
I went to the hospital to give birth and tested positive for meth - pmcpinto
http://narrative.ly/i-went-to-the-hospital-to-give-birthand-tested-positive-for-meth/
======
csense
If this happens on a regular basis and people find out about it, people will
stop going to the hospital to give birth, raising the rate of mortality and
complications for infants and mothers.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of Bayes' Theorem can tell you that
testing all new mothers for X (where X is relatively rare among new mothers)
will lead to a large number of false positives even if the test has high
specificity and sensitivity, simply because the prior probability for X is so
low.

~~~
stcredzero
_people will stop going to the hospital to give birth, raising the rate of
mortality and complications for infants and mothers._

According to Healthcare Triage, home births have an overall lower risk of
complications. It's only in the cases of things going spectacularly wrong that
being in the hospital helps.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWvSPhENtk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWvSPhENtk)

It fits with my view of things: If there's something really broken, go to the
hospital to get it fixed. However, if you're fine, you're better off avoiding
the place. (Do get checkups from a doctor you have a good relationship with.)

~~~
ygjb-dupe
> It's only in the cases of things going spectacularly wrong that being in the
> hospital helps.

Yep. My wife had a perfectly normal pregnancy, and everything went perfectly
until something went spectacularly wrong. When my daughter was born, and
didn't breath on her own for the first 3 minutes. If she hadn't been in a
hospital, it would have gone down as still born. She was in the hospital,
immediately received resuscitation and numerous other treatments which
maintained her blood oxygen level sufficient to prevent brain damage, and now
at the age of 4 is ahead of every developmental measure.

"It's only in the case of things going spectacularly wrong" that _any_ risk
mitigation activity actually provides value, and in every other case is
essentially worthless. YMMV, but I tell everyone I can the story of my
daughter whenever they talk about home birth.

~~~
Arnt
I agree with the larger sentiment, but don't be so quick, it's a game of
chance even when shit happens.

One of my daughters too didn't breathe when she was born. The midwives grew
very very ernest very very quickly, and the little child was rushed off to
hospital in an ambulance. All went fine. I was a little shaky that first
night.

~~~
ygjb-dupe
Life is a game of chance, but we make our own luck (beyond what we are born
with) by making sensible decisions, taking measured chances, and knowing when
to admit we are out of our depth.

Yes, midwives (in some jurisdictions) are trained, qualified practitioners.
That said, they are not equipped to deal with many, many complications other
than by calling an ambulance and hoping for the best.

Choosing to have my daughter born in a hospital instead of a home birth was
most likely the difference between having a healthy baby girl and something in
the range of severe mental handicap to stillbirth.

Having a child is a huge risk and investment (by every measure, emotionally,
financially, socially, economically, etc). Why would you risk having a
stillborn child, life with a mentally or physically handicapped child (this is
not a shot against handicapped children - it's a shot against people who
refuse to apply critical thinking skills to emotionally charged high risk
decisions) so that you can satisfy some foolish ideal that being born at home
is better than being born around people who have trained for much of their
adult lives to keep your kid alive in its first few days?

It ranks right up there with the foolish parents who refuse to vaccinate
children against common ailments or choose naturopathy or homeopathy because
of "toxic western medicine".

~~~
gohrt
Don't confuse midwifery with home-birth. They are overlapping but different.
There are midwife delivery centers that are attached to hospitals.

~~~
ygjb-dupe
I didn't; I acknowledged that in some jurisdictions midwives are well
regulated. I also contrasted hospital birth with home birth.

