|
Background
IPA officers have long been aware of the tremendous impact of urine
based drug tests on the lives of IPA members. Indeed, the paruresis
population faced the “perfect storm” when President
Nixon started drug testing returning Viet Nam War veterans in the
1970’s and President Reagan expanded drug testing to American
civilians in the 1980’s. At one time, some 80% of American
companies were using some kind of urine based drug testing for employment
and/or random screening of employees.
Today, the rate of drug testing has declined to 60% of American
companies due to the testing costs, employee discontent, and time
lost in fighting legal challenges. In one notable case in 1994,
a medical doctor with paruresis was fired from his job with a hospital
after he was unable to provide a urine specimen. He warned them
about his shy bladder prior to the test but was assured things could
be worked out afterward. He was unable to provide a urine sample,
his employment was terminated, and then he sued for damages due
to his lost medical practice. He was awarded ¼ million
dollars in actual and punitive damages by a jury who noted that
the inability to provide a urine specimen did not equate to a refusal
to take a drug test.
IPA’s Drug Testing Policy is:
The inability to provide a urine specimen does not equate
to a refusal to take a drug test. Those citizens who are or were
unable to provide a urine specimen should be allowed to participate
in one of the alternative drug test methods suggested by SAMHSA
in a 1994 proposed Regulation Revision. Alternative drug tests
include hair, saliva, sweat (aka patch), or blood specimens (if
a medical technician is available).
In a March 2006 online poll carried by the IPA internet Talk Forum,
63% of 109 paruretic participants indicated that they had been drug
tested for either employment or judicial reasons. Another 7% indicated
they had made job, location or other decisions based on the possibility
of urine based drug testing. Since up to 7% of Americans have paruresis
symptoms based on a Harvard Medical School Survey and an independent
Canadian survey, this is a huge impact for American businesses when
qualified employees are getting harder to find due to baby boomer
retirements.
After the media appearance of the St. Louis Post article and the
Dilbert comic strips below, IPA Staff Director Dr. Steven Soifer
was requested by the Office Of Management and Budget to meet with
them to discuss the new SAMHSA regulations. Is this coincidence,
serendipity, or growing public and governmental awareness of the
paruresis disorder?
Recent Media Appearances of the Drug Testing Subject
Thursday, August 5, 2006, Internet Home of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
http://www.STLtoday.com
Medical condition keeps some from drug tests - and jobs
(Quotes from)
By Deborah L. Shelton
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
07/17/2006
… Like job candidates at many companies, she was required
to undergo drug screening. But she has a condition called paruresis,
which can make providing a urine sample difficult, if not impossible.
Paruresis (pronounced: par-YOU-ree-sis) is a type of social anxiety
disorder that prevents a person from using the toilet in a public
restroom.
…To prepare for the test, White, …guzzled water nonstop
before showing up at a West County testing laboratory last month.
Still, even after waiting almost two hours, she could not urinate.
…White called New Frontier Bank in O'Fallon, Mo., and asked
for a second chance, but a manager told her the job offer had been
rescinded, she said.
…New Frontier Bank declined to answer questions about White's
situation, referring questions instead to ADP TotalSource, a human
resources and employee assistance company. ADP TotalSource did not
respond to requests for an interview.
…Soifer said some people had sued for discrimination and
won.
"It's one of these really gray areas," he said. "Once
our lawyer gets involved and contacts the company's legal counsel
and explains the situation, and explains that it could be a violation
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the company often realizes
they should provide reasonable accommodation."
He recommended tests that utilize saliva, blood or hair samples
instead of urine.
Some companies already use such tests because they are easier to
administer, Soifer said.
The federal government is proposing new regulations for federal
employees that would expand drug screening methods to hair, saliva,
blood and sweat tests, which would prevent the dilemma.
Dilbert Comic Strips
by Scott Adams, June 6-8, 2006
|
