admin
Laboratory testing for drugs of abuse is often performed in medical contexts, with little regard for technological limits or the risk of legal and societal harm to the patient. We look at the absence of chain-of-custody protocols, the risk of false-positive findings with screening immunoassays, and the infrequency of confirmatory testing as technical issues with such testing. Because of the sensitive nature of drug test findings, the consequences of false-positive results, the limitations of confidentiality protection, and the practice of testing without the patient’s awareness, significant ethical difficulties arise. These technological and ethical considerations imply that drug testing regulations in medical settings should define which scenarios necessitate specific informed permission, as well as protocols for safeguarding this sensitive information.
Medical card-
Medical card is an identification card used by patients to enter medical dispensaries & buy the plant to treat their health problems.
Drug misuse testing is frequently conducted in laboratories.
The medical and psychological history, rather than laboratory testing, is used to make a clinical diagnosis of drug misuse. When examining a patient with known or suspected substance misuse, a physician might opt to conduct laboratory tests for identifying substances of abuse (1). Because current screening assays have limitations, the physician must know which tests to order and, more crucially, the sensitivity and specificity of each test. In addition, the doctor should think about problems like privacy and confidentiality. In this paper, we examine the problems with substance abuse testing in medical settings and propose a method for obtaining informed consent that protects patients’ privacy and autonomy.
Informed consent is missing in clinical trials–
Clinical drug testing does not now need explicit informed consent. Explicit consent is not feasible in many situations, such as trauma or overdose. Despite the fact that doctors frequently conduct drug testing without the patient’s knowledge or agreement, even when substance addiction is suspected and the patient is able to grant consent. Patients may feel misled if they realize that they were tested for substance misuse without their knowledge, even if the goal is to obtain a diagnosis or persuade the patient to seek treatment for substance abuse. The physician-patient relationship may be harmed as a result of this circumstance, and the patient’s desire to seek care in the future may be harmed as well.
Implications of a positive test-
Illicit drug addiction diagnosis can have legal and societal consequences. More than 30 states have enacted legislation allowing for the exclusion of health insurance coverage for accidents resulting from substance addiction. Despite the fact that the National Association of Insurance Commissions has decided to abolish these restrictions, the loss of insurance coverage remains a major worry. Positive drug screenings in pregnant women are required in many states, and a positive toxicology test in a baby or mother after delivery is considered proof of child abuse or neglect. When a patient is ignorant that a drug test was ever taken, the negative implications of a positive drug screen might be magnified. In addition, if there isn’t a second way to confirm the screen, False-positive findings, as is often the case, might lead to difficulties.
Autonomy and Privacy-
The right to privacy has been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in many rulings . The privacy of a person is at danger whenever he or she is evaluated and treated by a medical professional. The most effective way to safeguard privacy is to require informed permission before testing and treatment , which provides the patient the choice of keeping their private by declining to test or compromising their privacy for the potential advantages of testing and treatment. The freedom to refuse treatment and the necessity of informed consent are both ethically supported by the autonomy principle.
The practice of confronting patients with drug screen results, which has not been shown to be particularly beneficial, would be phased out in many cases, and patient privacy and autonomy would be protected. Less laboratory testing does not always imply a lower clinical suspicion of substance abuse or a reduction in physicians’ efforts to counsel patients. Physicians might still express their concerns to any patient suspected of substance misuse in a nonjudgmental and nonthreatening way, addressing these issues in confidence and underlining the health hazards as well as the advantages of not taking such drugs. Not only is respect for patient autonomy and privacy maintained by demanding informed permission, confirmation on request, and secrecy, but the trust that is vital to the physician-patient relationship is also safeguarded.my concept, the patient, not the physician, should make the decision about whether or not to undertake testing or treatment.