------
burfog
This is a big part of why homebirth is gaining popularity. It's just family
and maybe a midwife. Nobody is going to do a meth test. The doors don't lock
you inside, unable to escape without permission. (that security is NOT to
protect the baby from strangers; it's so CPS can take your baby)

Also: There is no need to drive madly to the hospital. There will be no
incentive to keep you for exactly how long your insurance will pay, nor to
perform surgery. You get to sleep in your own bed, without constant beeping
and light from the hallway. You can have as many visitors as you want. You
will never be separated from your baby, not even for a moment. You won't be
treated like a potential criminal. You get respect.

~~~
masklinn
And if there's trouble and the kid[0] dies[1] you can just say that was "their
journey" and wash your hands from it. Hell, you might even "get respect" and
praises for having killed your kid, go you.

But hey, CPS didn't get to take your kid[2], so there's that.

[0] or the mother, or both

[1] which is anything but rare, even in the UK under obstetric care[3]

> The risk of dying on the day of birth (0.43 per 1000, or 430 micromorts)
> exceeds that of any other average day of life until the 92nd year.

and matches the risks of major surgery. Homebirth, especially with completely
unqualified midwives (which is the rule in the US) is almost an order of
magnitude more risky[4].

[2] the coroner did, to check for foul play

[3]
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.12544/f...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.12544/full)

[4]
[https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeM...](https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/8585)

~~~
Domenic_S
That's just an ignorant response. There are plenty of board-certified
midwives, birthing centers, etc. Importantly, a great deal of risk can be
ascertained before labor, and like any other medical procedure you're either a
good candidate for non-hospital birth or you're not.

~~~
jmcgough
It depends heavily on the quality of the midwife and how well they can
recognize complications. If they miss something (which very likely would turn
from from a required test in a hospital), by the time the baby has stopped
breathing, it might be too late to save them.

"Planned out-of-hospital birth was associated with a higher rate of perinatal
death than was planned in-hospital birth (3.9 vs. 1.8 deaths per 1000
deliveries, P=0.003; odds ratio after adjustment for maternal characteristics
and medical conditions, 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 4.30;
adjusted risk difference, 1.52 deaths per 1000 births; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.54).
The odds for neonatal seizure were higher and the odds for admission to a
neonatal intensive care unit lower with planned out-of-hospital births than
with planned in-hospital birth." [1]

"Midwife home births had a significantly higher total neonatal mortality risk
than deliveries by hospital midwives (1.26 per 1000 births; relative risk
[RR], 3.87 vs 0.32 per 1000; P < .001). Midwife home births of 41 weeks or
longer (1.84 per 1000; RR, 6.76 vs 0.27 per 1000; P < .001) and midwife home
births of women with a first birth (2.19 per 1000; RR, 6.74 vs 0.33 per 1000;
P < .001) had significantly higher risks of total neonatal mortality than
deliveries by hospital midwives. In midwife home births, neonatal mortality
for first births was twice that of subsequent births (2.19 vs 0.96 per 1000; P
< .001). Similar results were observed for early neonatal mortality. The
excess total neonatal mortality for midwife home births compared with midwife
hospital births was 9.32 per 10,000 births, and the excess early neonatal
mortality was 7.89 per 10,000 births." [2]

[1]
[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1501738](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1501738)
[2]
[http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(14)00275-0/abstract](http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378\(14\)00275-0/abstract)

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Rounding up your first statistic slightly, that's a difference of two severe
incidents per thousand births. That's a reasonably big risk factor in absolute
terms, but small enough that it's not unreasonable to take in order to get
other things that you care about.

Like, these are "am I willing to make this tradeoff" numbers similar to
choosing to drive to work daily, rather than "fuck no, go to the hospital"
numbers.

~~~
ygjb-dupe
Midwives don't sell themselves on the increases risks, they talk about the
(largely) cosmetic benefits of home birth.

Look up earlier in the thread for my comment, but anecdotally, almost every
parent that I have told my story to has changed their opinion on home birth
vs. hospital birth.

------
projectramo
It was (likely) the inhaler!

