random drug testing

glutton4punishment · Feb 19, 2011

Drug tests really bother me, period. It's invasive, and quite frankly none of anyone's business what is in my urine. I don't do drugs, and have nothing to hide, however, I am a very private person and I feel violated every time I have to take one. It's just my personality make-up. I get nervous every time. I always start thinking about all the things I have eaten, or what if they mix up my sample with someone else's....yady yady. It just bothers me, though I have no choice in the matter.

KayDee68 · Feb 19, 2011

Oy vey - because I live in a glass house, (as I'm sure most do) I am going to just answer the OP and not throw any rocks.

I live in Texas and I've worked for hospital, MD office, and various home health/hospice companies over the last 15 or so years. I've always been through the pre-employment drug screens, usually urine only, and never had to be called for a "random". This is costly for the employer to randomly screen, so all I can assume is that they won't call you for one unless there is suspicion that you are impaired while you're working.

Because we choose to be in a profession where peoples lives are dependent on the fact that we can think clearly, our licensing boards have to watch out for the public (NOT US!). Therefore you are taking the risk by recreationally using drugs when you are off of work, and then having a positive drug screen. You WILL lose your license. Even worse, if something happens to a patient you're caring for and you have a positive drug screening, you can even be criminally charged and do jail time, or be in a civil suit - or all of the above.

Maybe go sell cars until you're done living it up? LOL - this is funny because I did sell cars at one point in my life, and it was the only pre-employment drug screen that analyzed hair!! :coollook:

danh3190 · Feb 19, 2011

In my former job they did truly random drug testing. They called you down to the nurse's office and you went and provided a sample or lost your job. You didn't have a chance to quit your meds for a few days.

In principle I have no problems with drug testing, but I worry about false positives, mislabelled samples etc. There certainly needs to be a strong appeal process in place. Frankly I think a better way is to observe the person's performance. If they're doing a good job, I don't care if they take xanax for an anxiety problem. I once worked with a person who took narcotics for back pain. It was years before she shared that with me and I'd have never guessed it based on her performance. Of course there would have been liability if some accident had happened even if the narcs weren't the cause.

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Feb 19, 2011

clean and sober is good. it is the only way to go!!
but what about someone with an anxiety disorder who has to take a benzo on occassion if life'e trauma amps up their symptoms? and what if their pcp or psychiatrist has mandated and promoted this? and what if the drug does its job so the worker may perform his/her job more effectively? i think things need to be rethought in general. if the worker shows no s/s of being obtunded or incompetent, if there is no problem with missing drugs from the pyxis..or bad documentation r/t commonly abused drugs......random drug screens are a violation of constitutional rights.

drug screens by employers have been constitutionally challenged all the way to the us supreme court.

from:drugs, morality, and the law, garland press, 1994, 283-99.edited by steven luper-foy and curtis brown

by some estimates one-third of american corporations now require their employees to be tested for drug use. these requirements are compatible with general employment law while promoting the public's interest in fighting drug use. moreover, the united states supreme court has ruled that drug testing programs are constitutionally permissible within both the public and the private sectors. it appears mandatory drug testing is a permanent fixture of american corporate life. (bakaly, c. g., grossman, j. m. 1989)
the fourt amendment reads: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."] in effect, the court ruled that unless a testing program is reasonable under the constraints of this amendment, then it would be unconstitutional. it is not evident, however, that the fourth amendment is directly relevant to this issue. in fact, by focusing exclusively on this amendment, the courts have made the case for mandatory drug testing too easy.
the primary functions of the fourth are to insure that governmental agents cannot criminally prosecute someone using evidence obtained "unreasonably," and that neither people nor their property can be examined without warning, unless an independent magistrate determines an unannounced search is warranted. (israel, j., lafave, w. 1975: 86)
drug testing does not run afoul of any of these functions.2 first, testing programs are not governmental actions in the sense required by this amendment. even when the federal government is the employer (as in national treasury, discussed later), it demands qua employer -- not qua government agent -- that employees be tested. second, test results are not made available to law enforcement officials, and, hence, cannot be grounds for criminal prosecution. third, since employees know when they accept certain jobs that they will be tested, then they will be searched only after appropriate warning. in short, such test are not unconstitutional searches under the meaning of the fourth amendment. at least that is what the court ruled.

glutton4punishment · Feb 19, 2011

And just to play the devil's advocate, and attempt to be funny.....

There are some nurses that should be tested randomly to make sure they DO HAVE certain meds in their system! hahaha

bagladyrn, RN · Feb 19, 2011

To those considering how to be "clean" for a drug screen then going back to either legal meds or recreational substances:

Keep in mind that if, while at work, you are involved in an incident with a patient of any type or an injury to yourself (even needlestick, fall, etc.) the facility can and probably will demand that you take an immediate drug screen. Come up positive and you've got a world of trouble.

