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.
The choice is between separating a mother from a new born child and not separating her. The mother is now childless, and the child will probably end up in our horrific adoption system. Maybe they will find a loving parent, or maybe they’ll end up loveless. The choice should be easy to make.
I’m not saying lie on all tests. Just on ones where the moral boundaries are incredibly clear.
Morals are relative. And losing or manipulating tests is against the Hippocratic oath, the very foundation of medicinal treatment.
Thorough investigation should always be done before accusing someone, and all of those drug tests should be considered a false positive until they rule everything out.