COMMENTS: 33
7 Reasons Parents Should Not Test Kids for Drug Use
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Drugs headlines via email.
When Kim Manlove and his wife discovered that their teenage son was abusing pot and alcohol, they did what they thought was right: They purchased commercially available drug-testing kits and began administering random urine screens at home. "We thought we'd be able to handle it on our own," recalls Manlove, 56, of Indianapolis. And for several months it appeared that their efforts were working. The drug tests, obtained on the Internet, consistently indicated that 15-year-old David was alcohol free and that his marijuana levels were decreasing, which they interpreted as a sign that he was quitting. Not so. Their son had switched to drugs that the tests couldn't detect, such as prescription pills and LSD. When his parents finally caught on, they enrolled him in treatment. "Things were beyond our capability," says Manlove.
David completed the program, but his desire to get high ultimately cost him his life, Manlove explains. Enticed by the notion that inhalants wouldn't register on his weekly, now professionally administered urine tests, David and his friends spent an afternoon huffing an aerosol (computer duster) and diving into a swimming pool because they'd heard the underwater pressure would heighten the rush. Instead, doing so triggered what's known as "sudden sniffing death syndrome," the gravest consequence of inhalants. David had a heart attack and drowned at age 16.
The Manloves' experience underscores some of the pitfalls of at-home drug testing, an increasingly popular practice among parents aiming to stop or prevent their child's drug use. And with countless test kits available, experts say that it's an increasingly difficult practice to resist--though parents should.
"I don't recommend that parents ever use home drug tests," says pediatrician Sharon Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "[They're] going to be misled." The tests are often billed as preventive, but there's no evidence that they actually keep kids away from drugs, she adds. Levy's stance is echoed by numerous others, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, which issued a 2007 statement opposing home and school drug testing until further research is done. In hindsight, Manlove agrees: "I'd go straight to the professionals, no question," he says. "Shame" and "embarrassment" are the primary reasons that he and his wife didn't seek help sooner.
Here are seven reasons why experts say drug testing should be left to the professionals:
1. It can become a missed opportunity. Manlove, who now works as a substance abuse prevention specialist for the state of Indiana, believes that the six months that elapsed between he and his wife's initial discovery of David's drug use and their procuring outside help allowed a minor problem to become major. "That delay really worked against us," he says. "If we had sought professional help earlier, I think we would have had a better chance of preventing this outcome."
2. It's easy to cheat. With all the ways to cheat urine screens, says Levy, experts worry that parents could be falsely reassured by negative drug tests while their kid actually has a problem. "My clinical experience tells me that parents are fooled all the time," she says. Furthermore, Levy says parents aren't encouraged to watch their adolescents urinate--but some testing facilities can require that urine collection is witnessed by an observer to prevent tampering. "We do it under controlled circumstances, and we know the tricks of the trade," says Peter Rogers, a clinical professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University medical school who conducts substance abuse testing. That's why, he says, if a drug test is warranted, it should be handled by experienced professionals.
3. False positives can mislead you. Poppy seeds, cold medications, and even antibiotics in high doses can potentially cause false-positive results on certain types of tests, says Levy, leading parents to falsely accuse innocent teens of illegal drug use.
4. Some tests are confusing. Home kits can be difficult to navigate, says Levy, and to ask parents who have no experience with laboratory medicine to do them correctly is "tough." Moreover, she says, parents have to be pretty sophisticated to know the difference between similar-sounding drug types such as opiates (e.g., heroin) and opioids (e.g., oxycodone). Get the wrong kit, and your results could be meaningless. "Unless you have a really good indication of what your kid is using," says Manlove, "you're really just taking a shot in the dark."
5. They give you limited information. Most drugs clear the system pretty quickly, says Levy, so parents would have a tough time catching a child's occasional use.
6. And they can be costly. A package of home tests can be pricier than a visit to a medical professional. Manlove paid roughly $50 for a six pack of urine tests, though costs vary widely.
