Drug screens for VA externs/practicum students

[psych10001]

Hi all,

I am wondering if the VA does drug screens on new psychology externs/practicum students. I know a few externs who were not screened at the VA, but that was a few years ago, and someone else on the forum recently said the VA has started screening everyone. Any info would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[mewtoo]

Why are young physicians concerned with drug screening?

That's what I was wondering...

 

[DUintern]

Huh. Really!

 

[PhDToBe]

I just started at the VA as a practicum student, and was not drug-screened. It is kind of surprising that we weren't, though.

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[JeyRo]

Why are young physicians concerned with drug screening?

Because they might smoke pot from time to time? Duh.

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[roubs]

Fine. But they're part of the problem.

Fine, i'll bite. What problem?

 

[JeyRo]

Fine, i'll bite. What problem?

Yeah, I'd like to hear the answer too.

 

[Pragma]

Fine, i'll bite. What problem?

I have to agree with the other poster here. If you are going to work in a healthcare setting as a psychologist or psychologist-in-training, the use of illicit drugs and the issues associated with it shouldn't be in your repertoire. If the OP is not out of that "phase" of their life yet, then they might not be ready to be providing psychological services to veterans, many of whom may be struggling with illicit drug use and chronic health conditions.

There was another thread recently that brought up the question of whether one's prescription drugs that may show up on these tests would be kept confidential from supervisors, but I don't get the sense that this was the issue for this thread.

Now I am fairly liberal with a lot of things, but I can't imagine saying that illegal drug use is okay for trainees when that type of thing can put your licensure at risk later in your career. Just drop the doobies!

Edit: Now, it is one thing to disagree with a law. It is another to break it.

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[JeyRo]

I have to agree with the other poster here. If you are going to work in a healthcare setting as a psychologist or psychologist-in-training, the use of illicit drugs and the issues associated with it shouldn't be in your repertoire. If the OP is not out of that "phase" of their life yet, then they might not be ready to be providing psychological services to veterans, many of whom may be struggling with illicit drug use and chronic health conditions.

There was another thread recently that brought up the question of whether one's prescription drugs that may show up on these tests would be kept confidential from supervisors, but I don't get the sense that this was the issue for this thread.

Now I am fairly liberal with a lot of things, but I can't imagine saying that illegal drug use is okay for trainees when that type of thing can put your licensure at risk later in your career. Just drop the doobies!

Edit: Now, it is one thing to disagree with a law. It is another to break it.

I'm still not really sure that answers the question as to what "problem" we're talking about. Is the "problem" that healthcare workers or students might be disobedient to drug laws (given the last line added as an 'edit,' I would guess that *is* the problem for at least some), or is the idea that healthcare workers or students must be free of engaging in a potentially unhealthy behavior in order to provide services to people who are having problems with engaging in said behavior?

What if a patient has problems with alcohol addiction or abuse - does that mean a healthcare provider who has a drink or two in the evenings with the dinner as a custom can't provide proper counseling to a patient with alcoholism? Should a provider who counsels people for weight issues not eat candy bars? How far does this logic extend?

Also I think it's fair to point out that absent random drug testing, I would venture it's probably impossible, practically speaking, to detect the overwhelming majority of drug-using healthcare workers or students - and if one is able to get a medical degree (for example) while being an active cannabis user (or user of any drug, for that matter), I would question what, exactly, the problem is.

Not that it should matter, but I've been one of those obedient government workers for many, many years now (consider that a disclaimer), and I'm also a VA supervisor. Also, in principle, I don't have any problem if you wanted to be an employer or a provider of schooling, and you required your employees or students who work or study with you to take drug tests. I just wouldn't do it myself because I think there's far better and more cost-effective ways to detect poor performance on the job, and I don't personally place any value on people's obedience to stupid laws (like drug laws).

It's one thing to be obedient. I would guess pretty much of all of us want to be employed in our chosen profession, put food on the table, and we all want to avoid being put in a cage. It's another to be blindly obedient. Just my opinion.