It can cause a positive meth test (thank you Google):

[https://www.labcorp.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSS...](https://www.labcorp.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hACzO_QCM_IwMLo1ALAyNj1yBnQxNfA4MQU6B8JG55d2MCuv088nNT9QtyI8oB5fb_Fw!!/dl2/d1/L0lDU0lKSWdrbUEhIS9JRFJBQUlpQ2dBek15cXchL1lCSkoxTkExTkk1MC01RncvN19VRTRTMUk5MzA4OVMxMDJKR00xTTJOMkRNMC9JX19fXzE!/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_UE4S1I93089S102JGM1M2N2DM0_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/LabCorp%20Content/labcorp/services/drug+testing+services/faq/toxicology+faq)

~~~
projectramo
Here is the relevant piece:

Q: What do the percentages mean in methamphetamine "d" and "l" isomer test
results? A: In order to help determine whether a methamphetamine positive may
be due to an illicit source, it is helpful to determine the percentage of "d"
isomer. For example, following an individual's use of Vick's Vapor Inhaler,
the expected result would be 100% "l" methamphetamine. However, there is a
possibility that trace amounts of "d" isomer may be present in the
quantitative analysis. Laboratory guidelines have been established to allow
for trace presence of the "d" isomer. If the laboratory report indicates more
than 80% "l" methamphetamine, the results are consistent with Vick's Vapor
Inhaler use. If the laboratory reports more than 20% "d" methamphetamine
present, the result indicates the use of "d" methamphetamine other than the
inhaler. Illegally produced methamphetamine and amphetamine may contain
mixtures of "d" and "l" isomers. LabCorp recommends use of a medical review
officer (MRO) to review all non-negative test results.1

~~~
maxerickson
That's not informative. That's an OTC nasal decongestant.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levomethamphetamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levomethamphetamine)

She was using an albuterol inhaler. It's prescription only and operates on the
lung passages.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbutamol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbutamol)

~~~
projectramo
Whoops. I really thought I had this cracked. So close, yet so far.

But this leads to the obvious question: can Salbutamol confuse the drug test?

Google seems to say yes to several chemicals that look similar (both the chain
and the name), but not getting a direct hit.

------
tptacek
Something similar happened to us. When she was 4 years old, our daughter had a
string of unexplained severe seizures over the course of 8 hours or so, and
she too tested positive for methamphetamine at the hospital.

What made it especially bad was the fact that my daughter was in the middle of
a medical emergency, and the staff at the hospital were wasting time on a
ludicrous "meth" hypothesis.

~~~
JshWright
I understand why it was ludicrous from your perspective. It was not, however,
ludicrous for them to spend time ruling it out.

New onset seizures (particularly a string of seizures) are unusual for a kid.
Methamphetamine causes seizures. There are ways a child could have been
exposed to meth that a parent wouldn't know about (another caretaker left it
lying around, a preschool friend brought it in for "show and tell" and no one
noticed, etc...). It was prudent on their part to consider it as a possible
cause of your daughter's seizures. A positive meth test for a seizure patient
(of any age) would certainly raise my index of suspicion enough to thoroughly
explore the possibility of intentional or accidental ingestion.

I totally get why you would perceive them as "wasting time" (and obviously I
wasn't there, it's entirely possible they were), but it's very likely they
were running down all the other "normal" differential diagnoses in parallel.

~~~
TillE
You're vastly overestimating the average competence and concern that most
human beings have when doing their jobs.

I've seen multiple instances with family members where the doctor's dumbass
hypothesis absolutely did not match the symptoms, but they persisted in trying
the worthless treatment anyway. Took 'em months to find and start treating the
slightly rare form of cancer. Bring on the diagnostic computers, I say.

~~~
JshWright
I know a lot of ER docs (I assume this story took place in an ER). Some are
better than others, but I can't think of any that I wouldn't consider "above
average" relative to "most human beings".

I'll absolutely agree with you in terms of primary care docs... As someone who
routinely transports patients out of doctor's offices when the doc is in over
their head, there is a _much_ broader variation in competency...

------
6stringmerc
Let me state right out I don't think this person deserved such treatment, and
basic critical thinking and cross-checking the prescription for the inhaler
(which surely should've been a phone call away?) in theory absolves the issue.
It's just, well, personal experience leads me to be wary of medical care, not
simply hit autopilot and think things will turn out great. It can from time to
time! But, hey, this kind of story is an excellent caution...this is why it's
very, very important to pester the ever loving dogsh!t out of your health-care
provider to have every single detail prepared in your file _before_ going into
- essentially - the custody of a medical facility.

