Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:29:04.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Workplace Drug Screening: A Medical Review Officer's Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

D. Kim Broadwell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the United States, screening the urine of employees or job applicants for the presence of drugs has become commonplace. A survey of 794 large- and mediumsized companies, conducted by the American Management Association in January 1994, found that 87 percent of them now test job applicants for drug use. In 1987, a similar survey found that 22 percent screened job applicants. Federally mandated drug testing programs with random testing requirements affect millions of workers in the transportation industry, the nuclear power industry, and the United States civil and military services.

As some of these programs pass their fifth anniversary since being instituted, it is important to assess the forces that led to their creation. Whether or not these programs are considered successful depends on what one expects to achieve by such widespread testing.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , Fall 1994 , pp. 240 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1994 AMA Survey: Workplace Drug Testing and Drug Abuse Policies (New York: American Management Association, 1994).Google Scholar
Smith Kline Beecham Press Release, “Smith Kline Beecham Announces Decline in Workplace Positive Drug Tests,” 17 February 1994.Google Scholar
41 U.S.C. §§ 701–07 (1988).Google Scholar
“Failure to Use MROs Continues to Erode the Legal Insulation of Drug Testing Laboratories,” MRO Alert, 5, no. 3 (1994): 4–5.Google Scholar
Marshall, Eliot, “Testing Urine for Drugs,” Science, 241, no. 4862 (1988): 150–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modell, Jack G. Mountz, James M., “Drinking and Flying—the Problem of Alcohol Use by Pilots,” New England Journal of Medicine, 323, no. 7 (1990): 455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The statement is based on an informal, unpublished survey, which was conducted by the author. Opinions were solicited from five human resources managers in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, in 1992.Google Scholar
Railway Labor Executives v. Skinner, No. 89–16571 (9th Cir. 1991); International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, et al. v. Department of Transportation, Nos. 89–70165, 89–70166, 89–70185, 89–70186, 89–70248 (9th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
Musto, David F., “The History of American Drug Control,” Update on Law Related Education, 13, no. 2 (1989): 3–56.Google Scholar
Mark Upfal and Kent Peterson, Letter to the Editor: “Pre-Employment Drug Screening: The Epidemiologic Issues,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, 35, no. 1 (1993): 8–9.Google Scholar
“Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs (49 C.F.R. § 40),” Federal Register, 59, no. 31 (1994): 7347.Google Scholar
Bray, R.M. Marsden, M.E. Rachal, J.V. Peterson, M.R., “Drugs in the Military Workplace: Results of the 1988 Worldwide Survey,” in Gust, S.W. et al., eds., Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data Volume II (Washington, D.C.: NIDA Monograph Series No. 100, 1990), pp. 25–44.Google Scholar
Zwerling, Craig Ryan, James Orav, E.J., “The Efficacy of Preemployment Drug Screening for Marijuana and Cocaine in Predicting Employment Outcome,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, no. 20 (1990): 2639–43; and Ryan, James Zwerling, Craig Jones, Michael, “The Effectiveness of Preemployment Drug Screening in the Prediction of Employment Outcome,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, 34, no. 11 (1992): 1057-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrage, C.M., “Workplace Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs,” in Zenz, Carl, ed., Occupational Medicine (St. Louis: Mosby, 1994), p. 1132.Google Scholar
Smith Kline Beecham Press Release, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Author's data, pooled from the Duke University Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine MRO program. The data is unpublished.Google Scholar
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Administrator, Press Release, August 24, 1992.Google Scholar
Stallones, L. Kraus, J.F., “The Occurrence and Epidemiologic Features of Alcohol-Related Occupational Injuries,” Addiction, 88, no. 7 (1993): 945–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Marci M., Does Drug Testing Work? (Washington, D.C.: Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, 1994), pp. 62–102.Google Scholar
Zwerling, Craig Ryan, James Orav, E.J., “Costs and Benefits of Preemployment Drug Screening,” journal of the American Medical Association, 267, no. 1 (1992): 91–93; and Normand, J. Salyards, S.D. Mahoney, J.J., “An Evaluation of Preemployment Drug Testing,” journal of Applied Psychology, 75, no. 6 (1990): 629–39.Google Scholar
“Department of Transportation Proposed Regulations on Alcohol Testing Programs; Drug Testing Amendments,” DOT Transportation Facts, 10 December 1992.Google Scholar
Gresch, I.E., “Drug Screening in Industry,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, 28, no. 12 (1986): 1239; and Rosenstock, Linda Cullen, Mark, “Routine Urine Testing for Evidence of Drug Abuse in Workers: The Scientific, Ethical and Legal Reasons Not to Do It,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2, no. 2 (1987): 135-37.Google Scholar
“Opiates—Ongoing Ethical and Legal Concerns for MROs,” MRO Alert, 5, no. 3 (1994): 1–4.Google Scholar