7. You're a parent, not the police. Some experts worry that the practice of home drug testing may damage the parent-child bond. "I'm not sure that's the relationship that parents want to have with their kids," says Rogers, who himself is the parent of a former teenage drug abuser (who's now a sober 21-year-old). "They shouldn't be policemen, just parents."
AlterNet is making this material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Stay up to date with the latest Drugs headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elidude420 on Aug 7, 2008 10:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pros make lots of mistakes. They're in a hurry.
Posted by: PaulK
» RE: Not even for professionals!!!
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Setnakt on Aug 7, 2008 10:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eason #7
Posted by: john mont
» RE: Reason #7
Posted by: Setnakt
» RE: eason #7
Posted by: donl51
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 9, 2008 3:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Sally the Soccer Mom wants to play Big Brother, maybe she should consider a career in the CIA, FBI, KGB, or Blackwater, and stop screwing up her kids.
Most of the kids who did drugs during the 60s survived it without their parents spying on them and micromanaging their lives with all of the latest surveillance gadgets. And those who didn't survive probably had other problems and weren't destined to live long anyway.
Nobody seems to see the downside of today's parenting methods. And now, I'd like to refer you to Mr. Dennis Leary for further information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EGCwPXDR-0
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: #7
Posted by: Setnakt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dwatso2 on Aug 9, 2008 3:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: IntnsRed on Aug 9, 2008 5:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about spending time with your kid(s), talking with them, and maybe even doing the same thing with their friends?!
Of course, that may throw a monkey wrench into the time you spend at work and that all-important climb-to-nowhere up the corporate ladder, and it may even interrupt your TV watching time and your other activities. But if that's so, ask yourself where and what the hell are your priorities.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's a concept...
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Here's a concept...
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 9, 2008 6:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. I DONT EVER WANT TO SEE YOU DO IT! (Not like tobacco or alcohol in moderate uses but other drugs like pot)
2. IF YOU DO ANYTHING YOU BETTER BE SO FRIGGIN RESPONSIBLE!
3. IF I CATCH YOU IN YOUR ROOM OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT WE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER TALK!
4. I DONT WANT TO SEE YOU BECOME A DRUGGIE or SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, SO MODERATE YOURSELF, BE RESPONSIBLE!
I will tell them if you can agree with me on that much, than I promise not to be like some secret police man in your life, like my father the Gestapo.
On that note, it is my belief that kids (teens) need to be able to grow upon their experiences good or bad. I will of course, raise my children in a way to be critical of their actions and others actions as well as have some level of introspection.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 9, 2008 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bryangalt on Aug 9, 2008 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As humans, we have several things that work both for and against us: desire to try and overwhelming curiosity about the existence we call life. This is how we all have to burn our finger to discover what it feels like. This is why we all experiement with drugs, sexuality, individuality, etc., in our clumsy efforts to find our niche and our path.
Do some of us lose along the way? Yep. Will this ever change? Nope. You see, not even the Bible has the balls to say life is fair, life is easy or that life is going to give you a break because you're only 12 years old!
There is no amount of legal restraints that can be legislated that will change our basic makeup. We as a race have always used drugs for a variety of reasons (and we do so now more than ever before in our history). Will some of us be lost along the way? Yep.
Nature made us and she can be a bitch about it at times. If we can accept this, then perhaps we could solve other problems and stop trying to "fix" something that ain't broken...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 9, 2008 9:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: deborama on Aug 9, 2008 9:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm 49 and I've been smoking pot for 32 years. I have two academic degrees from fine schools, have had many responsible jobs, have two beautiful, healthy, non-brain damaged children (now 20 and 21). Pot has been a very positive thing in my life, helping my anxiety and depression much more than any of the ELEVEN anti-depressants I've been prescribed (all of which were ineffective at best and resulted in horrific side effects at worst).
Drug USE is not drug ABUSE. Drug USE is not addiction. Drug USE in and of itself is simply not a problem. Like anything (food, sex, exercise, work) it can be overdone and a few so-inclined individuals may have a propensity to get in trouble due to their poor impulse control or lack of will.
