• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

drug testing during pregnancy

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.


AHA

Senior Member
I was actually told by a doctor in my ob's office to smoke a little pot because I had morning sickness
Riiiight.
Your Dr must be a pot head herself, because who in their right mind would suggest a pregnant woman get high to avoid HER inconvenience????
I had severe all day morning sickness too, but you know what, I put the health of my unborn baby before my own puking.
No mother of the year award for you....EVER.
BTW, get a REAL Dr.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
As a former ACS attorney, I must have prosecuted a hundred of these cases. Never lost one. You can expect to have CPS oversight over you for (at least) the next 12 months, have to attend drug classes, parenting classes and whatever else they can dream up. You can also bet the farm that if you should get pregnant again, you are going to be drug tested up the wazoo, so, please do your baby a favor and lay off the weed.
Was this before or after 2002 and then 2004?
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Should have said 2001 but here:
FERGUSON et al. v. CITY OF CHARLESTON et al.


certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit


No. 99-936. Argued October 4, 2000--Decided March 21, 2001


In the fall of 1988, staff members at the Charleston public hospital operated by the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) became concerned about an apparent increase in the use of cocaine by patients who were receiving prenatal treatment. When the incidence of cocaine use among maternity patients remained unchanged despite referrals for counseling and treatment of patients who tested positive for that drug, MUSC staff offered to cooperate with the city in prosecuting mothers whose children tested positive for drugs at birth. Accordingly, a task force made up of MUSC representatives, police, and local officials developed a policy which set forth procedures for identifying and testing pregnant patients suspected of drug use; required that a chain of custody be followed when obtaining and testing patients' urine samples; provided for education and treatment referral for patients testing positive; contained police procedures and criteria for arresting patients who tested positive; and prescribed prosecutions for drug offenses and/or child neglect, depending on the stage of the defendant's pregnancy. Other than the provisions describing the substance abuse treatment to be offered women testing positive, the policy made no mention of any change in the prenatal care of such patients, nor did it prescribe any special treatment for the newborns. Petitioners, MUSC obstetrical patients arrested after testing positive for cocaine, filed this suit challenging the policy's validity on, inter alia, the theory that warrantless and nonconsensual drug tests conducted for criminal investigatory purposes were unconstitutional searches. Among its actions, the District Court instructed the jury to find for petitioners unless they had consented to such searches. The jury found for respondents, and petitioners appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury's consent finding. In affirming without reaching the consent question, the Fourth Circuit held that the searches in question were reasonable as a matter of law under this Court's cases recognizing that "special needs" may, in certain exceptional circumstances, justify a search policy designed to serve non-law-enforcement ends.


Held: A state hospital's performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient's criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure. The interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant. Pp. 8-18.

(a) Because MUSC is a state hospital, its staff members are government actors subject to the Fourth Amendment's strictures. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 335-337. Moreover, the urine tests at issue were indisputably searches within that Amendment's meaning. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 617. Furthermore, both lower courts viewed the case as one involving MUSC's right to conduct searches without warrants or probable cause, and this Court must assume for purposes of decision that the tests were performed without the patients' informed consent. Pp. 8-9.


(b) Because the hospital seeks to justify its authority to conduct drug tests and to turn the results over to police without the patients' knowledge or consent, this case differs from the four previous cases in which the Court considered whether comparable drug tests fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches. See Chandler v. Miller, 520 U. S. 305, 309; see also Skinner, Von Raab, and Acton. Those cases employed a balancing test weighing the intrusion on the individual's privacy interest against the "special needs" that supported the program. The invasion of privacy here is far more substantial than in those cases. In previous cases, there was no misunderstanding about the purpose of the test or the potential use of the test results, and there were protections against the dissemination of the results to third parties. Moreover, those cases involved disqualification from eligibility for particular benefits, not the unauthorized dissemination of test results. The critical difference, however, lies in the nature of the "special need" asserted. In each of the prior cases, the "special need" was one divorced from the State's general law enforcement interest. Here, the policy's central and indispensable feature from its inception was the use of law enforcement to coerce patients into substance abuse treatment. Respondents' assertion that their ultimate purpose--namely, protecting the health of both mother and child--is a benificent one is unavailing. While the ultimate goal of the program may well have been to get the women in question into substance abuse treatment and off drugs, the immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes in order to reach that goal. Given that purpose and given the extensive involvement of law enforcement officials at every stage of the policy, this case simply does not fit within the closely guarded category of "special needs." The fact that positive test results were turned over to the police does not merely provide a basis for distinguishing prior "special needs" cases. It also provides an affirmative reason for enforcing the Fourth Amendment's strictures. While state hospital employees, like other citizens, may have a duty to provide the police with evidence of criminal conduct that they inadvertently acquire in the course of routine treatment, when they undertake to obtain such evidence from their patients for the specific purpose of incriminating those patients, they have a special obligation to make sure that the patients are fully informed about their constitutional rights, as standards of knowing waiver require. Cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. Pp. 9-18.