 

[Pragma]

I'm still not really sure that answers the question as to what "problem" we're talking about. Is the "problem" that healthcare workers or students might be disobedient to drug laws (given the last line added as an 'edit,' I would guess that *is* the problem for at least some), or is the idea that healthcare workers or students must be free of engaging in a potentially unhealthy behavior in order to provide services to people who are having problems with engaging in said behavior?

What if a patient has problems with alcohol addiction or abuse - does that mean a healthcare provider who has a drink or two in the evenings with the dinner as a custom can't provide proper counseling to a patient with alcoholism? Should a provider who counsels people for weight issues not eat candy bars? How far does this logic extend?

Also I think it's fair to point out that absent random drug testing, I would venture it's probably impossible, practically speaking, to detect the overwhelming majority of drug-using healthcare workers or students - and if one is able to get a medical degree (for example) while being an active cannabis user (or user of any drug, for that matter), I would question what, exactly, the problem is.

Not that it should matter, but I've been one of those obedient government workers for many, many years now (consider that a disclaimer), and I'm also a VA supervisor. Also, in principle, I don't have any problem if you wanted to be an employer or a provider of schooling, and you required your employees or students who work or study with you to take drug tests. I just wouldn't do it myself because I think there's far better and more cost-effective ways to detect poor performance on the job, and I don't personally place any value on people's obedience to stupid laws (like drug laws).

It's one thing to be obedient. I would guess pretty much of all of us want to be employed in our chosen profession, put food on the table, and we all want to avoid being put in a cage. It's another to be blindly obedient. Just my opinion.

I am solely talking about obeying laws regarding illegal drugs. Even if some people think they are silly, to be a doctorate level provider I think you have to have enough sense to obey without being oppositional/antisocial. Beyond that, it is a slippery slope (e.g., would you take advice from an obese physician about your health)?

 

[JeyRo]

I am solely talking about obeying laws regarding illegal drugs. Even if some people think they are silly, to be a doctorate level provider I think you have to have enough sense to obey without being oppositional. Beyond that, it is a slippery slope (e.g., would you take advice from an obese physician about your health)?

Oh, I definitely wouldn't. The psychologist Kelly Brownell comes to mind - he's struggled with obesity much of his adult life, apparently, and yet he and many others somehow feel he's qualified to lecture people on nutrition, obesity, and public policy. I think he's kind of a joke most of the time.

I wouldn't take advise from an alcoholic about how to solve my alcohol problem either (although that's the model for many peer-support recovery programs, ironically). But that's different than saying someone who smoked pot three weeks ago on some random saturday night isn't able to give highly competent counseling services to (say) a crack-addicted veteran.

More importantly, I don't personally place any value at all on the quality of being obedient. Obedience is what got highly-trained psychologists involved in developing methods of torture for the CIA (which, apparently, the APA has no problem with - http://tinyurl.com/7cpdk94).

Again, I understand why people are obedient in this case and I certainly don't fault anyone for it - people's livelihoods and sometimes their personal safety and freedom are being threatened by the state if they disobey. Why would you risk that for anything except taking a principled stand? (I suppose people do make mistakes, too).

But blind obedience, as a quality, is not something I would personally consider a redeeming quality in healthcare providers or psychologists.

 

[KillerDiller]

Oh, I definitely wouldn't. The psychologist Kelly Brownell comes to mind - he's struggled with obesity much of his adult life, apparently, and yet he and many others somehow feel he's qualified to lecture people on nutrition, obesity, and public policy. I think he's kind of a joke most of the time.

I don't want to derail this thread from the original point, but Kelly Brownell's work is on the stigma of obesity and the sociocultural factors that contribute to it. He's qualified to lecture on these issues because he has researched them extensively. Yet you think the fact that he has struggled with obesity himself makes him "a joke" and somehow unqualified to share his findings? Really?

 

[Pragma]

Oh, I definitely wouldn't. The psychologist Kelly Brownell comes to mind - he's struggled with obesity much of his adult life, apparently, and yet he and many others somehow feel he's qualified to lecture people on nutrition, obesity, and public policy. I think he's kind of a joke most of the time.