No matter how many times it might _seem_ stupid for me to reiterate that with
my condition I can't have any blood thinners - no Aspirin specifically - I
simply don't trust anybody new with being, well, competent enough to make the
connection themselves. I police what goes into my body with pretty good
results. I go out of my way, time and again, to discuss my specific treatment
needs and precautions. Granted, not everything is in my control, but the
things I can monitor, I do try to get a handle on.

------
calebsurfs
This is interesting because I'm a nurse and I deal with people who
occasionally test positive for methamphetamine.

We've found that many of these people take Zantac (aka ranitidine, used for
acid reflux). This hasn't been studied since 1991[0] but it probably should be
again, given increasing rates of meth use.

I wish the author had given the name of her prescription inhaler- Vick's Vapor
inhaler has been shown to test positive but albuterol and other steroid
inhalers are more common.

[0]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2051743](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2051743)

~~~
maxerickson
It is clearly stated to be albuterol.

 _My husband scrolls through pages of information about albuterol inhalers and
drug tests. He shows his phone to every nurse who steps foot in the room._

~~~
calebsurfs
Oops, thanks.

Cross-reactivity studies don't seem to be published often but searching for
albuterol + 'cross reactivity' shows some drug tests are cross reactive with
albuterol and some aren't.

------
zer00eyz
When I was a kid:

I rode a bike without a helmet

I played outside, by my self, and would sometimes go MILES from my house.

We did stupid stuff, with fire, fireworks and the like.

My parents left me home alone after school, I was a latch key kid.

Today, the police would bring my kids home and I would get a visit from CPS
for any of these things.

Welcome to having children in the new millennium.

~~~
r00fus
Your anecdote doesn't correct for survivor bias.

~~~
geoelectric
All my friends did that too. It was the norm in the 80s when I was growing up.
To my recollection, any deaths or serious injuries from it were somewhere
between rare and non-existent. That's not survivor bias.

I have no doubt that a study would find there were more then than there are
now, but things don't exist in isolation. We make trades for everything.

For example, we've traded relatively rare (and usually treatable) skin cancer
for more widespread sunlight deprivation and Vitamin D deficiency that's
implicated in a number of different conditions. I don't think this was a good
trade, personally.

In this case we've traded our kids' childhoods and parents' exercise of
discretion--this is part of their life cycle too, keep in mind--for what I'm
quite convinced is a minimal increase in safety. Mandatory bicycle helmets?
Sure, if it stopped there. But we've gotten way more paranoid than that. I
don't think that's a good trade either.

------
roosterjm2k2
Drug testing around childbirth is a wreck and needs to be seriously looked
into...

My second son was premature... when we were in the NICU... there was a lady
there, whos child was born premature because the taxi she was riding in from
the airport was involved in an accident. She came from california... where her
gyno was pro-mj, and she used MJ to manage her Hyperemesis gravidarum... so
its in her system, clearly... but this is Texas... so even though her doc
recommended it, not only was her child in the NICU, but when he got out, he
didnt get to go home with her... because of stupid laws that pay no mind to
actual scientific evidence...

------
projectramo
Was it the inhaler? Was it just a screw up? I wish they would tell us what
caused the mix up.

~~~
kdamken
Right? What a weirdly unsatisfying ending. Did they sue the hospital for not
knowing enough about medicine that her inhaler could cause this?

~~~
mfoy_
That's the point exactly. What a weirdly unsatisfying ending. All this
emotional trauma over a false positive.

It also really underscores an extremely critical question with society: When
the system is inflexible, and uncaring, what recourse do you have when it
fails you? Imagine the hopelessness, the bleak future, of the world turning
its back on you because of a mistake. I can only imagine this is what it's
like to be falsely convicted of a crime... or failing a drug test that you
shouldn't have failed.

I think there's even a lesson for us technical folks here: When the systems we
design are too automated, and too rigid, we are removing all compassion. Now
if the system is "perfect" there's no problem, but even Google hasn't been
able to completely perfect their systems. People still become the victim of
false DMCA takedowns, etc.

