| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "DRUG TESTING ETHICS": |
|
|
Drug Testing and Ethics, 2006.
This paper discusses drug testing, its ethical and legal implications and the role of employers and educational facilities to ensure high ethical standards.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper contends that ethical and legal implications of drug testing must be considered by employers and educational facilities prior to mandating drug testing within the organization. This is evident due to the various types of testing that can be administered and the reliability factors that may affect each type of test. The paper maintains that these issues must be addressed and evaluated appropriately before the organization can make a determination regarding an individual's employment or a student's treatment in order to maintain high ethical standards. Furthermore, the paper explains that legal implications for the employer or organization that insists upon the accuracy of testing and takes adverse action against an individual that is drug free, are immense.
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2007.
A review of an article written by Michael Cranford called "Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing."
1,289 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses issues related in an article written by Michael Cranford called "Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing." The paper suggests that employers have two grounds on which to test employees - ethical (in case the employee becomes injured at work) and legal (the test does not infringe on privacy and drug use is costing the company money). The paper discusses these contentions in more detail.
Table of Contents:
One: The Problem
Two: The Issues Related To The Problem Addressed By The Article Three: The Implications Of The Article To All Parties And Society Ramifications If The Problem Is Not Addressed
Tangible Benefits Of Resolving The Problem
Four: Solutions Provided By The Article
From the Paper
"If the worker is indeed found to be taking drugs that impair performance, the fact that the company now knows about the drug abuse allows the company to provide "employer-sponsored counseling and rehabilitative measures" (although Cranford doesn't say how many companies would provide rehab versus simply firing the person). So, if there were no drug tests, the employee who is addicted, for example, would have continued using drugs had the test not caught the use and allowed the employer to help the user kick the habit. And moreover, knowing the worker is proven through verifiable testing to be a drug user protects the company from "wrongful termination litigation," if indeed the worker is fired and makes a claim against the company firing him or her."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
This paper discusses whether the costs for drug testing in the workplace are greater than the benefits.
1,080 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper introduces drug testing in the workplace as a controversial issue. There are those who hold the position that it is an invasion of privacy. On the hand there are those who believe that in today?s society drug testing is a necessary evil, regardless of the invasion of privacy issue. The paper shows that the goals of employee drug testing include improvements in workplace safety, productivity and product integrity, however, as a decline in the use of drug testing by companies would suggest, drug testing programs did not meet these goals. This research supports the theory that drug testing in the work place does not improve productivity, and that it costs more money than it saves for companies. The author makes use of illustrations and graphs to support his argument.
Table of Contents
The Reliability Issue
Trends in Drug Testing
Does Drug Testing Improve Productivity?
The Costs of Drug Testing
Conclusion and Recommendations
From the Paper
"Advocates of drug testing in the work place would have us believe that the benefits far outweigh the costs. They paint a picture that would lead us to believe that America is a country made of substance abusers, who regularly endanger innocent citizens through their impairment caused by substance abuse. It has achieved this through sensationalizing a few accidents that could have been caused due to operator substance abuse. However, the facts do not support this picture, as illustrated by the low number of positive results obtained. Drug testing costs approximately $2000 per employee tested."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2005.
This paper discusses the arguments made for requiring drug testing in the marketplace as presented by Joseph DesJardins and Ronald Duska in "Drug-Testing in Employment".
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents the reasons that Desjardins and Duska state for rejecting drug testing in the workplace. The paper points out that, for some people, drug testing in the workplace may be a way to avoid the adverse effects caused by illegal drug use, such as theft and decreased proficiency on the job; however, Desjardins and Duska rejects the validity of this statement. The author of this paper accepts this rejection.
From the Paper
"Drug testing prior to and during employment is becoming an ordinary aspect of the workplace. Desjardins and Duska indicate that it is commonly believed that this testing does not violate privacy, as long as a contractual need is met by such testing. However, Chapter Four argues that it is rarely justified to test any applicant or employee, in any job capacity. Refuting the First Argument The first argument for drug testing in the workplace is that it may be a way to avoid the adverse effects caused by illegal drug use. Some of these effects include cost increases due to theft and decreased proficiency on the job. The first argument, according to Desjardins and Duska, is not valid because only a certain level of performance to which employers are entitled."
| |
|
Drug Testing, 2007.
This paper examines the issue of drug testing and looks at this subject, in particular, in the workplace.
1,331 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of drug testing. Specifically, it discusses drug testing in the workplace, including the origins of such testing. The writer looks at reasons why this testing is used, where it is applicable, and also discusses the different types of drug testing. The writer notes that drug testing is a fairly recent workplace innovation, and as such it has faced opposition, legal challenges, and criticism from a variety of groups who cite evidence testing is counter productive and does not aid in decreasing drug use or employee effectiveness. The writer concludes that this issue continues to be contentious and deliberated in courtrooms and boardrooms across the nation.