I wouldn't take advise from an alcoholic about how to solve my alcohol problem either (although that's the model for many peer-support recovery programs, ironically). But that's different than saying someone who smoked pot three weeks ago on some random saturday night isn't able to give highly competent counseling services to (say) a crack-addicted veteran.

More importantly, I don't personally place any value at all on the quality of being obedient. Obedience is what got highly-trained psychologists involved in developing methods of torture for the CIA (which, apparently, the APA has no problem with - http://tinyurl.com/7cpdk94).

Again, I understand why people are obedient in this case and I certainly don't fault anyone for it - people's livelihoods and sometimes their personal safety and freedom are being threatened by the state if they disobey. Why would you risk that for anything except taking a principled stand? (I suppose people do make mistakes, too).

But blind obedience, as a quality, is not something I would personally consider a redeeming quality in healthcare providers or psychologists.

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am not advocating blind obedience.

There really is no benefit for a doctoral level healthcare provider to use illegal drugs, outside of it being prescribed for, say, cancer treatment. I think a licensed provider that willingly breaks the law and gets high for fun is doing a disservice to the community at large and breaching their own ethics.

That is my opinion about it. I wouldn't want a psychologist who gets high. I also wouldn't want one that drinks and drives. The law at least provides some clarity with these situations, and I think there is a social contract when someone sees a licensed professional that implies your healthcare provider is not engaging in illegal behavior. But perhaps it is just me.

Now, do I agree with marijuana laws? Not necessarily. But to use it when it is illegal and unregulated, given documented impairment and unknown effects of what crap gets put into these drugs, is much more irresponsible than using a legal substance, IMHO. I think a licensed provider willing to break the law and put themselves at that kind of risk have some interesting traits/egos given these factors.

 

[erg923]

I think a licensed provider that willingly breaks the law and gets high for fun is doing a disservice to the community at large and breaching their own ethics.

Is it the breaking the law part or the getting "high" part?

I got drunk for fun: on new years, at Mardi Gras, on my anniversary. What disservice have I done here? Which begs the question, what else do you view as a "disservice to the community" and how are defining that word?

Now replace that with a certain vegetable matter and "stoned." Really man, whats the difference?!- Besides the fact that Bourbon is good and smoke of any kind makes me wanna vomit, personally...

But to use it when it is illegal and unregulated, given documented impairment and unknown effects of what crap gets put into these drugs, is much more irresponsible than using a legal substance, IMHO. I think a licensed provider willing to break the law and put themselves at that kind of risk have some interesting traits/egos given these factors.

Oh good grief. Have you seen whats in a chicken nugget from McDonalds? I guess I am risk taker now with some interesting traits? Seriously, they are just so ****ing good!

 

[JeyRo]

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am not advocating blind obedience.

There really is no benefit for a doctoral level healthcare provider to use illegal drugs, outside of it being prescribed for, say, cancer treatment..

Who cares if there's "benefit" to it? Why is that even relevant?

I think a licensed provider that willingly breaks the law and gets high for fun is doing a disservice to the community at large and breaching their own ethics.

I'm not even sure what half of what you're saying means. What do you mean a "disservice to the community"? So I'm supposed "serve" my community by only engaging in particular kinds of peaceful recreation and not others? And what do you mean "breaching their own ethics" - you don't even know what the OP's personal ethics as regards consensual drug using behavior are. Personally, my own ethics do not take any stand on what is otherwise peaceful recreational or medical use of substances, whether some guys with badges threaten you for using them or not. I have no idea why you're presuming what people's own ethics are here.

That is my opinion about it. I wouldn't want a psychologist who gets high. I also wouldn't want one that drinks and drives.

I wouldn't care if my psychologist gets high. I agree with you about not having one who drinks and drives. That makes sense to me.

The law at least provides some clarity with these situations, and I think there is a social contract when someone sees a licensed professional that implies your healthcare provider is not engaging in illegal behavior. But perhaps it is just me.

