Drug Testing of Pregnant Patients.

XXXX.

Ethnoracial differences in workplace drug testing and policies on positive drug tests in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Drug testing is widely implemented as a work-based prevention strategy for employee substance use. However, it has raised concerns about its potential use as a punitive measure in the workplace where racialized/ethnic workers are over-represented. This study examines the rates of exposure to workplace drug testing among ethnoracial workers in the United States and the potential differences in the employers' responses to positive test results. METHODS: A nationally-representative sample of 121,988 employed adults was examined using the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data. The rates of exposure to workplace drug testing were estimated separately for ethnoracial workers. Then we used multinomial logistic regression to test differences in employers' responses to the first positive drug test results across ethnoracial subgroups. RESULTS: Since 2002, Black workers reported 15-20% points higher rates of having a workplace drug testing policy than Hispanic or White workers. When tested positive for drug use, Black and Hispanic workers were more likely to be fired than White workers. When tested positive, Black workers were more likely to be referred to treatment/counseling services while Hispanic workers were less likely to be referred compared to White workers. CONCLUSION: Black workers' disproportionate exposure to drug testing and punitive responses in the workplace may potentially place individuals with substance use problems out of the workforce, limiting their access to treatment/other resources available via their workplaces. Also, Hispanic workers' limited accessibility to treatment and counseling services when tested positive for drug use requires attention to address unmet needs.

Ethics Review in Anti-Doping Research: Experiences of Stakeholders.

Background. The World Anti-Doping Agency is the international body coordinating anti-doping efforts, with the mandate of harmonizing anti-doping policy worldwide. With novel performance-enhancing compounds continuously entering the market, research is necessary to develop appropriate methods for their detection. WADA-accredited laboratories are required to spend 7% of their annual budget on this research and need to obtain ethics approval for studies involving human participants. Nevertheless, these labs may face difficulties in obtaining ethics approval for anti-doping research due to its distinct differences from traditional biomedical research. Therefore, our aim was to investigate potential difficulties in obtaining ethics approval for anti-doping research.Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in anti-doping research to investigate their experiences toward the ethics review process of their research proposals. Interviews were transcribed, de-identified, coded and analyzed.Results. The interviews indicated that large discrepancies in the evaluation of anti-doping research proposals exist. A majority of the laboratories could not acquire ethics approval for the administration of substances not approved for medical use. Some laboratories faced obstacles to obtain ethics approval for substances approved for clinical use. Respondents communicated that ethics committees often lack background knowledge about the anti-doping context.Conclusions. Disapproval of research proposals may originate from concerns over the safety of the study, the fact that there is seldom a direct benefit to the participant, the consideration that volunteers may be incentivized to use prohibited substances, a lack of background knowledge about anti-doping, or the focus of research ethics committees on health research.

An Argument Against Drug Testing Welfare Recipients.

Programs of drug testing welfare recipients are increasingly common in US states and have been considered elsewhere. Though often intensely debated, such programs are complicated to evaluate because their aims are ambiguous-aims like saving money may be in tension with aims like referring people to treatment. We assess such programs using a proportionality approach, which requires that for ethical acceptability a practice must be reasonably likely to meet its aims, sufficiently important in purpose as to outweigh harms incurred, and lower in costs than feasible alternatives. In the light of empirical findings, we argue that the programs fail the three requirements. Pursuing recreational drug users is not important in the light of costs incurred, while dependent users who may require referral are usually identifiable without testing and typically need a broader approach than one focussing on drugs. Drug testing of welfare recipients is therefore not ethically acceptable policy.

Do athletes have a right to access data in their Athlete Biological Passport?

The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) refers to the collection of data related to an individual athlete. The ABP contains the Haematological Module and the Steroidal Module, which are used for the longitudinal monitoring of variables in blood and urine, respectively. Based on changes in these variables, a statistical model detects outliers which indicate doping use and guide further targeted testing of the athlete. Presently, athletes can access their data of the Haematological Module in the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS). However, granting athletes access to this data has been a matter of debate within the anti-doping community. This article investigates whether an athlete has a right to access the contents of their ABP profile. We approached this discussion by comparing the nature of ABP data with that of forensic and medical data and touched on important concerns with ABP data disclosure to athletes such as potentially allowing for the development of alternative doping techniques to circumvent detection; and making athletes vulnerable to pressure by the media to publicly release their data. Furthermore, given that ABP data may contain medically relevant information that can be used to diagnose disease, athletes may over-interpret its medical significance and wrongly see it as a free health check. We argue that safeguarding the integrity of the ABP system must be seen as the most essential element and thus a departure from immediate data disclosure is necessary. Two different strategies for delayed data disclosure are proposed which diminish the chances of ABP data being misused to refine doping techniques.

Geolocalisation of athletes for out-of-competition drug testing: ethical considerations. Position statement by the WADA Ethics Panel.