From the Paper
"Workplace drug testing owes its roots to the U.S. military. Initially, drug testing procedures were tested and developed by the military to test American service men and women returning to the States from Vietnam in the late 1960s. Drug usage was high among military personnel during the Vietnam War, and the military devised their tests because of this. Their official reason was worry over operational readiness and safety issues if military personnel drug use became too widespread. Testing also was used to test Olympic athletes and in drug rehabilitation clinics, such as methadone facilities, along with prisoners in many of America's penitentiaries. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan approved the use of drug testing for federal employees, and the practice mushroomed after that, becoming commonplace in the workplace up to the present. One of the reasons drug testing has become so prevalent is because of new testing technologies developed in the late 1970s that allowed for testing vast numbers of specimens with reliable and quick results."
| |
|
Drug Testing of Employees, 2006.
An argument against drug testing of employees except for the most narrow of circumstances.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The debate over the drug testing of employees presents us with competing rights - the right of the employee to privacy vs. the right of the employer to test employees for drug use - that shape our determination of the ethics involved in such cases. This essay argues the thesis that drug testing is ethically justifiable only in the most narrow of conditions, and then only in certain occupations.
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
A discussion of the pros and cons of drug testing current and potential employees.
1,762 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how one particular factor that makes every employer curious before hiring an individual is whether the applicant is using any drug not prescribed as medication. It looks at how this practice of finding out whether any prospective employee is using or has been using any drug is usually carried out through a urine analysis, also called urinalysis, and how it has now become a prerequisite for hiring applicants in the public sector, as well as private entities. It analyzes how the use of a drug test, such as the urinalysis, prior to hiring of applicants may seem to be a precautionary measure on the part of the employer and how it can be degrading to those employees who are already on the payroll of the organizations.
Outline
Introduction
A Discussion on the Pros and Cons of Drug Testing at the Workplace
Reasons as Presented by Opponents of Drug Testing at the Workplace
Reasons as Presented by Proponents of Drug Testing at the Workplace
Concluding Comments
References
From the Paper
"One of the major opponents of any sort of drug testing on the present set of employees is the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU), who have a number of reasons and points to prove that the drug-testing the present set of employees is both degrading as well as violative of personal privacy. One such reasoning is that the urinalysis for example cannot detect any impairment on the part of the employee, nor can it ascertain or evaluate job performance of the employee, hence the irrelevancy of the urinalysis. Secondly, even it were to be presumed that the employees are not expected to be drunk, stoned, or even asleep, all of which are the after-effects and implications of drug use, the employer would hardly be expected to retain the services of the employee with any of the said habits."
| |
|
Workplace Drug Testing, 2006.
A discussion regarding the legal and ethical issues surrounding workplace drug testing.
1,606 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the legal and ethical issues pertaining to drug testing within the workplace. According to the paper, the effects of alcohol and drug abuse in the workplace places a heavy burden on the business. The paper lists some of the affected areas as tardiness, absenteeism, turnover, attitude problems, employee theft, accidents, product defects, decreased productivity, crime and violence.
From the Paper
"It is difficult to ascertain whether drug testing can be mandatory or voluntary since the end state - and because it is backed by local, state and federal legislations - all drug testing can be considered mandatory! This is a valid premise because if an employee refuses, certain sanctions can be handed down by management. But the foremost consideration for drug testing in the work environment is that written policies should be in place. These policies should and must be cascaded to all employees and employees must sign documents attesting to understanding the contents of the policies. The policies of the company must have undergone review and validation by the medical, human resources and legal departments to give weight and credence to it. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2003) states that, "Most employers test applicants and employees in one or more of the following situations: during an annual physical; before promotions or transfers; before being placed in - or routinely while in - positions involving money, security, or safety; after accidents; for past users; following treatment; when referred by management through just cause or reasonable suspicion; and on a random basis."
| |
|
Drug Testing, 2007.
This paper explores the moral issue of drug testing without the consent of pregnant women.
1,615 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how, both from a moral and ethical perspective, the question of drug testing is complex. The paper explains that hospitals must ensure that every patient receives the best treatment possible, including those who have not yet been born. However, in medical cases where a pregnant woman is involved, the mother also enjoys a right to privacy, guaranteed by the Constitution and this is where the moral dilemma presents itself. The paper looks at the original Supreme Court ruling, Ferguson v. City of Charleston, where a city hospital turned over drug test results from a pregnant patient to the police for prosecution when they found evidence of drug use. The paper concludes that drug testing of pregnant women should continue but the results of their tests should remain confidential. The paper asserts that otherwise there will be implications for many other government interventions into Americans' private lives.
From the Paper
"Morally and ethically, this question of drug testing is difficult at best. The original Supreme Court ruling covered the case Ferguson v. City of Charleston, where a city hospital turned over drug test results from a pregnant patient to the police for prosecution when they found evidence of drug use. The patients had no knowledge their results were turned over to police. As a result, 30 women were arrested and ten sued the city. One legal writer notes, "Petitioners were ten women arrested after seeking obstetrical care in a public hospital, some after giving birth. The women were arrested because they had tested positive for cocaine and were therefore suspected of having distributed illegal drags to a minor, namely, their fetuses" (Colb)."
| |
|
Random Drug Testing in Schools, 2003.