I guess at the end of the day, the moral is to "Remember the person."

~~~
maxerickson
Here's the thing, it isn't just automated systems. Large institutions do the
same thing. People have less and less of the full picture and act more and
more as a component of the system.

In this case it appears that the social worker had enough of the full picture
to inject some measure of sanity, but I really wonder if the nurses understood
the statistics related to the tests well enough to treat her like shit over
them.

------
zoner
I would mention lawyers and lawsuits a lot more during the visit in this
hospital and definitely sue them with a 500 pages long claim.

It's fighting law with law. If they were draw a sword, I would draw mine too.

~~~
masklinn
> I would mention lawyers and lawsuits a lot more during the visit in this
> hospital and definitely sue them with a 500 pages long claim.

That would be idiotic, nonsensical and a very good way to make current and
future interactions even worse. Hospitals are mandatory reporters, if they
don't report suspicious situations (such as a pregnant mother failing a drug
test) they're on the hook for it, and they _must prepare for a possible NAS
case_ which is anything but fun, or a walk in the park.

And despite the completely one-sided report, it looks like much of the
antipathy came from her insisting on her "experience" and on e.g.
breastfeeding the child.

~~~
pigpaws
the issue isn't the mandatory reporting. The issue was the way they treated
here AFTER the two known-to-be-spurious tests, neither of which were _blood
draws_ which are vastly more accurate.

So, yes, a lawsuit would be in order (IMO). I wouldn't ask for a huge payday,
but at the very least that they clean up their testing procedures and follow
protocols.

~~~
masklinn
> The issue was the way they treated here AFTER the two known-to-be-spurious
> tests

The tests were not _known to be spurious_ by the hospital.

> neither of which were blood draws which are vastly more accurate.

Blood draws tests are also much longer (that's the 2~3 weeks test whose
results they got afterwards).

> I wouldn't ask for a huge payday

Not that you'd get any even if you did.

> at the very least that they clean up their testing procedures and follow
> protocols.

Is there any protocol you know them to not have followed?

Keeping in mind that the one account we have is the one-sided version of the
parents, consider the hospital's point of view: what they have is an expectant
mother who has twice failed a drug test and thus a NAS risk, a nearly DOA
newborn from emergency C-section and the possibly drug-addicted mother
thereafter insists on breastfeeding.

~~~
tremon
_The tests were not known to be spurious by the hospital._

Then the hospital is negligent. It is _their responsibility_ to know the
failure modes of any technology they use.

~~~
FireBeyond
They do. And the balance of probabilities is that the urinalysis is more
likely than not to be accurate (I don't know percentages). So as a mandated
reporter, they did what they could.

They gave multiple chances for retests. The results were consistent.

A blood test four weeks prior to delivery would be a good start, but still
leaves a window.

There are two suboptimal possibilities at that point:

1) err on the side of the mother, who has failed (incorrectly as it may be)
multiple drug tests and allow her to breastfeed her child, or

2) err on the side of the child, who is exhibiting symptoms that could point
to NAS, bradycardia and the like, who is delivered by emergency C-section (so
she would not have had the bonding experience immediately post partum, as it
was, anyway)

They did know the failure mode.

They evaluated.

They held off on calling CPS. They allowed contact after the baby's
urinalysis.

There is no negligence here. The father showing by their own words anecdotal
forum posts and such is not reason for the hospital to say "Well, what do we
know, here you go".

------
masklinn
> A part of me recognizes the hospital is acting in the interests of my child.
> But even if I were a drug user, does that justify turning delivery into
> something criminal? At what point do the rights of my child outweigh my own?

rights to have a "birth experience" according to a wishlist, possibly at the
expense of the child? At more or less every point I would assume.

~~~
MustardTiger
You're having the abortion debate with yourself.

