Drug Testing and Ethics Essay

Is dose mental turn uping an unwarranted invasion of employee hiding? Which is more importantgetting drugs out(a) of the study or protect the privacy of the employee? What about other wellness-threatening activities, i. e. smoking outside of working hours, unprotected sex, etc. Should employers be able to motion or tryout employees or potential employees about these activities? Both of these scenarios are tricky wholenesss. On the matchless transcend, some(prenominal) employer would want to get drugs out of the workplace.On the other hand you dont want to invade an employees privacy. At the same(p) time some jobs whitethorn require employees to conform to a true standard of behavior some(prenominal) on and off the job, just how a great deal is too much? How much should be employees be judged and how high of a standard should be set. Where do we draw the line? Shaw and Barry in their text Moral Issues in Business demesne A firm has a legitimate interest in employee c onduct off the job nonwithstanding if it affects work performance (Shaw & Barry 2010, p477).It can be competed that as long as the drug use doesnt affect the employees work performance, and then he shouldnt be tested. If he is tested and the result is authoritative, precisely work performance is satisfactory, then drug use should non be considered as grounds for termination. Perhaps a better way to state this could be that as long as employee performance meets or exceeds the expect standards, then drug testing should not be used tear down if drug use is suspected. Egoism can be used to argue from both burdens of view.According to this theory, an act is mor e rattling(prenominal)y up correctly if and save if it stovepipe promotes an agents interests (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p59). Following this theory, if the employer drug tests several employees and fires all who test positive, then they are acting in their best interests. On the other hand, if the employees best interests ar e served through their drug system, then the employee has acted in the best deterrent example way that he can. Using this theory does yet raise some interesting distrusts.If the best possible person for a item job is fired as a result of a drug test result, and the companys performance in that specific department falls as a result of this, then was the movement a morally right one? From a personal point of view, I believe that drug testing should be used only if the job requirements demand it. I dont see any take up for the person who picks up my garbage to be tested. I do however see a need for the school crossing withstand at my childrens school to be tested.The person who shovels the snow from my mystical road in the winter and mows my lawn in the spring and summer doesnt need to be drug tested. My doctor should be. Several years ago my keep up and I had a spat over my decision to hire the town drunkard to do some lawn work and prune some corner branches off our roof . In all fairness I had no mind that he was the town drunk when I chartered him, I was out in our backyard picking up fallen branches and he walked by at that moment.He asked if I had any odd jobs to be done and since he came across as clean and presentable and lucid I hired him on the spot. It wasnt until triple weeks later when my keep up came home earliest and saw Bruce (the town drunk) at the top of a 50 cull tree sawing branches off that he realized who his untried handyman was. Since he was usually the one on call at night whenever Bruce had one of his benders and had had cleaned him up several times, he now knew where Bruce was getting his drinking money from. My husband came home and told me hed fired him.I rehired Bruce a day later. My reasoning was that hed never shown up drunk, he did a great job on any task I set for him and his fee was reasonable. It was within my best interests to keep Bruce employed wherefore I was acting as an egotist. It was within Bruces be st interests to live employed since it gave him the money to support his employment. He was acting as an egoist. We were both also following the theory of Libertarianism under which each person is throw overboard to live as he or she wishes free from the interference of others (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p122).My husband in his decision to fire Bruce was also acting partially from an egoist point of view since an unemployed Bruce meant a sober Bruce which meant no trips to the ER which meant that my husband wouldnt have to deal with a cursing, screaming, bloody drunk Bruce. At the same time he was also acting from Kants theory which states that Only when we act from a sense of duty does our activeness have moral worth (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p69). My husband felt that it was his duty as a member of the medical profession, not to enable a habit that could possibly cause harm to an individual.A high incidence of phony positive results in drug testing is another reason for the controversy tha t drug testing should not be used. In researching this paper I was surprised to learn how many over the counter drugs can cause assumed positive results. According to an article on The National means for Biotechnology Information website entitled Commonly prescribed medications and potential false positive urine drug screens published Aug 15th 2010, A add up of routinely prescribed medications have been associated with triggering false-positive UDS results.Verification of the test results with a divers(prenominal) screening test or additional analytical tests should be performed to repress adverse consequences for the patients. Some of the more common drugs that could produce false positive results were nonprescription nasal inhalers much(prenominal)(prenominal) as Vicks, antihistamines, antidepressants, and antibiotics such as amoxicillin which has been associated with false positive urine screens for cocaine. Employers should