SHOULD EXPECTANT MOTHERS BE BUSTED FOR DRUG USE?

In the early 1990s, the Medical University of South Carolina secretly
tested some expectant mothers and turned over medical evidence of drug use
to law enforcement officials for prosecution. The women had voluntarily
come to the public university hospital for prenatal services and did not
know until they were arrested that their urine samples had been tested for
the presence of cocaine.

The city of Charleston and the hospital, which jointly developed the
policy, said it was instituted to help patients obtain drug counseling. But
several of the women sued in federal court on grounds that the hospital
infringed their right to avoid an improper search. The women also alleged
racial discrimination because nearly all of those who tested positive were
African-American.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the hospital's policy,
contending it did not violate privacy or unreasonable search protections.
The case, however, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week
heard oral arguments. Although the hospital has since ended this policy,
key constitutional issues about the limits of privacy and search and
seizure protections remain unresolved. The high court is expected to rule
later this term.

Should hospitals be allowed to test pregnant women for illegal substances
that might damage the fetus and report test results to police?

"Yes"

Most states, including Texas, require doctors to report gunshot wounds.
Texas is also among states that require notification in suspected child
abuse. This simply adds drug use by expectant mothers to the list of
concerns that warrant intervention.

Aggressive intervention protects the health and safety of an unborn child.

The policy gives the women an opportunity to enter drug treatment.

Intrusion into a woman's privacy is minimal.

"No"

The policy discourages women from voluntarily seeking prenatal care, a
consequence that hurts unborn children more than it helps them.

The policy compromises the long-standing principle of doctor-patient
confidentiality.

The hospital acted inappropriately as an arm of the police, effectively
participating in an illegal search without a warrant or consent.

The way the policy was applied unfairly targeted racial minorities.

Our View: Policy Undermines Constitutional Protections

Drug abuse is a social and medical affliction, and is particularly
distressing when irresponsible adults saddle their children with the
consequences of their mistakes. The agony of a newborn addicted to drugs
defies words.

Nonetheless, the hospital's collaboration with law enforcement runs afoul
of basic constitutional protections. These women had a reasonable
expectation that seeking prenatal help would not subject themselves to
arrest and prosecution. In practice, law enforcement officials used the
hospital to gain extremely wide latitude to obtain evidence without a
warrant or consent.

This not only is wrong, it blatantly violates the confidential relationship
between doctor and patient. Moreover, these kinds of policies discourage
expectant mothers from seeking prenatal care. No hospital should chase away
patients with the threat of arrest.

The hospital's policy undermines long-accepted constitutional protections.
The high court should clearly and forcefully reject the policy as improper.

"The number of civil law suits is proportional to the extent to which
civilization has decayed."