~~~
blucoat
I think most arguments for abortion rely heavily on the right of the mother to
bodily autonomy. That is, once the baby is delivered, those arguments fall
apart. Breastfeeding your child because you want the "experience" is
completely different.

~~~
jacalata
breastfeeding is a hell of a lot more than 'an experience'

------
googletazer
Lawsuit against the hospital thats what the lady needs to do. Would be a nice
college fund for her kid.

~~~
theandrewbailey
And continue to drive up unaffordable medical costs?

~~~
Kristine1975
Yes. The solution for high medical costs isn't less lawsuits, it's UHC.

~~~
tropo
United Health Care is pretty bad. They are always finding some excuse to not
pay. I suggest Blue Cross Blue Shield, at least the PPO.

~~~
FordPrefectAO
I'm not GP, but UHC = universal health care, presumably single payer health
care

~~~
tropo
See for yourself: [http://www.uhc.com/](http://www.uhc.com/)

OK, it's UnitedHealthcare® if you want silly capitalization.

------
jff
> My doula rubs lavender essential oil on my temples, and my husband plays
> “Push It,” the Spotify playlist I created for labor and delivery. I have a
> photo of Beyoncé propped up on the over-bed table, because if anything can
> inspire me, it’s Queen Bey. Also on the table is my birth plan, which is
> kind of like a wish list for delivery. That includes modest requests, like
> keeping the door to my room closed, as well as more imperative things, like,
> “Please delay all routine procedures on the baby until after the bonding and
> breastfeeding period.”

> The bulk of my produce was organic, my drinking water purified through a
> reverse-osmosis system. I used clove oil on a persistent toothache instead
> of visiting the dentist, because I didn’t want any anesthetic to pass
> through my body and into the placenta. During all 42 weeks, the hardest
> drugs that entered my body were prenatal vitamins and puffs from my
> prescription asthma inhaler.

"But... I'm white! I'm middle-class! I have a doula! It's patently absurd that
these nurses could think I did drugs! Just look at me! What do you mean that's
exactly what a drug user would say?"

From her point of view she's a perfect mommy, but as far as the nurses and
doctors know, she's just somebody who showed up pregnant with meth in her
system and an unlicensed hippie who's smearing lavender oil around the place.

------
pessimizer
Why is the state using birth as grounds for a search?

edit: If the answer is "will someone think of the children!" why isn't the
state randomly drug testing all parents?

~~~
maxerickson
The drug test is relevant to providing care to the mother. In the case of a
delivery, I think it is reasonable to consider the results of the test while
providing care for the child.

It's obviously a thorny question, but what should a facility that treats
children do when it notices a conflict between the interests of the child and
the interests of the parent? It's clearly going to happen.

------
unwind
The title needs editing, the fancy ellipsis of the original has been eaten.
Mods, please? My eeeeyeeees ...

~~~
LeifCarrotson
That's not a "fancy ellipsis", that's an ordinary, standard U+2026 horizontal
ellipsis. It is not three period characters in a row.

HN appears to support Unicode://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9105273

~~~
unwind
Yes, I know, that was what I meant and tried to express in a semi-funny way.

I fully realize that the ellipsis is a code point/glyph/character/whatever in
its own right, and that the rendering of it using three periods is not
correct.

The existance of that rendering is what makes the _proper_ one seem "fancy",
from some points of view.

Also, one should never explain jokes I guess.

------
carc
Sometimes I think that the HN crowd is less prone to very non-scientific
biases than the general public, or a place where I'm less likely to see people
throwing around things that sound like facts that are mostly psuedo-science.
Then threads like this happen.

------
steve19
I visit my sister at work sometimes, a nurse who looks after drug addled
premature babies at a big hospital... it is heart wrenching to see those
little people hooked up to morphine lines because they were born addicts to
useless parents.

I am sorry she went through that, it is very unfortunate that statistically
some tests will come back with false positives. Arguing that they should have
treated her different is much like arguing babies should not to be vaccinated
because there is a very slight statistical chance they might have a bad
reaction.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If a test has a non trivial false positive rate, then a positive must not be
treated as a true one without further analysis. Innocent until proven guilty,
not the other way around.