But please, that's no reason to consider users with normal lives "addicts" or "druggies."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TRC on Aug 9, 2008 11:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not much different than the pusher but much more pernicious because of the prevelance and assumption of medical acceptability.
When I was a teen ager I experimented with recreational drugs and grew out of it after only a few years. I imagine if I had been labeled an addict I would have probably been more inclined to behave like one.
Many of the comments are correct, I think, when they say parental disengagement is the basis of the problem.
TRC
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pbullwinkle on Aug 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 9, 2008 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some variants are kids who huff Glade air freshener out of plastic bags (Gladeators), kids who sniff out of those room air freshener dispensers (note a current Johnson's TV commercial showing a 12 year old actually sniffing the dispenser and getting stoned for a couple of seconds), kids who huff housepaint, lots of things. Some dummies even leave air freshener cans around in church camp bathrooms, just to show the world how stupid they are.
Glade cans carry clear (?) warning labels: "Keep out of reach of children and teens." I am not making this warning label up. So how high can teenagers reach? Can't kids buy these cans at the convenience store? Sure!
So, test for pot. Who's the deadbrain now?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eason #8: It drives kids to more dangerous but untestable drugs
Posted by: ohjeezigotaids
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mjabele on Aug 9, 2008 5:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a physician, I certainly DO order drug tests on individuals, both for the purpose of detecting as well as monitoring drug use. I realize that AlterNet is a deeply liberal forum, but I certainly won't hesitate to defend ordering a drug screen on an ER patient who presents with confusion, respiratory failure, or severe chest pain that might well be cocaine-induced. Detecting drug use in such scenarios is invaluable in making a proper diagnosis as well as undertaking appropriate therapeutic interventions. Failure to tell a patient with cardiac chest pain that cocaine is the most likely cause of their symptoms can literally be lethal, after all, given that in the absence of such counseling they'll be likely to use again and experience similar episodes.
MONITORING drug use is something that I only undertake in a patient with an established / admitted drug problem, and ALWAYS with the patient's signed consent. I've literally never - not once - had a problem with obtaining such consent, though presumably some posters on this forum will express outrage at the very idea that I should be doing this. The point here is that I'm typically treating these patients with another controlled substance - buprenorphine (Suboxone) or methadone - FOR their addiction problem, and it's essential for both me and the patient to know whether the treatment is effective. Patients who continue to abuse their drug of choice - or, alternatively, a different drug that has known, potentially lethal interactions with the drug I'm prescribing - are literally putting themselves at risk of death. As a physician, I view it as unethical to prescribe ANY medication without proper monitoring of efficacy and / or side effects, and I make that clear to patients when the initial treatment contract is signed.
Assuming I run into a patient someday with an addiction problem who doesn't want to comply with such monitoring, they're certainly free to refuse. On the other hand, I don't view myself as under any ethical obligation in such circumstances to prescribe the "treatment drug", either.
The article is more specific in terms of what it's trying to cover, but I think posters who argue that ANY sort of drug testing is ALWAYS inappropriate need to get a reality check. Certainly, a vast number of patients I see in my daily practice disagree with this point of view.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Aug 10, 2008 4:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My son was real drunk 1 time at 13 and my daughter smoked some weed at 15.
Nowadays at 35/40 they donot smoke at only drink at occasionals.
The french Mr.Montaignac is an advocate of training children to enjoy and handle drinking wine.
Education vs brainwashing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yer not from 'round here
Posted by: hurricane hugo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 10, 2008 2:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doneman2000 on Aug 10, 2008 5:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The War On Drugs
Posted by: ohjeezigotaids
» RE: The War On Drugs
Posted by: richholland
» RE: The War On Drugs
Posted by: mclame01
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mclame01 on Aug 12, 2008 1:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rickiey on Aug 12, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, if you have a problem kid, and you want to test them for drugs, there's nothing wrong with doing it.