Through the widespread availability of location-identifying devices, geolocalisation could potentially be used to place athletes during out-of-competition testing. In light of this debate, the WADA Ethics Panel formulated the following questions: (1) should WADA and/or other sponsors consider funding such geolocalisation research projects?, (2) if successful, could they be proposed to athletes as a complementary device to Anti-Doping Administration and Management System to help geolocalisation and reduce the risk of missed tests? and (3) should such devices be offered on a voluntary basis, or is it conceivable that they would be made mandatory for all athletes in registered testing pools? In this position paper, the WADA Ethics Panel concludes that the use of geolocalisation could be useful in a research setting with the goal of understanding associations between genotype, phenotype and environment; however, it recognises that the use of geolocalisation as part of or as replacement of whereabouts rules is replete with ethical concerns. While benefits remain largely hypothetical and minimal, the potential invasion of privacy and the data security threats are real. Considering the impact on privacy, data security issues, the societal ramifications of offering such services and various pragmatic considerations, the WADA Ethics Panel concludes that at this time, the use of geolocalisation should neither be mandated as a tool for disclosing whereabouts nor implemented on a voluntary basis.

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and Ethical Approaches to the Identification of Pregnant Women Who Use Drugs.

The United States is experiencing an epidemic of opioid use, addiction, and neonatal abstinence syndrome. Consequentially, a great deal of public, and public health, attention has turned toward the timely recognition of pregnant women who use drugs. We explore the clinical efficacy and ethical acceptability of different methods of identification-contrasting drug testing (using biologic samples such as urine) with screening (using an instrument or questionnaire) under both universal and selective approaches within the current legal and social landscape, which is fraught with potential adverse consequences for both the woman and her child. Unlike other medical conditions such as diabetes, the sequelae of drug use in pregnancy can go beyond the clinical, because its assessment may result in child removal as well as maternal arrest, prosecution, and punishment. Although universal voluntary screening using a validated instrument is the most reasonable public health strategy, physicians should advocate for that only as strongly as they advocate for social support and addiction care services for those subsequently identified.

Ethical Considerations for Perinatal Toxicology Screening.

Neonatal nurses frequently care for babies who have been exposed in utero to potentially harmful substances, both licit and illicit. The risks to the fetus from nicotine, marijuana, alcohol, and opiates are significant. Adverse effects from environmental factors may confound pharmacologic effects of substances. Nurses are called to shift the perception of substance use disorder from that of willful harm to the fetus to that of an opportunity to provide treatment assistance that can positively affect child health and development. Concerns for unethical practices in the toxicology screening of pregnant women and their babies by risk factors that are unproven or disproven are discussed, and three goals of toxicology screening based on the ethical principles of justice and beneficence are proposed. This article will help equip neonatal nurses to fulfill their professional responsibility to advocate for just screening and referral practices in their institutions and communities.

Ethical Issues Raised by Epigenetic Testing for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis.

Epigenetic testing is one of the most significant new technologies to provide insight into the behavioral and environmental factors that influence the development and reconfiguration of the human genetic code. This technology allows us to identify structural changes in the genome that occur due to exposure to a wide variety of substances including alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis. The information gained can be used to promote health but it also raises a variety of ethical, legal, and social issues. As society progresses in understanding the epigenetic mechanisms of substance use and addiction, there is an opportunity to use these use this knowledge to enable medical, behavioral, and environmental interventions to alleviate the burden of addiction. This article describes the ethical issues associated with use of epigenetic testing for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis and the implications of this technology. A further review of the scientific basis for the relevance of epigenetics is found in the accompanying article by Philibert and Erwin in this issue.

Medication monitoring and drug testing ethics project.

In 2012, Duke University initiated a research project, funded by an unrestricted research grant from Millennium Laboratories, a drug testing company. The project focused on assessing the frequency and nature of questionable, unethical, and illegal business practices in the clinical drug testing industry and assessing the potential for establishing a business code of ethics. Laboratory leaders, clinicians, industry attorneys, ethicists, and consultants participated in the survey, were interviewed, and attended two face-to-face meetings to discuss a way forward. The study demonstrated broad acknowledgment of variations in the legal and regulatory environment, resulting in inconsistent enforcement of industry practices. Study participants expressed agreement that overtly illegal practices sometimes exist, particularly when laboratory representatives and clinicians discuss reimbursement, extent of testing, and potential business incentives with medical practitioners. Most respondents reported directly observing probable violations involving marketing materials, contracts, or, in the case of some individuals, directly soliciting people with offers of clinical supplies and other "freebies." While many study respondents were skeptical that voluntary standards alone would eliminate questionable business practices, most viewed ethics codes and credentialing as an important first step that could potentially mitigate uneven enforcement, while improving quality of care and facilitating preferred payment options for credentialed parties. Many were willing to participate in future discussions and industry-wide initiatives to improve the environment.

Alcohol and drug testing of health professionals following preventable adverse events: a bad idea.

Various kinds of alcohol and drug testing, such as preemployment, routine, and for-cause testing, are commonly performed by employers. While healthcare organizations usually require preemployment drug testing, they vary on whether personnel will be subjected to further testing. Recently, a call has gone out for postincident testing among physicians who are involved in serious, preventable events, especially ones leading to a patient's death. This article will offer a number of counterarguments to that proposal and discuss an alternate approach: that health institutions can better improve patient safety and employees' well-being by implementing an organizational policy of "speaking up" when system operators notice work behaviors or environmental factors that threaten harm or peril. The article will conclude with a description of various strategies that facilitate speaking up, and why the practice constitutes a superior alternative to mandatory alcohol and drug testing in the wake of serious, harm-causing medical error.