Susan Horton had been a stay-at-home mom for almost 20 years, and now—pregnant with her fifth child—she felt a hard-won confidence in herself as a mother.
Then she ate a salad from Costco.
Horton didn’t realize that she would be drug-tested before her child’s birth. Or that the poppy seeds in her salad could trigger a positive result on a urine drug screen, the quick test that hospitals often use to check pregnant patients for illicit drugs. Many common foods and medications—from antacids to blood pressure and cold medicines—can prompt erroneous results.
If Horton had been tested under different circumstances—for example, if she was a government employee and required to be tested as part of her job—she would have been entitled to a more advanced test and to a review from a specially trained doctor to confirm the initial result.
“I was just following the rules”?
On the one hand, you’re correct.
On the other, you need to think and be brave and be willing to take a little risk sometimes to protect others. Otherwise we end up with something like the quote above and…
Mmmm I think it’s important to test. However, the problem is those tests are crappy, and shouldn’t be used as evidence. The solution is to require better tests, and not skip around laws and regulations designed to save lives or protect people. That’s not bravery, because bravery is relative. IMO.
I think that the hospital should be required to perform better tests if the initial test comes back positive or questionable. They can call child services, but child services should not be able to Take action until a more thorough investigation happens.