But, as evidenced in the story above, if that is ALL you are doing, then you are failing as parent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chivakenevil_666 on Aug 18, 2008 3:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: elidude420 on Aug 7, 2008 10:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pros make lots of mistakes. They're in a hurry.
Posted by: PaulK
» RE: Not even for professionals!!!
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Setnakt on Aug 7, 2008 10:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eason #7
Posted by: john mont
» RE: Reason #7
Posted by: Setnakt
» RE: eason #7
Posted by: donl51
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 9, 2008 3:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Sally the Soccer Mom wants to play Big Brother, maybe she should consider a career in the CIA, FBI, KGB, or Blackwater, and stop screwing up her kids.
Most of the kids who did drugs during the 60s survived it without their parents spying on them and micromanaging their lives with all of the latest surveillance gadgets. And those who didn't survive probably had other problems and weren't destined to live long anyway.
Nobody seems to see the downside of today's parenting methods. And now, I'd like to refer you to Mr. Dennis Leary for further information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EGCwPXDR-0
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: #7
Posted by: Setnakt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dwatso2 on Aug 9, 2008 3:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: IntnsRed on Aug 9, 2008 5:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about spending time with your kid(s), talking with them, and maybe even doing the same thing with their friends?!
Of course, that may throw a monkey wrench into the time you spend at work and that all-important climb-to-nowhere up the corporate ladder, and it may even interrupt your TV watching time and your other activities. But if that's so, ask yourself where and what the hell are your priorities.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's a concept...
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Here's a concept...
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 9, 2008 6:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. I DONT EVER WANT TO SEE YOU DO IT! (Not like tobacco or alcohol in moderate uses but other drugs like pot)
2. IF YOU DO ANYTHING YOU BETTER BE SO FRIGGIN RESPONSIBLE!
3. IF I CATCH YOU IN YOUR ROOM OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT WE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER TALK!
4. I DONT WANT TO SEE YOU BECOME A DRUGGIE or SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, SO MODERATE YOURSELF, BE RESPONSIBLE!
I will tell them if you can agree with me on that much, than I promise not to be like some secret police man in your life, like my father the Gestapo.
On that note, it is my belief that kids (teens) need to be able to grow upon their experiences good or bad. I will of course, raise my children in a way to be critical of their actions and others actions as well as have some level of introspection.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 9, 2008 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bryangalt on Aug 9, 2008 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As humans, we have several things that work both for and against us: desire to try and overwhelming curiosity about the existence we call life. This is how we all have to burn our finger to discover what it feels like. This is why we all experiement with drugs, sexuality, individuality, etc., in our clumsy efforts to find our niche and our path.
Do some of us lose along the way? Yep. Will this ever change? Nope. You see, not even the Bible has the balls to say life is fair, life is easy or that life is going to give you a break because you're only 12 years old!
There is no amount of legal restraints that can be legislated that will change our basic makeup. We as a race have always used drugs for a variety of reasons (and we do so now more than ever before in our history). Will some of us be lost along the way? Yep.
Nature made us and she can be a bitch about it at times. If we can accept this, then perhaps we could solve other problems and stop trying to "fix" something that ain't broken...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 9, 2008 9:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: deborama on Aug 9, 2008 9:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm 49 and I've been smoking pot for 32 years. I have two academic degrees from fine schools, have had many responsible jobs, have two beautiful, healthy, non-brain damaged children (now 20 and 21). Pot has been a very positive thing in my life, helping my anxiety and depression much more than any of the ELEVEN anti-depressants I've been prescribed (all of which were ineffective at best and resulted in horrific side effects at worst).
Drug USE is not drug ABUSE. Drug USE is not addiction. Drug USE in and of itself is simply not a problem. Like anything (food, sex, exercise, work) it can be overdone and a few so-inclined individuals may have a propensity to get in trouble due to their poor impulse control or lack of will.
But please, that's no reason to consider users with normal lives "addicts" or "druggies."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TRC on Aug 9, 2008 11:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not much different than the pusher but much more pernicious because of the prevelance and assumption of medical acceptability.