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Feb 19, 2011

To those considering how to be "clean" for a drug screen then going back to either legal meds or recreational substances:
Keep in mind that if, while at work, you are involved in an incident with a patient of any type or an injury to yourself (even needlestick, fall, etc.) the facility can and probably will demand that you take an immediate drug screen. Come up positive and you've got a world of trouble.

Yep. I had a back injury at work. I had no intention of filing for worker's comp; all I wanted to do was get home and lay down. I was required to give a urine sample before I could leave the facility.

EmergencyNrse · Feb 19, 2011

If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about random drug tests, urine vs blood tox screens, etc.
Sorry if that is harsh or judgemental, but it is what it is.

+1

Blood, breath, or urine. Any time. Any place.

Don't do things you shouldn't and you don't have to worry...

nightengalegoddess · Feb 19, 2011

Horsehoe: The way it reads to me is that there needs to be a suspectful reason to demand drug testing. I DO believe it is worthwhile for the protection of the public that health-care workers are not disabled by medications and/or recreational drugs. A pre-employment screening is reasonable to me. But just taking someone aside, out of nowhere, for no reason, to pee is not reasonable. I guess the way you've shown it is that the employer has told the employee it could happen IS fair warning...so it's still kind of open to me though probably on a case by case premise. I truly appreciate those who have a true grasp on the law because often my grasp will first jump in from the emotional area. Thank you and blessings....and CLEAN LIVIN' (keeps ya lookin good too : )

EmergencyNrse · Feb 19, 2011

One more comment about the U.S. Constitution and your "rights".

The Constitution is to protect it's citizens from an intrusive and oppressive GOVERNMENT.

With freedom comes responsibility. You need to account for your actions.

In the private sector you have no right to freedom of speech and are responsible for what you say here, in public, facebook and so on. If you get fired for inappropriate comments somewhere then it's not the governments fault and you deserve it. Free speech protects you from arrest by the government.

You have no right to privacy if you enter into an agreement with an employer. If they want to know what drugs are in your system, what you do in your private life, or what kind of activities you're involved in then you have the right to agree or to work somewhere else. Right to privacy protects you from the government.

So on and so on... Do not mistake your "rights" for privilege.

OpenHeartLPN · Feb 19, 2011

Does that mean I should have been asking the CNA's on my floor for a complete med list every night? And what if I find out they are taking prescription strength niacin? Does that mean I should send them home?

In the first place I kind of thought I made it clear I was refering to drugs that are tested for in a drug screen. Second even if it is not tested for in a drug screen is still no reason to hide it. Any potentially mind-altering/debilitating drugs should be reported to those that are responsible for your actions. Privacy is a not an issue here. People have the right to privacy, but not when it potentially threatens another person. Someone with a fatal STD has the right not to tell anyone about the disease, until they decide to have sex that may or may not transmit the disease to another person. They are required to divulge this information because it MAY harm someone.

I want to be clear that I do not think anyone with a problem should just be written off, but those that may have to suffer consequences should be allowed to make a choice as to whether or not they want to take that chance.

No we should not have to ask our CNAs everyday if they are on prescription drugs, we simply should have CNAs that have enough ethics to tell us when they are on a drug that can potential to harm our patients. A person that lies and cheats on a drug screen is not a person that has these standards. As nurses we should also be aware of signs of mind-altering/debilitating drug use.

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Feb 19, 2011

Horsehoe: The way it reads to me is that there needs to be a suspectful reason to demand drug testing. I DO believe it is worthwhile for the protection of the public that health-care workers are not disabled by medications and/or recreational drugs. A pre-employment screening is reasonable to me. But just taking someone aside, out of nowhere, for no reason, to pee is not reasonable. I guess the way you've shown it is that the employer has told the employee it could happen IS fair warning...so it's still kind of open to me though probably on a case by case premise. I truly appreciate those who have a true grasp on the law because often my grasp will first jump in from the emotional area. Thank you and blessings....and CLEAN LIVIN' (keeps ya lookin good too : )

That's it exactly...employer tells you that you will be subject to random screenings, that is "fair warning," and by accepting the position, you are "agreeing" to the searches.

Secondly, according to this interpretation of the 4th amendment, the protection against unreasonable search refers to government or criminal prosecution. Being fired for failing a drug screen doesn't equate to having evidence used against you improperly by the government or the police.

It's sort of like the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. What that amendment prevents is being imprisoned or prosecuted by the government for speaking your mind (technically, it just forbids Congress from passing any laws which prohibit free speech). That does NOT mean if you tell your patient he is a ******* idiot that you can hide behind the First Amendment to avoid being fired by your employer.

EDIT: Looks like I cross posted with Emergencynrse :)