工作场所的药物和酒精测试:道德、伦理和法律问题。

Bulletin on narcotics Pub Date : 1993-01-01
C Raskin
{"title":"工作场所的药物和酒精测试:道德、伦理和法律问题。","authors":"C Raskin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The proponents of drug and alcohol testing advance several safety and productivity arguments in support of their position. It is asserted that persons who test positively for drug and alcohol at the workplace experience higher levels of absenteeism and use sick leave to a much greater extent than non-users. Moreover, it is claimed that they have levels of productivity from 10 to 60 per cent lower than persons who do not test positively for drugs or alcohol. Perhaps the greatest argument advanced by those in favour of testing, however, is the safety element. Persons who abuse drugs or who consume alcohol to excess are involved in significantly more accidents than those who test negatively. In other words, proponents take the position that persons who test positively for the presence of drugs or alcohol form a category of individuals and that being in this category is grounds for labelling them as problematic employees. Moreover, so the reasoning goes, the only way to find out if an employee is a member of the category of drug or alcohol users is to test. Opponents of alcohol testing feel that the goal of ensuring a drug- and alcohol-free workplace is reached at too high a social cost and that the testing process constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The provision of urine for analysis is a search, which, if conducted without consent or reason, would constitute an assault. Some opponents to testing feel that the real motivation for testing is controlling employee behaviour. Enterprises impose behavioural constraints on employees that may extend to off-duty times. Moreover, it is advanced that the testing process itself is humiliating to many people. In order to obtain a sample for testing, the person being tested must urinate in the presence of an attendant or supervisor. Often, medical standards are not used. Another moral issue is the implication of discrimination as a result of drug or alcohol testing. Perhaps the greatest concern is the systemic discrimination against disabled persons, persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), visible minorities and pregnant women that testing may engender. Again, different countries have addressed the discrimination issue in varying ways. Finally, opponents to drug and alcohol testing question the need to test. It is asserted that all testing shows is that, at some point in time, the person being tested ingested the screened substance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":9376,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin on narcotics","volume":"45 2","pages":"45-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace: moral, ethical and legal issues.\",\"authors\":\"C Raskin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The proponents of drug and alcohol testing advance several safety and productivity arguments in support of their position. It is asserted that persons who test positively for drug and alcohol at the workplace experience higher levels of absenteeism and use sick leave to a much greater extent than non-users. Moreover, it is claimed that they have levels of productivity from 10 to 60 per cent lower than persons who do not test positively for drugs or alcohol. Perhaps the greatest argument advanced by those in favour of testing, however, is the safety element. Persons who abuse drugs or who consume alcohol to excess are involved in significantly more accidents than those who test negatively. In other words, proponents take the position that persons who test positively for the presence of drugs or alcohol form a category of individuals and that being in this category is grounds for labelling them as problematic employees. Moreover, so the reasoning goes, the only way to find out if an employee is a member of the category of drug or alcohol users is to test. Opponents of alcohol testing feel that the goal of ensuring a drug- and alcohol-free workplace is reached at too high a social cost and that the testing process constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The provision of urine for analysis is a search, which, if conducted without consent or reason, would constitute an assault. Some opponents to testing feel that the real motivation for testing is controlling employee behaviour. Enterprises impose behavioural constraints on employees that may extend to off-duty times. Moreover, it is advanced that the testing process itself is humiliating to many people. In order to obtain a sample for testing, the person being tested must urinate in the presence of an attendant or supervisor. Often, medical standards are not used. Another moral issue is the implication of discrimination as a result of drug or alcohol testing. Perhaps the greatest concern is the systemic discrimination against disabled persons, persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), visible minorities and pregnant women that testing may engender. Again, different countries have addressed the discrimination issue in varying ways. Finally, opponents to drug and alcohol testing question the need to test. It is asserted that all testing shows is that, at some point in time, the person being tested ingested the screened substance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin on narcotics\",\"volume\":\"45 2\",\"pages\":\"45-81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin on narcotics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin on narcotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

药物和酒精测试的支持者提出了几个安全和生产力的论点来支持他们的立场。据称,在工作场所进行毒品和酒精检测呈阳性的人旷工率和请病假的情况比不使用的人要高得多。此外,据称,他们的生产力水平比毒品或酒精检测未呈阳性的人低10%至60%。然而,那些支持测试的人提出的最大论点可能是安全因素。滥用药物或过量饮酒的人比检测结果呈阴性的人发生的事故要多得多。换句话说,支持者的立场是,毒品或酒精检测呈阳性的人构成了一类人,属于这一类人就是给他们贴上问题雇员标签的理由。此外,这样推理下去,发现一个员工是否是吸毒或酗酒者的唯一方法就是进行测试。酒精检测的反对者认为,确保工作场所无毒品和酒精的目标的实现需要付出过高的社会成本,而且检测过程构成了对个人隐私的无理侵犯。提供尿液进行分析是一种搜查,如果未经同意或无故进行,将构成人身攻击。一些反对测试的人认为测试的真正动机是控制员工的行为。企业对员工施加的行为约束可能延伸到下班时间。此外,测试过程本身对许多人来说是一种羞辱。为了获得用于测试的样本,被测试者必须在陪同人员或主管在场的情况下小便。通常不使用医疗标准。另一个道德问题是由于药物或酒精测试而产生的歧视。也许最令人关切的是对检测可能产生的残疾人、获得性免疫机能丧失综合症(艾滋病)患者、少数族裔和孕妇的系统性歧视。同样,不同的国家以不同的方式处理歧视问题。最后,毒品和酒精测试的反对者质疑测试的必要性。有人断言,所有的测试都表明,在某个时间点,被测试的人摄入了被筛选的物质。(摘要删节为400字)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace: moral, ethical and legal issues.

The proponents of drug and alcohol testing advance several safety and productivity arguments in support of their position. It is asserted that persons who test positively for drug and alcohol at the workplace experience higher levels of absenteeism and use sick leave to a much greater extent than non-users. Moreover, it is claimed that they have levels of productivity from 10 to 60 per cent lower than persons who do not test positively for drugs or alcohol. Perhaps the greatest argument advanced by those in favour of testing, however, is the safety element. Persons who abuse drugs or who consume alcohol to excess are involved in significantly more accidents than those who test negatively. In other words, proponents take the position that persons who test positively for the presence of drugs or alcohol form a category of individuals and that being in this category is grounds for labelling them as problematic employees. Moreover, so the reasoning goes, the only way to find out if an employee is a member of the category of drug or alcohol users is to test. Opponents of alcohol testing feel that the goal of ensuring a drug- and alcohol-free workplace is reached at too high a social cost and that the testing process constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The provision of urine for analysis is a search, which, if conducted without consent or reason, would constitute an assault. Some opponents to testing feel that the real motivation for testing is controlling employee behaviour. Enterprises impose behavioural constraints on employees that may extend to off-duty times. Moreover, it is advanced that the testing process itself is humiliating to many people. In order to obtain a sample for testing, the person being tested must urinate in the presence of an attendant or supervisor. Often, medical standards are not used. Another moral issue is the implication of discrimination as a result of drug or alcohol testing. Perhaps the greatest concern is the systemic discrimination against disabled persons, persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), visible minorities and pregnant women that testing may engender. Again, different countries have addressed the discrimination issue in varying ways. Finally, opponents to drug and alcohol testing question the need to test. It is asserted that all testing shows is that, at some point in time, the person being tested ingested the screened substance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bulletin on Narcotics, Volume LXII, 2019 Bulletin on Narcotics, Volume LXI, 2017 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection rates and heroin trafficking: fearful symmetries A century of international drug control. A review of the world cannabis situation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1