Given the size of the federal register and the sheer number of state, county and local laws that prescribe just about every concievable action in our lives these days, I would venture we've all probably broken a half-dozen or so laws by lunchtime on any typical workday.

Now, do I agree with marijuana laws? Not necessarily. But to use it when it is illegal and unregulated, given documented impairment and unknown effects of what crap gets put into these drugs, is much more irresponsible than using a legal substance, IMHO.

What if a person grows it themselves? And what "documented impairment" is the result of using cannabis (which is what drug tests overwhelmingly detect) when you're off the clock, that's being protected by doing random pee tests on people? None of what you're saying really makes that much sense to me. I mean, I've heard it all before. But it doesn't make much sense.

I think a licensed provider willing to break the law and put themselves at that kind of risk have some interesting traits/egos given these factors.

 

[JeyRo]

I don't want to derail this thread from the original point, but Kelly Brownell's work is on the stigma of obesity and the sociocultural factors that contribute to it. He's qualified to lecture on these issues because he has researched them extensively. Yet you think the fact that he has struggled with obesity himself makes him "a joke" and somehow unqualified to share his findings? Really?

Kelly Brownell has made a name for himself calling for such ludicrous things as sugar taxes. It's one thing to lecture on lab research, but to be a fatty and think that just because you can't control yourself, no one can either and so we need more government nannying is just nonsensical.

 

[Pragma]

Wow you VA guys sure have your perspective on marijuana!

I personally don't view marijuana use as harmful as many other things, but the fact that it is illegal and there is a large drug trade behind it is enough for me to question a psychologist who would still argue that they should use it and it isn't a problem. I mean, most people who I know who debate for the legalization of drugs (which I am not necessarily against) recognize the safety benefits of regulating the drug trade and drug purity levels.

Disservice to the community - in the urban area I live in, people get shot almost veryday over the drug trade.

Erg, there are laws and people get into trouble for drinking too much. I recognize the distinction between weed and alcohol is a silly one, but it is a distinction nonetheless. I don't view myself as above the law, and I believe in practicing within the law.

Edit: Between patients so I can't respond fully here, but Erg I am not against having fun. People get arrested for being too drunk all the time - sometimes people have too much fun. I hope you didn't drive home on New Years.

I guess I am of the opinion that people who, into adulthood and into their professional careers in the mental health arena, make the decision that they are going to break laws in order to keep up an illegal drug habit because they feel the laws are unjust, maybe don't have their priorities straight. My opinion only!

 

[erg923]

Wow you VA guys sure have your perspective on marijuana!

I personally don't view marijuana use as harmful as many other things, but the fact that it is illegal and there is a large drug trade behind it is enough for me to question a psychologist who would still argue that they should use it and it isn't a problem. I mean, most people who I know who debate for the legalization of drugs (which I am not necessarily against) recognize the safety benefits of regulating the drug trade and drug purity levels.

Disservice to the community - in the urban area I live in, people get shot almost veryday over the drug trade.

Erg, there are laws and people get into trouble for drinking too much. I recognize the distinction between weed and alcohol is a silly one, but it is a distinction nonetheless. I don't view myself as above the law, and I believe in practicing within the law.

Edit: Between patients so I can't respond fully here, but Erg I am not against having fun. People get arrested for being too drunk all the time - sometimes people have too much fun. I hope you didn't drive home on New Years.

So in my example of switching my Makers on the rocks with a smoked vegetable, my "disservice to the community" is the fact that I am breaking the law, correct?

PS: Who drives on new years?! I walked at Mardi Gras (you can drive in thr quarter then), my wife and I both stumbled to our hotel on our last anniversary. Yes it was fun. No, it was not too much fun. No, I did not serve my community any of these nights.

 

[Pragma]

So in my example of switching my Makers on the rocks with a smoked vegetable, my "disservice to the community" is the fact that I am breaking the law, correct?