~~~
btown
Yet arrests can be made, and bail denied, before a trial if there is
reasonable suspicion that the defendant is a danger to other human beings. And
in this case, the positive test result was certainly enough for reasonable
suspicion. Everyone acted professionally, the baby was not taken away, the
freedom to breastfeed was not taken away. Even if the (statistical) test
should have taken whether a person is known to use an asthma inhaler into
(greater?) account in its prior distribution, that doesn't change the
procedure here, just the number of people it might apply to.

~~~
powercf
From the article:

> All three days, the nurses are reluctant to hand over the baby, saying my
> actions are irresponsible.

> Every shift change, two nurses stand by my bed and inform another two nurses
> of my status as a combative patient. “This woman tested positive for
> methamphetamine,”

This does not strike me as very professional. The medical staff should have
considered the possibility of a false positive, and given the mother the
benefit of the doubt when she said she wasn't taking methamphetamine. Telling
the mother that she shouldn't breastfeed and that CPS have been called, while
not stopping her from breastfeeding (presumably they have no legal power) is
the worst of both worlds: increase stress/worry (which is something the child
would pick up on), draw everyone's focus away from the actual birth and the
child, while simultaneously allowing her to potentially pass this, presumably
harmful, drug to the child. Madness.

------
OneTwoFree
Maybe she just left out from the story, but why didn't she say "But I didn't
take any meth! I didn't even drink any alcohol! After a miscarriage I'd never
do anything like that! Is it possible that the test is wrong?"

~~~
Domenic_S
You, the filthy unwashed public: "Is it possible that the test is wrong?"

Them, apparently omnipotent gods: _silent shaking of head and look of pity_

~~~
masklinn
Had they been certain the test was right, CPS would have been hovering over
the birthing bed and the parents would have risked carting to a cell. That's
not what happened.

------
sickbeard
What's so scary about CPS? She should have called her doctor/gyna and prepared
to lawyer up, especially if she knew she didn't do drugs. Being treated like
crap after birth tho must have been tough.

~~~
pigpaws
CPS has basically unlimited power to take the kid for any contrived reason
they can imagine BEFORE it goes through any kind of court... all based on
their perceived notion of 'what's best' for the child.

And if you don't believe in raising your kid the same way THEY want you to,
watch out...

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/13/parents...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/13/parents-
investigated-letting-children-walk-alone/25700823/)

[http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/14/florida-parents-
charge...](http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/14/florida-parents-charged-
felony-neglect-after-11-year-old-son-plays-backyard-90-minutes)

~~~
Delmania
> CPS has basically unlimited power to take the kid for any contrived reason
> they can imagine BEFORE it goes through any kind of court... all based on
> their perceived notion of 'what's best' for the child.

This is 100% absolutely false, but it's a misconception CPS agents love to
abuse. CPS is NOT a law enforcement agency. If they want to remove a child
from a house, they need to have the police and judge's order to do so. In
fact, they can only enter your house with your permission or with a warrant
with police present. However, some of their worse agents thrive on threatening
parents with child removal.

If you ever, ever get wind of CPS coming to visit you, consult a lawyer, and
record any conversations you have with them (on your property). You need to
stand up to them. Source: I've been through this. Fortunately, the person I
worked with understood she was entering a hostile environment.

~~~
pigpaws
I've been an EMT for 15 years, in 3 states. I've reported suspicions, as
required. I've also seen CPS take kids. All it takes to get a judge's 'order'
is a phone call. cops at least need to present _something_ before getting a
warrant.

------
frotak
I think this piece captures brilliantly the emotional and psychological toll
that rote and thoughtless application of harsh procedures and mindless
judgment can be wrought on people by an uncaring system.

When my daughter was conceived her mother was addicted to opiates. We were
both in a bad place. I was just out of a relationship with someone with
Borderline Personality Disorder and she was coming out of her own abusive
relationship. Needless to say this wasn't how either of us had envisioned
conception.