When I was a teen ager I experimented with recreational drugs and grew out of it after only a few years. I imagine if I had been labeled an addict I would have probably been more inclined to behave like one.
Many of the comments are correct, I think, when they say parental disengagement is the basis of the problem.
TRC
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pbullwinkle on Aug 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 9, 2008 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some variants are kids who huff Glade air freshener out of plastic bags (Gladeators), kids who sniff out of those room air freshener dispensers (note a current Johnson's TV commercial showing a 12 year old actually sniffing the dispenser and getting stoned for a couple of seconds), kids who huff housepaint, lots of things. Some dummies even leave air freshener cans around in church camp bathrooms, just to show the world how stupid they are.
Glade cans carry clear (?) warning labels: "Keep out of reach of children and teens." I am not making this warning label up. So how high can teenagers reach? Can't kids buy these cans at the convenience store? Sure!
So, test for pot. Who's the deadbrain now?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eason #8: It drives kids to more dangerous but untestable drugs
Posted by: ohjeezigotaids
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mjabele on Aug 9, 2008 5:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a physician, I certainly DO order drug tests on individuals, both for the purpose of detecting as well as monitoring drug use. I realize that AlterNet is a deeply liberal forum, but I certainly won't hesitate to defend ordering a drug screen on an ER patient who presents with confusion, respiratory failure, or severe chest pain that might well be cocaine-induced. Detecting drug use in such scenarios is invaluable in making a proper diagnosis as well as undertaking appropriate therapeutic interventions. Failure to tell a patient with cardiac chest pain that cocaine is the most likely cause of their symptoms can literally be lethal, after all, given that in the absence of such counseling they'll be likely to use again and experience similar episodes.
MONITORING drug use is something that I only undertake in a patient with an established / admitted drug problem, and ALWAYS with the patient's signed consent. I've literally never - not once - had a problem with obtaining such consent, though presumably some posters on this forum will express outrage at the very idea that I should be doing this. The point here is that I'm typically treating these patients with another controlled substance - buprenorphine (Suboxone) or methadone - FOR their addiction problem, and it's essential for both me and the patient to know whether the treatment is effective. Patients who continue to abuse their drug of choice - or, alternatively, a different drug that has known, potentially lethal interactions with the drug I'm prescribing - are literally putting themselves at risk of death. As a physician, I view it as unethical to prescribe ANY medication without proper monitoring of efficacy and / or side effects, and I make that clear to patients when the initial treatment contract is signed.
Assuming I run into a patient someday with an addiction problem who doesn't want to comply with such monitoring, they're certainly free to refuse. On the other hand, I don't view myself as under any ethical obligation in such circumstances to prescribe the "treatment drug", either.
The article is more specific in terms of what it's trying to cover, but I think posters who argue that ANY sort of drug testing is ALWAYS inappropriate need to get a reality check. Certainly, a vast number of patients I see in my daily practice disagree with this point of view.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Aug 10, 2008 4:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My son was real drunk 1 time at 13 and my daughter smoked some weed at 15.
Nowadays at 35/40 they donot smoke at only drink at occasionals.
The french Mr.Montaignac is an advocate of training children to enjoy and handle drinking wine.
Education vs brainwashing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yer not from 'round here
Posted by: hurricane hugo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 10, 2008 2:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doneman2000 on Aug 10, 2008 5:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The War On Drugs
Posted by: ohjeezigotaids
» RE: The War On Drugs
Posted by: richholland
» RE: The War On Drugs
Posted by: mclame01
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mclame01 on Aug 12, 2008 1:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rickiey on Aug 12, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, if you have a problem kid, and you want to test them for drugs, there's nothing wrong with doing it.
But, as evidenced in the story above, if that is ALL you are doing, then you are failing as parent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chivakenevil_666 on Aug 18, 2008 3:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
NYC Police Accused of 'Anal Assault' Over Marijuana Use
Do Employers Really Need to Give Drug Tests for Pot?
False Claims on Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Lead to Credibility Gap for Prosecutors