PS: Who drives on new years?! I walked at Mardi Gras (you can drive in thr quarter then), my wife and I both stumbled to our hotel on our last anniversary. Yes it was fun. No, it was not too much fun. No, I did not serve my community any of these nights.

Yeah, correct. That smoked vegetable can cause a lot of problems for a lot of people (not just you).

 

[JeyRo]

If you want to use drugs recreationally you're asking for trouble if you take a job with the VA or the federal government as a psychologist (although interestingly, Social Workers are not drug tested at the VA AFAIK - yeah, that makes even more sense out of a nonsensical situation), and I would say if you want to make a principled stand on the utter inanity and monstrousity of drug laws there's probably more effective ways of doing it.

Really it's kind of obvious what's going on with this thread and we're making a bit too much of it. The OP was accepted as an extern with the VA. He probably smoked some pot a week or two ago and then heard "oh, BTW, the VA drug tests practicum students now," which he wasn't completely aware of (hadn't read the fine print). He's probably now (understandably) freaking out about it now even though he's been clean for probably many days now because he knows the stuff stays in your system for days / weeks. I would feel the same way if I was in his / her shoes.

 

[clinpsych]

Kelly Brownell has made a name for himself calling for such ludicrous things as sugar taxes. It's one thing to lecture on lab research, but to be a fatty and think that just because you can't control yourself, no one can either and so we need more government nannying is just nonsensical.

Wow! So it's okay to dehumanize and disrespect a respected academic whose work has contributed significantly to the field because he's a "fatty"?!?

That's bad enough, but your prejudice against fat people has apparently impaired your professional judgment, because it's not Dr. Brownell's inability to "control [him]self" that has led him to call for changes to our obesogenic environment, it's solid science.

Color me disgusted.

 

[psychRA]

When does VA drug testing typically happen? Do you do this during your pre employment physical, or while you're at orientation? I'm not worried about the results, but I rarely drink water, so I'd like to step up my hydration in advance.

I suppose, if nothing else, it's a test of whether people are able to stop using for long enough to pass a required drug test, assuming that they know about it advance. Sort of a logic test, in a way, though I'm not sure how well that would translate to workplace effectiveness.

 

[JeyRo]

Wow! So it's okay to dehumanize and disrespect a respected academic whose work has contributed significantly to the field because he's a "fatty"?!?

No, because he's using the rhetoric of science to advocate for paternalistic laws that I find offensive. And yes, I will use disrespectful language to describe him. I have nothing to say, good or bad, about whatever lab work he's conducted, but I find the practical implications of his politics dehumanizing and disrespectful in general. So there you are.

That's bad enough, but your prejudice against fat people has apparently impaired your professional judgment, because it's not Dr. Brownell's inability to "control [him]self" that has led him to call for changes to our obesogenic environment, it's solid science.

Color me disgusted.

What "prejudice against fat people?" What are you blathering about? To be fair, even if Brownell had no problem with his weight I'd still find his advocacy for sugar taxation to be absurd and offensive. However, it's a pretty classic complex of people who have had problems with self-control to project their own deficits on others. Not saying it's true of everyone (I know plenty of recovered drug addicts who still think that drug prohibition is terrible), but it's not uncommon.

And there's no "solid science" that backs sugar taxes. That's utterly, completely ludicrous. Please, go ahead and prove me wrong. He should stick to stuff he knows about and maybe I and others wouldn't be so critical of him.

 

[clinpsych]

What are you blathering about? ...

And there's no "solid science" that backs sugar bans....

Please, go ahead and prove me wrong.

The fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about shows you know little about current obesity research.

 

[JeyRo]

The fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about shows you know little about current obesity research.

Argumentum ad verecundiam? Fail.

Edit: Actually, that could also be argumentum ad populum. Either way....

 

[erg923]

Obesity research? Whats that got to with anything?!

Its incongruence between message and the messenger. That it! The appearance of hyprocrisy isnt percived well. Nothing to do with bias agaisnt fat people. Its the same logic that says that you probably would have alot of suspicion if your smoking cessation counselor was puffing away during your sessions.

