It’s important for the doctors to know if the baby is going to suffer and possibly die from withdrawals after being born. The drug tests are important for knowing that.
However sharing that information with anyone else violates the trust with healthcare providers which results in significantly poorer health outcomes for everyone and pours gasoline on anti-intelluctual movements like antivax etc.
But why don’t they just ask the mother whether she took any medication or drugs she shouldn’t have? Given what happened in the article, the information provided by the mother would probably be more accurate anyway. Routinely not believing women is on brand, though. Again, we’re talking about women with absolutely no history of drug abuse. I’d seriously like to know how many women with no prior history of drug abuse start doing drugs just as they are getting pregnant to warrant routine testing.
Another problem with these kinds of tests is that they are not accurate enough. If you test urine samples routinely, the majority of your tests will be false positives. (Example: you test all pregnant women, 1% take drugs, the test is accurate 98% of the time. Congratulations, 2/3 of your tests are false positives.) That’s why you only do those tests if you have a suspicion based on other data and not just test everyone.
why don’t they just ask the mother whether she took any medication or drugs she shouldn’t have?
Because when you live in a police state where medical information is used to prosecute people then people have a strong incentive to lie which. Gets. People. Killed.
In the U.S. all healthcare professionals are “mandated reporters.” That means, if they find out about any form of child abuse while they’re on the job, they’re legally required to report it. Failing to do so can result in the loss of their professional license. Doing so is always considered an exception to confidentiality rights.
I suspect the hospital in question has a strict policy about reporting any pregnant mother who tests positive for drugs to CPS as a means of avoiding lawsuits. The problem is really with CPS systems in the U.S. They’re supposed to investigate reported instances of abuse and if it turns out there’s no cause for concern, close the case in short order; but CPS workers aren’t all of equal quality, and in my experience (I work in mental health), there’s a real problem with people who were abused as children becoming CPS workers and having a bias towards being overly suspicious of all parents. So, cases sometimes get dragged out, which ironically results in psychological harm to the children the CPS workers are supposed to be protecting.
Yes. Co-opting CPS a weapon in the “war on drugs” was a very intentional choice with extremely predictable outcomes.
While CPS is a good thing in concept it most often gets used as a weapon for class warfare. No angel investor is getting their kids taken away for getting busted snorting coke off a stripper.
Co-opting CPS a weapon in the “war on drugs” was a very intentional choice with extremely predictable outcomes.
That’s a nice sentiment until you look at the actual data. Drug-addicted parents are horrible for their children. Even if you want to make the argument that it was some intentional class warfare shit—and I’m not actually disputing that point here—it’s still a fact that SA parents tend to be shit parents. Every case should be evaluated on its own merits, that’s the point. And that doesn’t happen, and it sucks. But that doesn’t mean that drug testing pregnant mothers is a bad policy inherently. In fact, it’s a good policy, with sub-par implementation following it.
Would you like to provide the data you’re referencing? Because what data I’m aware of is nowhere near as black and white as you suggest.
that doesn’t mean that drug testing pregnant mothers is a bad policy inherently ___ it’s a good policy, with sub-par implementation
What is the goal with the drug tests? If it’s to determine what additional resources and medical care will be needed then I agree with you. If the goal is incarceration and punishment, which is the majority of “resources” CPS has to offer, then it’s actively harmful.
Good policy fundamentally requires good implementation. Don’t forget when forced sterilization was just “good policy” for the exact reasons you’re outlining above. The “sub-par implementation” you’re describing has the same ultimate result, just with a lot more orphans.
The issue here is one of medical ethics.
It’s important for the doctors to know if the baby is going to suffer and possibly die from withdrawals after being born. The drug tests are important for knowing that.
However sharing that information with anyone else violates the trust with healthcare providers which results in significantly poorer health outcomes for everyone and pours gasoline on anti-intelluctual movements like antivax etc.
But why don’t they just ask the mother whether she took any medication or drugs she shouldn’t have? Given what happened in the article, the information provided by the mother would probably be more accurate anyway. Routinely not believing women is on brand, though. Again, we’re talking about women with absolutely no history of drug abuse. I’d seriously like to know how many women with no prior history of drug abuse start doing drugs just as they are getting pregnant to warrant routine testing.
Another problem with these kinds of tests is that they are not accurate enough. If you test urine samples routinely, the majority of your tests will be false positives. (Example: you test all pregnant women, 1% take drugs, the test is accurate 98% of the time. Congratulations, 2/3 of your tests are false positives.) That’s why you only do those tests if you have a suspicion based on other data and not just test everyone.
Because when you live in a police state where medical information is used to prosecute people then people have a strong incentive to lie which. Gets. People. Killed.
In the U.S. all healthcare professionals are “mandated reporters.” That means, if they find out about any form of child abuse while they’re on the job, they’re legally required to report it. Failing to do so can result in the loss of their professional license. Doing so is always considered an exception to confidentiality rights.
I suspect the hospital in question has a strict policy about reporting any pregnant mother who tests positive for drugs to CPS as a means of avoiding lawsuits. The problem is really with CPS systems in the U.S. They’re supposed to investigate reported instances of abuse and if it turns out there’s no cause for concern, close the case in short order; but CPS workers aren’t all of equal quality, and in my experience (I work in mental health), there’s a real problem with people who were abused as children becoming CPS workers and having a bias towards being overly suspicious of all parents. So, cases sometimes get dragged out, which ironically results in psychological harm to the children the CPS workers are supposed to be protecting.
Yes. Co-opting CPS a weapon in the “war on drugs” was a very intentional choice with extremely predictable outcomes.
While CPS is a good thing in concept it most often gets used as a weapon for class warfare. No angel investor is getting their kids taken away for getting busted snorting coke off a stripper.
That’s a nice sentiment until you look at the actual data. Drug-addicted parents are horrible for their children. Even if you want to make the argument that it was some intentional class warfare shit—and I’m not actually disputing that point here—it’s still a fact that SA parents tend to be shit parents. Every case should be evaluated on its own merits, that’s the point. And that doesn’t happen, and it sucks. But that doesn’t mean that drug testing pregnant mothers is a bad policy inherently. In fact, it’s a good policy, with sub-par implementation following it.
Would you like to provide the data you’re referencing? Because what data I’m aware of is nowhere near as black and white as you suggest.
What is the goal with the drug tests? If it’s to determine what additional resources and medical care will be needed then I agree with you. If the goal is incarceration and punishment, which is the majority of “resources” CPS has to offer, then it’s actively harmful.
Good policy fundamentally requires good implementation. Don’t forget when forced sterilization was just “good policy” for the exact reasons you’re outlining above. The “sub-par implementation” you’re describing has the same ultimate result, just with a lot more orphans.