| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "PRIVACY DRUG TESTING": |
|
|
Right to Privacy and Drug Testing, 2005.
This paper concerns mandatory drug testing for athletes in sports.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article the writer discusses mandatory drug testing for athletes in sports. The writer examines the issue of whether there is a valid reason that the courts can use to justify mandatory drug testing of student athletes. Further, the writer discusses the matter of privacy rights.
| |
|
Drug Testing and Employee Privacy, 2006.
An essay weighing the employee's right to privacy against the right of the employer to ask have employees submit to drug testing.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 1 source, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The question of the ethical issues involved in employer's applying drug testing in the workplace is complicated by the employee's right to privacy. This essay argues that the employee right to privacy radically limits the range of employer options in regard to drug testing quite apart from other considerations such as effectiveness and legality. However, in sensitive jobs where potential harm to others is an issue, the moral right to privacy of an employee may itself be limited.
| |
|
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, 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 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.
| |
|
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)."
| |
|
Workplace Drug Testing, 2006.
Presents the argument that no moral justification can be found for workplace drug testing.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
For the regular employee any use of drugs is considered an immoral act and therefore, deemed reason enough to negate their right to privacy. To that end, this essay argues that there is no justification for violating an employee's privacy in favor of drug testing because the relevancy of the information is determined by the employer's profit motive which is used to determine the ethical grounds for testing.
From the Paper
"For the regular employee any use of drugs is considered an immoral act and therefore, according to Michael Cranford, provides the employer with justification to collect and use that information and as such, has been deemed reason enough to negate their right to privacy (112). In contrast drug use by athletes is viewed a potentially profit enhancing behavior. While not conclusive examples, these ideas certainly identify a vast chasm between interpretations of what justifies an employer's rights based on two different types of employees."
| |
|
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 Work Place, 1996.
Discusses the issue of drug testing in both public & private workplaces. Considers legal ramifications of productivity, privacy & constitutionality.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 10 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Drug testing in the workplace is an issue because of the fact that drug abuse by American workers endangers their coworkers. Drug abuse also reduces productivity, costs the company and eventually the consumer money, and contributes to health problems which are then paid for either by the company or the public in some fashion. Many employers have introduced some form of drug testing program in order to reduce costs and offer help to drug abusing employees. There are concerns that such testing violates privacy rights and could lead to employees being disciplined or even fired. There are also concerns that the testing is not adequate or accurate and that innocent employees will suffer as a consequence. The courts have been called in to adjudicate these matters."
| |
|
Drug Testing And The Workplace., 2002.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is paper is on the topic of drug testing and the workplace. There are many disputes about the legality of drug testing in the workplace and the rights of privacy vs. the safety of employees at the workplace.
| |
|
Privacy and Drug Testing, 2002.
A paper which discusses drug testing and the reasons why it should be banned in the work force.
822 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This persuasive essay argues why drug testing should be banned in the workplace, citing as its main reason the court case, Baron vs. City of Hollywood. Other reasons explored are lack of evidence that it results in higher rates of worker productivity unreliability of the tests and the high costs.
From the Paper
"Imagine that you are hired as a temporary accountant through an agency for three months. Your duties range from preparing bank reconciliations of all accounts and preparing a database of all lease agreements with the city. After three months of hard work, you received praise for the quality of your work performance from the City?s accounting managers and you were even hired as part of the city?s accounting pool. However, shortly after being hired the city drops a bombshell saying that they are requiring all new city employees to undergo urine screening for drugs. This is the case of Thomas Baron, who refused to submit to the City?s drug test due to principle. As a result of Baron?s refusal, the city revoked its decision to hire him. Baron took the City of Hollywood to court and on April 13, 2000 the court declared that the City of Hollywood policy was unconstitutional. Judge Ryskamp stated that the decision from the federal court confirmed that highly personal and humiliating urine tests of employees, without suspicion that those employees were using drugs, was unconstitutional. Since drug testing was declared unconstitutional, I believe it is obvious that all drug testing in the work force should be banned except when there is suspicion of drug use. Drug testing should also be banned because lack of proof in effectiveness, inaccurate and ineffective drug testing programs, and the cost."
| |
|
Privacy and Confidentiality in Psychological Testing, 1990.
This paper discusses privacy and confidentiality in psychological testing: Rights, ethics, theory, access to results and court cases.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 4 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
Of the many ethical issues surrounding psychological testing, two have received particularly prolonged public scrutiny: the issues of privacy and confidentiality. Widespread public concern about psychological testing began just after World War I, when many psychologists attempted to adapt military group tests for use in civilian life, but fears didn't peak until the late 1950s with the proliferation of large-scale psychological testing in schools, the increased use of personality and ability tests in the military, in government, and in business, and a series of sensational articles and books on the subject. (
In this paper we will take a closer look at the concepts of privacy and confidentiality as they relate to psychological testing. We will also examine some of the guidelines within the ... "
| |
|
The Privacy Rights of Individuals, 2005.
This paper discusses court cases, which deal with the privacy rights of individuals in the areas of homosexuality, drug testing, birth control and the right to die.
1,270 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 13 sources, APA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although everyone agrees that privacy rights of individuals should be protected by governmental laws, the extent of one's right to privacy has often been a matter of vast disagreement in the court system of the United States. The author points out that an individual's right to sexual privacy, including homosexuality, is an issue that has been brought before the courts repeatedly; "Bowers v. Hardwick" is a landmark case fought in 1986, which tested these boundaries. The paper relates that the United States Supreme Court has established that, to some extent, an individual does have a limited right to die: by citing "Griswold v. Connecticut" and even "Roe v. Wade", the court stated that, if the right to privacy is broad enough to include a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy, it also provides a basis for the right to die.
From the Paper
"Drug testing is another issue that has been fiercely debated in the courts. With the increase of illegal drug use across the United States, many institutions have tried to institute a policy of random testing in order to combat the problem. Opponents of this policy claim that these random drug tests are an invasion of privacy rights and violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. A group of parents challenged the Oklahoma school district's policy of random drug testing in front of the Supreme Court. The school district established a policy of random urine tests for students who want to join the marching band, academic team or any competitive extracurricular activity. In previous cases, the court had ruled that general urine testing required a warrant or some evidence of drug use. However, in a school setting, there is a lower expectation to privacy and in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that drug testing for student athletes did not violate their privacy rights, since these students were the most at risk and could choose whether or not to participate in sporting activities."
| |
|
Ethics of Privacy in the Workplace, 2006.
An essay discussing the legal and ethical aspects of an employee's right to privacy from a utilitarian perspective.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 2 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The question of an employee's right to privacy in the issue of drug testing presents a dilemma for employers in terms of the correct action to take in this regard. This essay critically examines this question, and argues the thesis that although ethical principles support employer's right to test in numerous cases, legal requirements constrain this right. The paper contends that the result is an ethical, legal and practical minefield for management. In this context, this essay recommends that a utilitarian perspective offers the best single ethical and legal guide to follow in this question.
|
|
|