Good lord! Sometimes eduation and science clouds basic common sense/inference.

 

[JeyRo]

Obesity research? Whats that got to with anything?!

Its incongruence between message and the messenger. That it! The appearance of hyprocrisy isnt percived well. Nothing to do with bias agaisnt fat people. Its the same logic that says that you probably would have alot of suspicion if your smoking cessation counselor was puffing away during your sessions.

Good lord! Sometimes eduation and science clouds basic common sense/inference.

Well put! It would be one thing to be obese and then offer your services on the open market to people to help them with weight issues - I don't think you'd get many customers, and I think that the "biases" of customers would be extremely understandable.

It makes things manifestly worse that we have a chronically obese person essentially advocating that people get his "obesity treatments" inflicted upon them without having any choice in the matter to individually opt out.

I used to be morbidly obese - I packed on about 50 pounds when I was on internship and post-doc (away from family, chronic stress, etc). Have lost the weight and kept it off by doing a modified carbohydrate-controlled diet and have adhered to it for many years now. If a person wants to lose weight by giving up some of their money everytime they purchase or eat sugar, fine with me. Do what works for you. But jumping from that to the nonsense Brownell spouts doesn't fly with me.

Love the tangent that this thread has spun off into.

 

[AnnoyedByFreud]

Obesity research? Whats that got to with anything?!

Its incongruence between message and the messenger. That it! The appearance of hyprocrisy isnt percived well. Nothing to do with bias agaisnt fat people. Its the same logic that says that you probably would have alot of suspicion if your smoking cessation counselor was puffing away during your sessions.

Good lord! Sometimes eduation and science clouds basic common sense/inference.

I think it might be the implication (alluded to earlier) that the obese researcher "can't control himself" like other people can. This is a vapid and demeaning interpretation of the cause of obesity, and there is plenty of research out there that demonstrates that obesity is complicated and doesn't boil down to will power or "self control". I don't see how it compares to a smoking cessation counselor smoking. We don't know his eating habits. The idea that if someone is fat they necessarily do not eat well or understand nutrition is a huge assumption.

 

[Pragma]

Well put! It would be one thing to be obese and then offer your services on the open market to people to help them with weight issues - I don't think you'd get many customers, and I think that the "biases" of customers would be extremely understandable.

Love the tangent that this thread has spun off into.

Sure they would be. But that's also kind of my point about mental health services and psychologists using drugs. I think most people assume that their licensed doctoral-level psychologist is not smoking weed at night after work - generally that is part of the social contract that goes with licensure, and it is why people can have their licenses suspended if they are caught abusing illegal substances.

Personally, I can't see how someone could justify this (smoking pot) to themselves as a licensed provider of services to the mentally ill. If you believe it is okay for a licensed doctoral-level psychologist to use illegal drugs, is it ok for MDs? How about your neurosurgeon? If there is a line, where is it?

I'm not making a political argument, I'm making a guild ethics argument.

 

[JeyRo]

I think it might be implication (alluded to earlier) that the obese researcher "can't control himself" like other people can. This is a vapid and demeaning interpretation of the cause of obesity, and there is plenty of research out there that demonstrates that obesity is complicated and doesn't boil down to will power or "self control". The idea that if someone is fat they necessarily do not eat well or understand nutrition is a huge assumption.

I suppose the fact that Brownell's solution to our collective obesity problem seems to be found in advocating for increased (coercive) control over others (including himself) leads me to think that he can't control himself, or at least, he feels that way about himself.

Either way, an obese clinician trying to sell his weight-management services to willing customers would find it very difficult to drum up business - but no big deal, I would just avoid such a provider myself. Unfortunately, when he's advocating using government force to participate in his schemes, somehow I find his obvious weight problem a legitimate issue on some level. Again, however, I would object even if he were svelte.