186 F. 3d 469, reversed and remanded.
CSB is also a state agency and that poses issues. Unless someone knows of a more recent Supreme Court case that says otherwise which I would love to see and use.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Did you explain this to CPS? Did the Doctor back you up?
I'll bet a month's salary that no doctor or ob/gyn is going to admit to what the OP says they advised.

As for Ferguson, it is my understanding that states have found ways to get around this often by requiring that patients submit to "voluntary" testing to be eligible for certain funds to pay for pre-natal care, etc. When this ruling first came about, the child abuse advocates and health nurses out here started screaming the sky was falling. But, somehow, they have managed to find workarounds that have allowed testing of mothers, CPS intervention, and even the seizure of infants immediately after birth.

I'll have to ask about this at my next Health Services Advisory Board meeting ... I'm curious how they get around it these days.

- Carl
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
I'll bet a month's salary that no doctor or ob/gyn is going to admit to what the OP says they advised.

As for Ferguson, it is my understanding that states have found ways to get around this often by requiring that patients submit to "voluntary" testing to be eligible for certain funds to pay for pre-natal care, etc. When this ruling first came about, the child abuse advocates and health nurses out here started screaming the sky was falling. But, somehow, they have managed to find workarounds that have allowed testing of mothers, CPS intervention, and even the seizure of infants immediately after birth.

I'll have to ask about this at my next Health Services Advisory Board meeting ... I'm curious how they get around it these days.

- Carl
I would also bet my last Twinkie that the testing is part of the admission paperwork.

And me LOVES my Twinkies....
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I would also bet my last Twinkie that the testing is part of the admission paperwork.

And me LOVES my Twinkies....
But, as the court case pointed out, there may be problems providing that information to law enforcement, and the patient may have a right to opt out of testing. But, I suspect that if they DO opt out, the state and even private insurance may refuse to pay, so that MAY be the angle that is pursued.

- Carl
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
My point is that it is not as clear cut. The patient has to be informed of WHAT TESTS are being done and give clear consent. And without a waiver signed BEFORE the state is informed.. that is an issue.

I bring this up only because it is an important case that can be an argument. There are a few ways that CSB is brought in because docs are mandated reporters but even then they need something to go on. AND blood tests done without the permission of the parent are NOT legal.
 

Dewey

Member
In our state, besides a mother's known history of drug use--we only drug tested mothers who didn't have a prenatal care record when they came in to deliver. They suspected if the mother didn't make an effort to see a doctor while pregnant, there must have been a reason keeping her away.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
In our state, besides a mother's known history of drug use--we only drug tested mothers who didn't have a prenatal care record when they came in to deliver. They suspected if the mother didn't make an effort to see a doctor while pregnant, there must have been a reason keeping her away.
And that still doesn't mean that CSB could be brought in.
 

smkr

Junior Member
Bs

:eek:I have a beautiful intellelent 6 year old daughter, without ANY abnormalities!! I was high on majuana the whole pregnancy. Don't anybody start lecturing about me endangering my child!!! I'm not asking for advice... You should all lay off!! You obviosly know nothing, other than what you have heard or read or that a dr has told you.These woman are asking for some positive input. If you don't have any, then just stay out of it, they have enough people lecturing them about this crap.. Did you ALL know, that the reason it is illegal in the U.S. is because the government doesn't know how to tax it or make $ off of it??? BACK OFF!! I am preg again, don't smoke near as much, and they have drug tested me. Once again, not asking for advice. I am concerned, because just because i smoke some weed occasionally, does NOT make me an unfit parent.. Let someone try to take my child. I dare them to










Just so we are clear... I went ahead and Googled "Pot while pregnant"...

Only about 15 bazillion hits all came up... strange... still looking for one that says it is a great way to beat morning sickness...

Mostly, what I find reads like this...




Low birth rate, a baby going through withdrawl (the quivers upon birth), lowered attentions spans, even some types of ADHD have been assigned to pot while pregnant.

No doctor in their right mind would say this.
 

Silverplum

Senior Member
This thread is over a year old. We discourage "necro"posting here.

IF you wish to ASK a legal question, please start your own thread.

:eek:I have a beautiful intellelent 6 year old daughter, without ANY abnormalities!! I was high on majuana the whole pregnancy. Don't anybody start lecturing about me endangering my child!!! I'm not asking for advice... You should all lay off!! You obviosly know nothing, other than what you have heard or read or that a dr has told you.These woman are asking for some positive input. If you don't have any, then just stay out of it, they have enough people lecturing them about this crap.. Did you ALL know, that the reason it is illegal in the U.S. is because the government doesn't know how to tax it or make $ off of it??? BACK OFF!! I am preg again, don't smoke near as much, and they have drug tested me. Once again, not asking for advice. I am concerned, because just because i smoke some weed occasionally, does NOT make me an unfit parent.. Let someone try to take my child. I dare them to
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top