Daniel Pond fired for violating drug-free policy in Conn. town
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comMan sues over inability to 'urinate on demand'
Seeded on Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:25 PM EST (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
Yet another reason why employment drug testing should be stopped!
Why didn't they do a simple blood or hair test?
If he can't urinate on demand (and there could be many legitimate medical reasons why this may be), why NOT offer alternatives such as a blood or hair test? It would have saved a law suit had he declined all three! Or, if, as is more likely, his claim is legitimate it would have saved the expense of hiring and training a new employee! Every now and again we must ask "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!"
Of course you can't pee on demand if you pinch it off to avoid a drug test.
Really, this guy needs to get a grip on reality
I think many males will agree that it very difficult to urinate on demand, especially if you have an observer present... For some people it is not only difficult but impossible. The medical condition is called Urinesis, I believe or "shy bladder" Prior to discharging this individual they should at least offered him an opportunity to have his blood drawn due to this problem. It is a real medical condition and should be treated as such. I think he has a case!
www.thesafecig.com/?af=4caa41e73a2e9&Clk=2ff148cc
"Urinesis" is bedwetting.
What if he, instead has prostate issues, bladder cancer, a birth defect? If the only issue is potential drug abuse, why NOT offer an alternative?
Hell, I'm female and have a lot of difficulty urinating on demand (I am a patient at a pain management clinic and we're randomly urine-tested to make sure we're being compliant with our meds - another rant for another time). What makes it worse, and I apologize in advance for the TMI, but I have ulcerative colitis, so forcing myself to try to pee in that damn cup can, well, cause things to come out the other end, so to say.
I really wish that drug screeners would consider alternative means of testing for people with "shy bladders." Of course, if I had my way, there wouldn't be drug testing at all. What people do on their own time is none of their employer's business, unless they're in a profession where they could really hurt someone if they're under the influence (like truck driving).
Megidolaon - Pain management clinics test their patients to make sure they ARE taking the drugs they have been prescribed. That is to stop drug dealers who doctor shop for prescription they can re-sell at great profit.
How do I know? I am a pharmacist and the pain clinics have told me so. Their patients know this too.
I can do it anytime, anyplace. It's good to be guy.
I hate it when someone is standing behind me while I am trying to piss. I can't just whiz at the drop of a hat. When I was in the Army they stopped just short of holding it for me. I actually waterlogged myself trying to go, and then threw up all over the place. After that I was able to pee, because I was toatlly concentration on not barfing again.
Darthdon, I know. I almost got dismissed from my clinic once because my colitis flared so badly that none of my pain meds (or any of my other meds, or food, or anything else - almost needed to be hospitalized due to malnutrition and blood loss) were being absorbed and I came up negative for everything. Everything literally went in one end and out the other within fifteen or twenty minutes. Thank God my doctor gave me a second chance (most will not, and I think she gave me a second chance because she's friends with my family), and once the flare subsided and I was retested, everything came back normal.
I rarely have flares - my UC is mostly under control, but that really concerned me, and I want to talk to her about alternate medications that don't need to be taken orally because even given my condition, if it happens again, I'll be dismissed (and like you said, I understand her reasons for doing so - pain docs are under constant watch by the DEA). I'm just worried because, according to my research, the medications that aren't taken orally are REALLY strong, and I build up a tolerance very rapidly, and I just don't want to be on anything that strong.
meg - Fentanyl patches work well for chronic pain, but they aren't useful for flare-ups. They don't seem to be any more addictive than oxycodone. There are also sublingual and buccal, (absorbed through the cheek inside the mouth), pain meds. Your pharmacy may not stock them, but they can usually get them in in a few days. I would suggest you see if your doc will order you a small supply for emergencies.
I think the solution, as stated above would have been solved with a blood test. I honestly can't believe that it wasn't offered to him.
The guy should have bought synthetic urin. It's easy to pass a drug screening if you can't pee or have illegal drugs in your system. What a raquet.
many labs can test for that stuff, and in some places for some tests, it is a crime to adulterate your urine.
lexiwords, MinneApple - Hair and blood tests are much more expensive. I would only agree with your points if he was willing to pay the difference.
As for observed urine testing, it is a real pain when the observer passes out! ;-D
The actual cost difference is actually very minimal. Even if it was a lot more, it still would have been cheaper to pay for a blood or hair test than the expense of a lawsuit. Even if they win the lawsuit, there are lots of legal costs.