A discussion on random drug testing in schools, including effects on students, different procedures, successful policies, and specific court cases.
978 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how, considering the increasing use of drugs among today?s youth, drug testing in schools has become necessary. It looks at how the ramifications of using these drugs are detrimental to both the individual and society as a whole and how drug testing is meant to protect students from the harmful effects and has been shown to deter drug use in a large percentage of those on whom it has been practiced. It shows how the procedures themselves are non-invasive and result in no side effects and how the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of these evaluations. It also evaluates how the random drug testing of students involved in extra curricular activities is a positive and beneficial policy and should be mandatory in schools.
From the Paper
"The argument that testing is an invasion of privacy and infringes on civil rights is easily discredited. The process of a urinalysis test goes as follows: ?a faculty monitor waits outside the closed restroom stall for the student to produce a sample and must listen for the normal sounds of urination to guard against tampered specimens and ensure an accurate chain of custody? (Kozlowski 34). This is considered to be a negligible intrusion of privacy. These tests are compared to standard head lice checks. Katherine Ford, the director of the Florida Drug Free America Foundation says, ?No one claims it is a violation of a child?s civil rights to have their head checked for lice."
| |
|
Drug Testing, 2005.
This paper discusses the importance of pre-employment drug testing.
3,375 words (approx. 13.5 pages), 10 sources, $ 133.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that statistics show that drug abuse and alcoholism are real problems in the American work force. The author points out that many employers value drug testing before employment so that potential drug abusers will be eliminated as part of their workforce. The paper relates whether or not employers should require drug testing before hiring employees and the degree to which D the outcome of drug testing should affect the decisions managers make in the selection of employees.
From the Paper
"U.S. Depart. Of Labor statistics show that one in every 12 employees uses illegal drugs and one in 10 has an alcohol problem" (Gillian 46). Should employers require drug testing before hiring employees? Why? Why not? Does the outcome of drug testing affect the decisions managers make in the selection of employees? These are logical questions that many employers face in the selection of new employees. Managers are affected by the results of pre-employment drug testing and often they base their decisions on who to hire based on these results. What Is the Importance of Drug Testing? Why should managers care if people use drugs or alcohol as long as they do not use them at work? Why should managers use drug testing in choosing whom to hire?"
| |
|
Drug Testing, 2006.
A look at the growing practice of drug testing in the workplace and the legal issue raised by this practice concerning the individual's right to privacy.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Drug testing in the workplace became a growing practice in the face of information showing the prevalence of drug use, especially for certain sensitive positions and dangerous industries. The practice increased with the belief that preventing drug use would have a business benefit by reducing potential medical problems, liability, lost work days and so on. This paper discusses the increasing use of drug testing in the workplace and the concerns raised about privacy, especially the privacy of those who weren't using drugs but were tested just the same.
| |
|
Drug Testing, 2006.
This paper discusses the negative aspects of drug testing in schools.
1,290 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper addresses the system of drug testing in schools and illustrates the negative aspects of this practice. The paper explains that these include the legality and constitutionality of doing so, the actual accuracy of the testing and the methods used to test. The paper claims that drug testing is controversial and since the results of testing are so minimal, it seems that testing is simply a waste of time, energy, and district funds. The paper also maintains that it creates distrust in American youth and concludes that the money could be used in different, more effective ways in the education of our youth.
From the Paper
"Two relatively recent Supreme Court decisions relate to the constitutionality of drug testing in public schools. They are the Vernonia School District v. Acton ruled on in 1995, and the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls ruled on in 2002. These are references as Vernonia and Earls hereafter (Yacoubian, 2003). One ruling determined schools may drug test participants in school athletic programs (Vernonia), and the other determined schools may test participants in any school extracurricular activities, too (Earls). Thus, schools may test students who give up their free time for school activities, such as band members, cheerleaders, club members, and honor society members. The legal aspects are still being challenged, and their constitutionality, while upheld by the courts, is still questionable to many people."
| |
|
Workplace Drug Testing, 2008.
Argues in favor of random workplace drug testing.
1,005 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, because employee performance is directly related to productivity, organizations have the right to introduce drug testing to find out if drugs are a cause of an employee's poor performance. The author points out that, if employees are chosen for testing by some specific method, they can easily test negative on that particular day because they can avoid their regular drug use for a week or so before the test. The paper stresses that billions of dollars are lost yearly because of employee drug use.
From the Paper
"The workplace is an environment where people from many different places gather and want to work in a stimulating environment. If the place has no policy on dug use, the employees would not take the workplace or anti-drug lectures seriously. Employers should have a proper anti-drug policy because stern lectures or warnings are never as effective as a clearly written policy."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
Privacy and moral justifications for drug testing in the workplace.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes the position that drug testing in the workplace is always coercive because the entire workplace is based on a contract. However, drug testing is justified under certain conditions.
|
|
|
