My Doctor Tested Me For Drugs Without My Consent

[Zigner]

I naively thought it was just a urinalysis ...

It WAS a urinalysis.

 

[Catjordan1]

It WAS a urinalysis.

So, I will clarify for you, as you're quite interested in my posts. A common urinalysis, which I was referring to, checks for things like protein, sugars, bacteria, etc. to detect any kidney and/or liver issues, as well as diabetes and infections. That is quite different than an extensive drug test.

 

[Zigner]

So, I will clarify for you, as you're quite interested in my posts. A common urinalysis, which I was referring to, checks for things like protein, sugars, bacteria, etc. to detect any kidney and/or liver issues, as well as diabetes and infections. That is quite different than an extensive drug test.

Urinalysis can also test for the presence of drugs that may interact with prescribed medication.

I'm sorry, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Catjordan1]

Urinalysis can also test for the presence of drugs that may interact with prescribed medication.

I'm sorry, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I came to this forum for guidance over an issue that is of concern to me. For some unknown reason, you have been combative, as well as judgmental towards me from the moment I posted. You have made your point, so if you are going to continue be rude and dismissive, please do not offer me any more of your "sage advice".

 

[cbg]

I understand that you are concerned and I understand why. I am not making light of it. However, I too believe that you are expending far more energy over it than the situation is worth.

 

[xylene]

As a result, I suspect that each of you – the doctor and you — were operating with different assumptions about what was going on and as a result there was a failure on both your parts to ensure you knew what was going on.

It's almost like you are describing a perfect breakdown of informed consent... an obligation of the practice and the doctor.

 

[Just Blue]

Urinalysis can also test for the presence of drugs that may interact with prescribed medication.

I'm sorry, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Catjordan1]

Urinalysis can also test for the presence of drugs that may interact with prescribed medication.

I'm sorry, but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Interesting that you edited your comment to sound less antagonist and counterproductive, but thank you for doing so.

 

[Taxing Matters]

It's almost like you are describing a perfect breakdown of informed consent... an obligation of the practice and the doctor.

No, what I am describing is what strikes me as a potentially classic situation of two people operating under different assumptions, which then leads to miscommunication. The doctor may well have thought the OP, by providing the urine, was fine with the tests that the doctor ordered, since of course the urine was provided voluntarily and the OP did not object or ask any questions about what tests would be done. The OP, on the other hand, assumed that urine tests only typically screen certain things and thus did not press the issue before voluntarily providing the urine for the tests. Neither assumption was correct, and lead to a circumstance of miscommunication. As I see it, it is likely the case that both contributed to this problem. I wouldn't lay this all at the feet of the doctor.

As for any legal issue here, I'm not seeing one. It isn't apparent that the doctor violated any laws here and indeed the OP seems to agree with that.

So my thought is that the OP needs to decide what he or she wants out of this. If the OP likes the practice and wants to stay with it, then the OP's approach with the doctor should address the issue but not in a confrontational way. The goal would be to point out the misunderstanding over what the tests included and ask the doctor to specify in the future exactly what will be done in the screening, and of course the OP would want to be sure he/she makes a point to ask about that in future, too, if the doctor forgets to bring it up. Communication is, after all, a two way street. Being confrontational about it, though risks making for a poorer relationship with the doctor going forward and perhaps the OP getting booted from the practice.

If the OP is upset enough over this to find a new doctor then I say just find the new doctor and be done with it. At that point it is not worth addressing the problem with the doctor because the OP won't be giving the doctor a chance to fix it with him/her going forward.

 

[Catjordan1]

No, what I am describing is what strikes me as a potentially classic situation of two people operating under different assumptions, which then leads to miscommunication. The doctor may well have thought the OP, by providing the urine, was fine with the tests that the doctor ordered, since of course the urine was provided voluntarily and the OP did not object or ask any questions about what tests would be done. The OP, on the other hand, assumed that urine tests only typically screen certain things and thus did not press the issue before voluntarily providing the urine for the tests. Neither assumption was correct, and lead to a circumstance of miscommunication. As I see it, it is likely the case that both contributed to this problem. I wouldn't lay this all at the feet of the doctor.

As for any legal issue here, I'm not seeing one. It isn't apparent that the doctor violated any laws here and indeed the OP seems to agree with that.

So my thought is that the OP needs to decide what he or she wants out of this. If the OP likes the practice and wants to stay with it, then the OP's approach with the doctor should address the issue but not in a confrontational way. The goal would be to point out the misunderstanding over what the tests included and ask the doctor to specify in the future exactly what will be done in the screening, and of course the OP would want to be sure he/she makes a point to ask about that in future, too, if the doctor forgets to bring it up. Communication is, after all, a two way street. Being confrontational about it, though risks making for a poorer relationship with the doctor going forward and perhaps the OP getting booted from the practice.

If the OP is upset enough over this to find a new doctor then I say just find the new doctor and be done with it. At that point it is not worth addressing the problem with the doctor because the OP won't be giving the doctor a chance to fix it with him/her going forward.

Thank you for addressing the matter well. As I posted earlier, I plan to discuss the issue with my newly appointed doctor in January and see what her response is. Depending on what she says, I will or will not bring the matter up with the practice. Again, thank you!

 

[Zigner]

Interesting that you edited your comment to sound less antagonist and counterproductive, but thank you for doing so.

I didn't edit anything. I don't feel my post was out of line. Admin disagreed, apparently. No problem for me.