Susan Horton had been a stay-at-home mom for almost 20 years, and now—pregnant with her fifth child—she felt a hard-won confidence in herself as a mother.
Then she ate a salad from Costco.
Horton didn’t realize that she would be drug-tested before her child’s birth. Or that the poppy seeds in her salad could trigger a positive result on a urine drug screen, the quick test that hospitals often use to check pregnant patients for illicit drugs. Many common foods and medications—from antacids to blood pressure and cold medicines—can prompt erroneous results.
If Horton had been tested under different circumstances—for example, if she was a government employee and required to be tested as part of her job—she would have been entitled to a more advanced test and to a review from a specially trained doctor to confirm the initial result.
That could land them in prison, or at the least they would lose their license in addition to fines.
You’re asking medical personnel to bypass requirements, and in this situation I totally understand how that seems like a win-win, but that’s not a practice we should be encouraging people to do. That’s how people die.
“I was just following the rules”?
On the one hand, you’re correct.
On the other, you need to think and be brave and be willing to take a little risk sometimes to protect others. Otherwise we end up with something like the quote above and…
Mmmm I think it’s important to test. However, the problem is those tests are crappy, and shouldn’t be used as evidence. The solution is to require better tests, and not skip around laws and regulations designed to save lives or protect people. That’s not bravery, because bravery is relative. IMO.
I think that the hospital should be required to perform better tests if the initial test comes back positive or questionable. They can call child services, but child services should not be able to Take action until a more thorough investigation happens.
The choice is between separating a mother from a new born child and not separating her. The mother is now childless, and the child will probably end up in our horrific adoption system. Maybe they will find a loving parent, or maybe they’ll end up loveless. The choice should be easy to make.
I’m not saying lie on all tests. Just on ones where the moral boundaries are incredibly clear.
Ok, would you be willing to gamble your career and freedom on her word that she tested dirty because of eating a salad?
Because your name would be on the paperwork and one of the first individuals pulled in if something questionable happens a year from now and they start auditing. That’s what you’re suggesting other people do with their lives.
I would do it without her word. Drug tests like these aren’t accurate enough, and the police aren’t smart enough to handle this appropriately. I have helped numerous people pass drug tests.
Is my one life really more important than multiple other peoples?
I’m not saying your life is more important than multiple others, I’m pointing out the risk you’re asking others to take. If the person you’re asking to take that risk has responsibility to their own family, children, possibly elder family members, then we’re still discussing impacting the lives of multiple people on both sides of the fence.
I agree that testing like this is shit, but until that’s changed or at least somehow improved, then “just lie about it” is an unrealistic expectation.
Morals are relative. And losing or manipulating tests is against the Hippocratic oath, the very foundation of medicinal treatment.
Thorough investigation should always be done before accusing someone, and all of those drug tests should be considered a false positive until they rule everything out.