Rick - Urine screens are $40, Hair costs $120. That's 3 times as much. I don't know about you, but I don't want my tax dollars wasted like that.
blood test?
Neither of us know the whole story. The issue of setting an unwanted precedent could also have played a role.
As for your comment about my work experience, I have been Director of Pharmacy services for more than one hospital and the Pharmacist Manager in a retail setting.
BTW I think you meant 'even an inexperienced one.'
haven't read this entire string, but...
Darthdon
so you're okay with wasting 40 tax payer dollars per test to detect the private use of a plant that is now medically legal in several states (proven harmless in recreational use abroad), needlessly incarcerates tens of thousands of people a year while violating the Constitutional rights of the accused, flooding our jails/justice system and bankrupting our budgets, and has an industrial grade fiber capable of producing countless environmentally-safe consumer products (and subsequently sprouting countless economic juggernauts)?
here's a budget saver AND booster for Congress and the states: make marijuana legal now. i just solved a HUGE portion of the budget crisises with one NV post, sitting at my kitchen counter in the desert!
the drug war is over. has been for years. never even got off the ground. and, for you Believers out there, God doesn't care. especially since He knows its real purpose: generating revenue and institutionalizing people (which also generates revenue). and God hates alterior motive.
grow up people. your kids are sniffing glue.
ps. - if you missed it, watch Episode 1 of Harry's Law.
here here
I think he has a case. Its a well known medical condition, and its not like he refused to submit to the test. City better get their act together.
Probably born with a microscopic male organ and is afraid of someone watching him when the bladder is full it will empty itself your NOT suppose to urinate before going to the drug test.
Patience.
If they waited long enough he wouldve pissed. I say, condition or no, he was avoiding the cup.
actually, Haas, i stood for 4 hours for a court-mandated pee test, being given cup after cup of water. eventually, i had to be hospitalized for a bladder condition and water intoxication. (look it up, it can be FATAL, and is NOT by choice.)
and before you start in with the BS, both blood and urine samples were collected in the hospital. 100% clean, and I knew it was. I just CAN NOT go in front of someone else.
Hello - a catheter. Cheaper than a blood test. The testers get the urine, the guy keeps his job, all is well and good. Would love to know why this wasn't an option. Maybe it was and the guy turned it down, who knows?
Hello... can you say invasive medical procedure? Thats about as intrusive as it gets.... There are saliva tests that are as reliable as urine....
Geezus...whats wrong with you?
Naw, that's not as invasive as it gets, try a suprapubic needle aspiration...ouch.
while there are other options, a saliva test is not one of them. my employer last year used them. employees were caught smoking pot in their cars. tested immediately afterwards, and the next day. even when they reeked of pot, and after it had been given time to reach the bloodstream, all 3 tested clean. they were sent for further testing at a clinic, and all failed a urine screen..... in fact, with over 100 employees, tested at least once a month, for 2 years, not ONE positive test was recorded.....ever. and i KNOW half of them were on drugs of some sort.
(although, to be fair, i suppose 0% accuracy is pretty close to the same as a urine test.)
Catheter? You're really suggesting that your boss stick a tube up your dick? I don't think so.
Why don't they allow him to give a hair sample drug test which would settle the matter?
If a person does not pass urine, it follows that the test is negative, no drugs found. He should not be fired. Shy bladder is a real condition. If they really wanted his urine, lock him up (at full pay) for 72 hours in solitary. But wait!!! Shouldn't we be concerned about job performance?? Did he do his job well? If so, why do we need to know about his urine?
What if he drives a snow plow or operates heavy machinery? Regardless of his job performance, drug use would make him a liability. That's why they need to know.
Dale
They lock us up for urinating in public and now you want to lock us up for not urinating in public, sounds like a government solution.
as Melanie said if this was a condition of his employment and he had urinary retention from any medical source his medical provider could have supplied him with a prescription for some one time urinary catheterization kits to be used in these situations and he could be taught to use them like all other folks who have to self cath at times.
This is the United States dear....not communist China. Perhaps you are ignorant of the existence of other testing methods...ones that are not so personally and medically invasive.