Maintaining a proper body weight is difficult, to be sure. It's easier, on a certain level, to have other people take responsibility for it for you - which is why people advocate for coercive measures from government (e.g., taxing sugar, banning super-size, banning or taxing drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc). Unfortunately these kind of ideas have a whole host of side effects on us as individuals and collectively that are corrosive and terrible.

 

[JeyRo]

Sure they would be. But that's also kind of my point about mental health services and psychologists using drugs. I think most people assume that their licensed doctoral-level psychologist is not smoking weed at night after work - generally that is part of the social contract that goes with licensure, and it is why people can have their licenses suspended if they are caught abusing illegal substances.

Personally, I can't see how someone could justify this (smoking pot) to themselves as a licensed provider of services to the mentally ill. If you believe it is okay for a licensed doctoral-level psychologist to use illegal drugs, is it ok for MDs? How about your neurosurgeon? If there is a line, where is it?

I'm not making a political argument, I'm making a guild ethics argument.

As a sidenote, from what I understand many top neurosurgeons as a pretty strict rule studiously avoid caffeine (I know this as I have a Dad who's an interventional neuroradiologist), and many abstain completely. The profession hasn't fallen apart just because neurosurgeons aren't subject to random drug testing for french roast. Obviously, in that case, caffeine use has some obvious, VERY direct influences on professional performance that neurosurgeons, as a whole, tend to self-regulate pretty well. Recreational cannabis use, off the clock, for psychologists, has pretty much no direct bearing whatsoever on competence for mental health professionals that I can see. Would some clients be offended or bothered if they knew their psychologists puffed a joint a couple of weeks before they saw them? Probably, but it's really none of their business, just as it's none of their business whether their therapist is pro-choice, or lives with their gay partner, or whatever.

 

[Jeina]

Wow! So it's okay to dehumanize and disrespect a respected academic whose work has contributed significantly to the field because he's a "fatty"?!?

That's bad enough, but your prejudice against fat people has apparently impaired your professional judgment, because it's not Dr. Brownell's inability to "control [him]self" that has led him to call for changes to our obesogenic environment, it's solid science.

Color me disgusted.

+1

As someone who's done research on and is passionate about the issue of obesity stigma, I was really put off by that post.

 

[Pragma]

As a sidenote, from what I understand many top neurosurgeons as a pretty strict rule studiously avoid caffeine (I know this as I have a Dad who's an interventional neuroradiologist), and many abstain completely. The profession hasn't fallen apart just because neurosurgeons aren't subject to random drug testing for french roast. Obviously, in that case, caffeine use has some obvious, VERY direct influences on professional performance that neurosurgeons, as a whole, tend to self-regulate pretty well. Recreational cannabis use, off the clock, for psychologists, has pretty much no direct bearing whatsoever on competence for mental health professionals that I can see. Would some clients be offended or bothered if they knew their psychologists puffed a joint a couple of weeks before they saw them? Probably, but it's really none of their business, just as it's none of their business whether their therapist is pro-choice, or lives with their gay partner, or whatever.

I guess I wouldn't put "puffing a joint" and "lives with their gay partner" in the same boat as far as lifestyle issues go. One involves the use of illegal psychoactive substances by a professional licensed by the state, where as the other one arguably has to do with fundamental human rights. Apples and oranges. I wouldn't want a physician or psychologist of my own who is actively abusing drugs, and I am not allowed to test for that as a patient.

 

[JeyRo]

I guess I wouldn't put "puffing a joint" and "lives with their gay partner" in the same boat as far as lifestyle issues go. One involves the use of illegal psychoactive substances by a professional licensed by the state, where as the other one arguably has to do with fundamental human rights. Apples and oranges. I wouldn't want a physician or psychologist of my own who is actively abusing drugs, and I am not allowed to test for that as a patient.

Obviously, I don't see that government permission or cultural tolerance for a peaceful activity (whether its pot use or having a romantic partner of the same sex) as somehow being an important distinction as far as whether something qualifies as being a "human right."