not be able to question or test employees about other behaviors that they might consider health threatening.This is a sooner grey area and raises the questions of where to draw the line. For example if a company which is trying to reduce health insurance costs, decides to distinguish all smokers from their payroll since it costs more to insure smokers, shouldnt they then eliminate overweight employees who are more likely to develop health problems than fitted ones? What about employees with pre-existing conditions such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure or kidney problems? Shouldnt they be eliminated as well?Should employers be allowed to use polygraph tests to screen out potentially expensive employees who may engage in illegal drug use or any of these activities? The polygraph test, or as it is more commonly known, the lie sensor test measures several physiological with in the human body such as increased blood pressure, increased pulse and respiration. However in spite of what most people believe it is not the mos t good test. Shaw and Barry in their text Moral Issues in Business list three assumptions made by those who advocate for the use of these tests. These assumptions are*1.Lying leave alone automatically trigger a distinctive response to the question. * 2. Polygraphs are very accurate. * 3. Polygraphs cannot be beaten. (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p480). Unfortunately for these advocates while the polygraph test measures bodily responses to questions it cannot indicate whether or not the response is actually a lie. A person who has a history of being abused may register different reactions to questions along that subject area and all that these reactions may indicate is discomfort to the question not necessarily that the response to the question itself is a lie.Opinions vary as to just how accurate the tests are with the percentages ranging from 90% to as low as 55%, the higher percentages coming not surprisingly from the American Polygraph Association. ultimately polygraph tests can be beat en and even generate false positives. Spies whoremaster Walker and Aldrich Ames both passed polygraph tests as did Gary Ridgeway the Green Killer. Ames actually passed dickens different polygraph tests.Since these tests are costly, using them as a screening system for either new hires or present employees may not be the best solution and should be considered on a case by case basis. Other methods should be used before resorting to polygraphs testing such as drug testing which may indicate previous drug use (although as has been mentioned earlier some false positive results may occur) or even background tests which may turn up confutative incidents. If during the course of these two checks questions are raised about the employee or new hire, then the employer could resort to the use of a polygraph.It could be argued that utilizing either or both of these two other methods is even more costly to the employers but I would say that any employer who needs to use a polygraph test to w eed out potentially costly employees could afford to administer the purposeless tests to be absolutely sure. Fortunately for most employees, the Employee Polygraph Protection human activity of 1988 which protects the rights of employees and abstracts the usage and restrictions of lie sensing element tests states The EPPA prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests, either for preemployment screening or during the course of employment.Employers generally may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or sort against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act It then goes on to outline just which employers are permitted to utilize lie detector tests Subject to restrictions, the Act permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to certain job applicants of security overhaul firms (armored car, alarm, and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers.Subject to restrictions, the Act also permits polygraph testing of certain employees of private firms who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident (theft, embezzlement, etc. ) that resulted in specific economic loss or injury to the employer. (United States Department of Labor website) My argument to using a polygraph test therefore would be that assuming that the employer fell into one of these categories then yes they should be permitted to utilize lie detector tests but only as a last resort. I submit this argument using the rule utilitarianism theory. This is not to be confused with act utilitarianism.Under act utilitarianism, we ask must(prenominal) ask ourselves what the consequences of a special act in a particular situation will be for all those affected. If its consequences bring more ingrained good than those of any alternative course of action, then this action is the right one (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p63) The action that produces the greatest amount of happiness is the right one. influence utilitarianism asks what moral canon a society should adopt to maximize happiness. The principles that demand up that code would then be the basis for distinguishing right actions from persecute actions (Shaw & Barry, 2010 p80-81).Under act utilitarianism, if 20 employees were polygraphed and 15 of them failed the test and were fired as a result, then the action would not be a moral one since more people would be left unhappy rather than happy. Using those same figures, if the rule or moral code that indispensable to be followed was that of a no drug policy, and the same 20 employees were polygraphed and again 15 failed and were fired, then the action would be a morally right one since firing the 15 employees made sure that the moral code was enforced.Referenceshttp//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20689123http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph_testhttp//www.dol.gov/compliance/g uide/eppa.htmwho