Interesting Article: Doctors & Drug Testing

[Ace-Co-A]

New York Times Article

On the one hand, I'm somewhat surprised that drug testing for doctors hasn't already been put into practice. It seems like a pretty straightforward deterrent for dangerous behavior.

On the other, if - as the doctors quoted in the article seemed to think - this is just a money grab for trial lawyers, perhaps it should be re-written with the California Medical Association in on these discussions.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Proposed by trial lawyers? It's a bullsh*t proposal. Why drug test doctors?

 

[NickNaylor]

I am 100% against drug testing as it currently exists because it often fails to identify acute intoxication. In other words, a positive screen for, say, cannabis only demonstrates that sometime in the last 2-4 weeks you got TOTALLY RIPPED BRAH. It says nothing about whether or not you're coming to work stoned. I think giving your employer the ability to dictate your at-home behavior is completely unacceptable in my view. Relatedly, I think the recent trend of zero tolerance with respect to nicotine use by hospital employees is also hugely inappropriate and ridiculous.

It'd be one thing to test people if there is clear evidence of intoxication. I might also support drug testing in the context of a pattern of recurrent abuse that affects patient care. But as it currently exists, I strongly oppose drug testing in just about every circumstance. The means don't rationally fit the ends IMO.

 

[DokterMom]

I am 100% against drug testing as it currently exists because it often fails to identify acute intoxication. In other words, a positive screen for, say, cannabis only demonstrates that sometime in the last 2-4 weeks you got TOTALLY RIPPED BRAH. It says nothing about whether or not you're coming to work stoned.

The means don't rationally fit the ends IMO.

Beautifully said. The objective needs to be identifying someone who is impaired NOW, now someone who used a drug on his/her own time.

 

[QofQuimica]

The problem is that drug testing is not a deterrent to drug use. It just encourages people to shift their usage patterns so as to beat the drug tests. Addicts are remarkably resourceful people who spend a great deal of time, energy, and money obtaining and using their drug of choice. Add on to that the high measure of intelligence and pharmacology training that you get with health care professionals, and they become even more resourceful. If the high school dropout user of street drugs can figure out how to beat the system, the physician addict certainly can.

That being said, I agree that screening does decrease the incidence of people coming to work while under the influence, and it may be worth doing for that reason. But yeah, the fact that this measure is being sponsored by trial lawyers (along with a second measure to increase pain and suffering malpractice caps by 300%) is totally sketchy. Still, I get the argument that what's good for the fireman and the pilot is good for the physician. Following that same line of logic, why not also drug test lawyers while we're at it? Especially the ones in the legislature? They're ostensibly public servants working for the common good, too.