Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fired for a medical treatment

  1. Jan 24, 2008 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIJ90qlEwzdg&refer=home

    What a strange situation. Employers can fire people for smoking cigs or drinking, but in the case of a prescribed medical treatment this seems rather odd. Of course this again gets back to the feds stepping on State's rights; ie. the justification was federal law.

    We threw the feds out of Oregon re pot and assisted suicide. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 24, 2008 #2
    The employer - I'm guessing is anti-marijuana - ironic though that he did something that marijuana is said to do... get you unemployed.

    edit: he's the butt because he was supposedly doing something benificial for himself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2008
  4. Jan 24, 2008 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    An increasing number of employers require screening for illegal drugs. As the article states
    My company not only requires that you pass a drug test, you also have to pass a background check and a credit check. Apparently bad credit will get you fired. When I hired on, employment was contingent on passing all of these requirements. That was in your job offer letter that you had to agree to when you accepted the job. Last year a guy got fired a couple of months after being hired because he failed the background check.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2008
  5. Jan 24, 2008 #4

    Art

    User Avatar

    Depends on the job they're doing of course. Wouldn't be much consolation to know your pilot has a doctor's prescription for his 'pot' as you hear him exclaiming 'hey man, look at all the pretty lights' as you're coming in to land in LAX :biggrin:
     
  6. Jan 24, 2008 #5
    I suppose its like when those with DUIs exclaim "Wow theres nothing to driving".
     
  7. Jan 24, 2008 #6

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This trend bugs me. I think there should have to be some sort of correlation between the screening they do and the job a person is doing.

    I can see requiring a background check of an applicants criminal record for a school teacher. You don't want a grade school teacher that's been convicted of molesting a kid.

    In the case of pilots, there's restrictions for off-hours alcohol use, as well - both the anti-drug and anti-alcohol restrictions are for functional reasons.

    It's harder to justify a drug test for an office worker. How's off hours drug use going to have a different effect than off hours alcohol use?
     
  8. Jan 24, 2008 #7

    Art

    User Avatar

    As an equal bargaining partner couldn't you just have refused to sign and instead negotiated a contract you were happy with as Economist recommends :biggrin:

    Any idea what the thinking is behind the credit check? I can't see how that relates to the job at all :confused: What happens if you default on a loan after you take up employment with them. Would they fire you?
     
  9. Jan 24, 2008 #8

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Not if the folks that gave you the loan garnishee your wages.
     
  10. Jan 24, 2008 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Right. :biggrin:

    My guess is someone with bad credit might be a risk for fraud, theft (material and intellectual), embezzling. As long as the employee keeps their nose clean, I don't believe they continue to do checks.
     
  11. Jan 24, 2008 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If your blood alcohol level is too high on a test, I'm sure it raises a red flag.

    At my company, we deal with sensitive records on the public. I personally work with (not for) a particular Government agency.
     
  12. Jan 24, 2008 #11

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Aren't these checks a condition for working with government agencies?
     
  13. Jan 24, 2008 #12

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Smoking marijuana has not been tested for safety while the synthetic form of the active ingredient, found in the drug Marinol, has been FDA approved. If the plaintiff were serious about the nausea, he should be taking Marinol.

    Likewise morphine is an approved product while smoking opium is not.

    This is a case of State law stepping on Federal jurisdiction... not the other way around.
     
  14. Jan 24, 2008 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I would suppose so, but every company employee has to pass these checks. I am one of a small number that actually deals with the Federal Government.
     
  15. Jan 24, 2008 #14
    I think a company should be able to hire and fire as they choose. Regardless of reason.
     
  16. Jan 24, 2008 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why is this a matter of federal jurisdiction? Where does it say that in the Constitution? IIRC, if not specified, it defaults to State's rights. And in fact the State governments like Oregon's are claiming this right.

    sidenote: I once had a potential employer tell me straight up that he wouldn't hire me if I went to church [Sunday conflict]! I had another one tell me that prayer during lunch meetings is required!!! So much for the law. It's still the wild west out here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2008
  17. Jan 24, 2008 #16
    This issue was settled in 1865.
     
  18. Jan 24, 2008 #17

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html

    Marijuana hasn't undergone rigorous scientific testing. Sorry, but that is the law. A lot of laws aren't specified in the Constitution... the Federal Government still has the right and mandate to enact them as it has regarding the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. In this case the excipient is a known carcinogen! The Feds haven't gotten around to suing the states yet for political reasons. Kind of like not actually enforcing the laws on the books regarding immigration....

    BTW. You don't have the right to any job you want under the constitution. Just the right not to be forced to work at one that conflicts with your religious beliefs. You might have a point about the employer that requires a lunch meeting prayer....
    Why didn't you sue? (y'know, for your rights)
     
  19. Jan 24, 2008 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Laws can be challenged on the basis that they are unconstitutional. That is the basis for the ruckus here in Oregon. I don't know the exact state of this except that in spite of Bush's attempts at interference, assisted suicides are done routinely in Oregon. I also know that people do get or grow med pot legally. So perhaps as far as Oregon is concerned, you are right; this is settled.

    Why didn't I sue? What proof do I have of what was said in a private interview. Besides, I wouldn't want to work for either employer. In fact I took great pleasure in turning down their job offers. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2008
  20. Jan 25, 2008 #19
    The pill form is fine for nausea, but for someone who is vomiting every five minutes for the next three days after chemotherapy, they just don't work effectively.

    Ironically even if the person is taking the pill form the drug test will still come back positive.
     
  21. Jan 26, 2008 #20

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But what's the point of the FDA if states can go about allowing untested drugs to be prescribed? Are you suggesting that the FDA be decentralized, or altogether eliminated, or become merely advisory (not regulatory) in nature?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Fired for a medical treatment
  1. Medical Malpractice (Replies: 6)

  2. Medical costs (Replies: 11)

  3. Treatment through prayer (Replies: 13)

Loading...