was filling out paperwork with her doctor and there was the question:
"Do you own a gun?"
Now what does that have to do with anything? Other than report back to LE? So now it's not just testing for illicit substances to turn results over to LE without a warrant, they're collecting information too?

Some of you think it's no big deal, but I have a very bad feeling about where this is going.

Common sense isn't your strongest suite.

They most certianly asked your grandmother if she owned a gun because her medication most likely has "homicidal/suicidal thoughts" listed as a side effect. Smarten up, there are more serious and important things in the world, like the health of your baby.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

My fiance went to her first prenatal visit at her OB/GYN last Wednesday and signed all that. Don't know if she had to, but she didn't have a problem doing so. I would suggest that if you don't like it, you should find an OB/GYN that doesn't care if they're treating a drug addicted mother or not. But I'm almost certain that offices such as that can make their own rules as far as drug testing. I don't blame them one bit.

Furthermore, why would it even bother you since you're not a drug addict? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

a reply to: StoutBroux

My fiance has a close friend that had a child last Summer. She's a weed smoker and smoked throughout the entire pregnancy. She had normal visits so if you find the right place, you can get past. Lady may have to go to a government funded place in the inner city to get seen without a drug screen, but it's possible, and they're out there. The friend was on Medicaid.

If a police officer pulled me over and asked to search my vehicle I would tell them 'no'. The easiest way to get around a warrant requirement is to simply ask for consent. I know I'm innocent and I don't consent. That should be the end of it. They shouldn't be able to withhold treatment because I refuse to 'voluntarily' consent to a warrantless search of my person.

And as for my grandmother and the gun question: you can kill yourself with a knife, or OD, or drive your car off a cliff. Did they ask her about any of those? The more prudent way to deal with someone that you're prescribing mind altering substances to would be to closely monitor them for changes. I'm just wondering if the 'do you own a gun' question is being turned over to LE?

That's my whole entire point. They're not making this policy for my health and safety, or the health and safety of my fetus. There are perfectly constitutional ways to go about that. Doctors are acting as agents of law enforcement and circumventing warrant requirements....and THAT is BS.

If you do test positive for any illicit substances it is required by the DEA that they receive that information.
Orwell meets medicine.
That database just gets bigger and bigger and one day when they need it they pull the info they want to back you up in a corner.
It has nothing to do with your safety, health or the doctor's liability.
Just more governmental intrusion.