But her pregnancy was a strong motivator to turn things around. But addiction
isn't something you can just switch of. Especially something like an opioid.
It is _extremely dangerous_ to the fetus for the mother to detox during
pregnancy. Miscarriage is common. But that doesn't mean that treatment isn't
an option. That treatment is, however, most commonly something like opioid
maintenance in the form of methadone.

Methadone is still an opioid (although longer acting and "harder to abuse").
It still comes with the same risk of NAS. But that risk is actually fairly
low. In researching the risks around my daughter's birth I came to find that
only about 1/3rd of all babies born to opiate addicted women suffered NAS, and
the greatest correlation was tied to usage of multiple illicit substances (say
opioids and amphetamines together)

So we dedicated ourselves to having a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby and
she started methadone maintenance at a local clinic.

In the end my daughter was born four weeks premature (premature birth is
actual common in opioid addicts). The author of this story did an excellent
job of capturing how the atmosphere changed as soon as it was discovered that
my wife was under a maintenance dose of methadone. The derisive judgment. The
loathing in the eyes of the nurses. That was a very new experience for me.

And the procedures and policies described in the article are actually in many
ways detrimental to and harmful to the outcome for the infant.

Opportunities for bonding should be encouraged. And at least in the case of
opiates it has been found that breastfeeding decreases the risk of NAS and
should be encouraged (opiate concentration in breastmilk of a woman using
opiates is measured in micrograms, far below the threshold to affect the
infant, but the simple skin on skin contact and intimacy seems to make all the
difference).

My daughter did not suffer from NAS and after three days of observation we
were discharged when it was clear her lungs were fine and she was not going to
suffer withdrawals. Thankfully the attitudes of the nurses changed within
about the first day. I suppose we weren't typical of "addict" parents...but I
can say that being on the receiving end of that sort of experience...the only
effect is going to be to push addicts further down a hole with even less
chance of being healthy, functional parents.

------
ryandrake
Sorry to be negative, but I'm not sure I understand what I should be outraged
about. She tested positive for meth. The hospital advised her on all the
things they probably advise to everyone else in that situation, they tested
the baby for meth (came back negative), and they did an additional, more
thorough test later (came back negative), and finally mom and dad are off to
be parents. CPS was never even involved. I guess the article is about how a
few nurses were mean and made her feel sad, because not much else seemed to
happen.

If you really want to feel injustice and helplessness, why not try getting
arrested for something you didn't do. Spend a few nights in jail, and deal
with police, lawyers, judges, lose your job and friends because of it, find
yourself on a bunch of lists you've never been on before, etc. That's what
"being crushed by a system" is like.

~~~
ars
I don't think you realize how emotionally fragile new mothers are.

------
ted12345
She wasn't "treated like a criminal" because she tested positive to a
preliminary test. She was treated like a criminal because she insisted on
breastfeeding her baby despite several positive test results.

I think the mature thing to do would be to wait for the 2 week test to come
back and not breastfeed your child in the meantime. Even if you know you
haven't done meth, I would think the risk that you somehow have been exposed
to meth should outweigh the desire to breastfeed.

The hospital is more concerned about the health of the baby than the desire of
a new mother to validate their motherhood by breastfeeding. Seems okay to me.

~~~
davidjgraph
If she did not breastfeed for the first 2 weeks it's unlikely she'd be able to
start suddenly, her milk might simply have dried up. My wife wasn't able to
breastfeed 1 of our 5 children and this alone caused her a degree of post-
natal depression through feeling guility (no depression with the other 4).

I suspect you're male and don't have children, talk to mothers about the
importance of breast feeding to them, you'll find this isn't a subject to be
logical over.

~~~
zaroth
Pump and dump is an option, so that mom keeps lactating, but not foolproof.
The baby needs to learn how to latch on and if they are given a bottle for 2
weeks will likely refuse to breastfeed (e.g. baby turns into a frustrated
screaming terror while mom sobs). But the more important point is the
emotional and hormonal impact of breastfeeding on the mom, and health benefits
of breastfeeding for the baby.

Breastfeeding is monumentally important for some mothers. Mom has every right
to insist on breastfeeding even in the face of a test she _knows_ to be a
false positive.