BTW, there aren't any laws that I'm aware of that prohibit patients from requesting a drug screen directly from their personal healthcare providers. However, most healthcare providers would probably just politely (or not so politely) decline such a request, as I would think would be their right.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I wouldn't want a physician or psychologist of my own who is actively abusing drugs, and I am not allowed to test for that as a patient.

+1. I wouldn't want that either. I want you bright, alert, and 100% sober if I am paying you to sit, listen, evaluate, and attend to me.

 

[roubs]

Obviously, I don't see that government permission or cultural tolerance for a peaceful activity (whether its pot use or having a romantic partner of the same sex) as somehow being an important distinction as far as whether something qualifies as being a "human right."

May as well sidetrack this thread in another direction, as the Supreme Court does think they are in the business of defining rights:

1967:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on
so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive
all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law...Under our Constitution,
the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides
with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

I dunno what they would say about the right to "recreation" but they are probably correct to draw the line for it a bit lower than the quoted one

 

[JeyRo]

+1. I wouldn't want that either. I want you bright, alert, and 100% sober if I am paying you to sit, listen, evaluate, and attend to me.

Sounds reasonable, I wouldn't want that either. Is this another tangent from the subject of drug testing?

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[JeyRo]

Just as a blanket comment, for everyone here. If you are an aspiring health-care provider, or currently a health care provider, and you are in favor of recreational use/abuse of illicit substances and genuinely see no issue, I recommend 2 things: 1. Go back to school, and ask for your money back - there are inherent values and ethics which you are taught (if you're too stupid to have picked up on them by the time you reached professional education,) and 2. Take a long hard look in the mirror until you see that the health care industry would endure impunity without you, because you're a joke if you think illicit substance use/abuse (even when you're "off the clock" or "in the privacy of your own home") is acceptable behavior for a health care professional.

Feel better?

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[AnnoyedByFreud]

Just as a blanket comment, for everyone here. If you are an aspiring health-care provider, or currently a health care provider, and you are in favor of recreational use/abuse of illicit substances and genuinely see no issue, I recommend 2 things: 1. Go back to school, and ask for your money back - there are inherent values and ethics which you are taught (if you're too stupid to have picked up on them by the time you reached professional education,) and 2. Take a long hard look in the mirror until you see that the health care industry would endure impunity without you, because you're a joke if you think illicit substance use/abuse (even when you're "off the clock" or "in the privacy of your own home") is acceptable behavior for a health care professional.

Yeah, because a healthcare provider who likes to smoke pot on occasion is completely lacking in values and ethics.

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[loveoforganic]

Dude, are you just going through every forum looking for a way to get on a high horse?

Just for the sake of the discussion that's already going, I don't think illicit drug use by health care professionals is unethical. Really, really stupid, what with the potential consequences, but not unethical

 

[CardiologyJosh]

.

 

[JeyRo]

Dude, are you just going through every forum looking for a way to get on a high horse?

Just for the sake of the discussion that's already going, I don't think illicit drug use by health care professionals is unethical. Really, really stupid, what with the potential consequences, but not unethical

If you're a VA employee and you're aware that your particular position class is subject to drug screening, and you want to keep your job, it's definitely not exactly what I would call the smartest thing in the world to be doing illegal drugs, particularly cannabis, given it's long detection window in urine. Knowingly using drugs in such a situation is basically professionally self-destructive - which probably tells you why random drug testing of VA employees yields so few actual positive results (I've looked it up).

Few people who take the time to receive the training and experience, and go through the application process to to get a job with the VA, would then knowingly throw away all of that just to get high.

Anyways, obviously, aside from the issue of drug screening, I tend to agree about the ethics issue, also would re-iterate that use (or lack thereof) of such a substance in someone's past, particularly cannabis, tells me very little about a persons competence as a professional. Might give me some idea about their predeliction towards obedience to authority, however.

Were in not for the so-called War on Drugs, I can imagine that this really wouldn't be an issue that it is, and the free market would simply find pretty prosaic ways of satisfying consumer preferences as far as what kind of therapist they might want to receive services from (e.g., therapists who are certified teetotallers, or what have you). However, such is not the way things are.