There is obviously more to this story that isn't reported. I work in the field of Emergency Services and we conduct drug screens on all new employees and on all employees every year during physicals and the system we use is saliva based no urinating involved very difficult to beat because the technician watches you the whole time. The cost is the same or less than urine tests and just as reliable. It is also great for random test because there is no need for a bathroom to collect the sample.
sounds great on paper, but i was a manager at a grocery store with over 100 employees. with monthly testing of every employee, not one person in 2 years EVER failed the mouth swabs, even those caught in the act of smoking pot, a dozen or more vicodin addicts, and 2 that eventually went to treatment for meth. we switched brands, and had the same results for another 9 months.
one round of a finger prick and a few drops of blood....31 people failed the first time..... (a urine test got 3 people for pot the month before.....)
If a urine sample is requested for a drug test, the individual should be given as much time as is needed. I'm sure no-one was standing there insisting immediacy. Allow him to stay there untill he goes. It isn't like it would take forever. I think his nervousness contributed to his freezing up. Hiding something perhaps?
i describe a urine test i was subjected to above, after a traffic accident. a deputy stood 3 inches behind me, armed, with a hand on my shoulder most of the time.
please don't assume they were guilty, i wasn't.
sikchimp
I wasn't assuming guilt. Mere'ly suggesting the possibility. As for your situation, I find it an obvious violation of a persons civil rights. In Wisconsin, where I live, there are no road-side urine tests. As far as I know anyway. If you want to refuse a breathalyzer you can request and recieve a ride to the hospital to give a blood sample.
actually, wichasha, it wasn't a roadside test. i had been in a minor accident, with an obviously intoxicated driver. the police at the scene had at one point mis-identified the parties involved, and the other driver's lawyer used that to claim I was the one intoxicated. the judge ordered an immediate UA....
Sounds like he got in a pissin' contest with the city and lost.
When your boss tells you to pee, ask "how much, sir!"
Medical Condition or not, if the employer waits long enough, he will eventually have to go.
I think this guy is just trying to place unwarranted blame on the employer. Sounds like he was going to get caught to me.
Next time you have a prostate condition, urinary tract cancer, bladder infection, etc. OR "shy bladder" or just not a good day...HOPE you lose your job. Just your karma based on lack of empathy. After all as many here have pointed out...there are plenty of alternatives!
To all of you who favor drug tests. Why don't you just move somewhere the state tells you what and how you do everything. You are not True Americans, sounds like Fascism to me.
We have lost too much Freedom for the sake of so called safety. Drug Tests, TSA, The Patriot Act, Rendition...
2 points, imperious:
1) The majority of people who use drugs are not addicts.
2) The majority of people who use drugs do not do it on the job.
What is the harm if this man uses drugs in his leisure time? If the employer wants to control his time outside of the office, they should pay him for every hour he is awake.
He's pee-shy
they are getting kick backs from workers comp and insurance companies for doing drug testing nothing more. companies don't give a crap about you. i know for my next urine intelligence test i'm pissing on the floor ... there's your sample.
Drug testing should be less invasive. The saliva test sounds fair for all.
One does NOT have the right to a job. Equal opportunity is another issue. Employers and the public have the right to reasonably expect sobriety and competence from employees whose work affects health and safety. Frankly, impairment is what should be tested, not the body's chemistry. I take more drugs now than ever--all required for continued good health. I become impaired if I don't properly do my drugs.
I am so glad I'm retired and have no testing requirement. On the other hand, when I was working, random drug-testing was mandatory in my line of work and I am convinced it was a necessary evil. It still is.
Good guess and 100% correct. Addiction is first and foremost a MEDICAL issue and should be treated as such. Any anti-social behavior surrounding addiction must NOT be merely excused, rather punished in conjuction with treatment. Doing anything less puts all our lives at risk and adds to crime and the need to police it in greater numbers.
The inability to take a urine test is not sufficient grounds for that guy's termination and the gov't should have persued the other testing options. Under current guidlines, it's unlikely this man will lose his lawsuit.
urine recovery and testing are medical procedures...if urine is absolutely necessary and blood cannot be used then harmless painless bladder catheterization with a soft red rubber 12F sterile catheter and sterile technique should be used. Its probably an obligation of the employer to provide that rather than an unjust or erroneous firing which might, for all I know, be putting a family of five out on the street in these hard times. "Bashful Bladder" is a well known medical condition that can also sometimes be overcome by all day water loading that causes such retention distress that it overcomes the otherwise involuntary reflex mental block against (near) public voiding.
Yes all day drinking water and dying from water intoxication yup just sounds like the perfect solution NOT