SOFT 2004 Meeting Abstracts - Society of Forensic Toxicologists

F13
WORKPLACE URINE OPIATE TESTING: A CASE OF SCIENTIFIC INJUSTICE IN THE U.K.
William Westenbrink*, Forensic Alliance Limited, Abingdon, Oxon, U.K.
A successful professional accepts a supervisory nursing position, provisionally, pending a negative urine
drug test. She advises that she may have taken paracetamol within two weeks prior to the testing.
Unexpectedly, the subject's urine, Sample A, is found to contain a 'total' morphine concentration of 403
ngimL. The employer, based on this 'positive' test, refuses her the position, and the company's medical
review officer will hear no explanation whatsoever. Five months later the certificate with the test result of
Sample A and the second urine sample, Sample B, are released to the donor. Independent analyses indicate
'free' morphine of 27 nglmL, 'total' of 687 ng/mL and the presence of thebaine in this second sample. No
codeine is detected. The total morphine values exceed the U.K. morphine limit of 300 ng/mL, yet both
sample results are below the U.S. and U.S. Military limits of 2,000 ng/mL and 4,000 ng/mL respectively.
As will be discussed, selected requirements within the U.K. Guidelines for Legally Determined Workplace
Drug Testing were not followed. Violations include: the lack oftemperature measurements, witnessing the
original sealing of the samples followed by the samples being subsequently unsealed, repackaged, and
resealed with the original seals, no hand washing between various samples being handled, no disclosure of
original results, no timed release of Sample B, nor the availability of declaring a 'dietary source' on the
disclosure forms, amongst others. No interpretations were carried out with consultation between the
medical review officer with the original toxicologist and the general medical practitioner of the donor,
concerning the 'positive' result, as required. In fact, the donor was originally verbally told that 'codeine'
was present in her urine via telephone.
The source of morphine was the consumption of 'Warburton's Seeded Batch Bread' containing
approximately 0.5 grams of poppy seeds per slice. The donor had eaten this bread during the four days
prior to the drug testing date and on many other previous occasions. Having provided the employer with
this information, the company refuses to overturn its original decisions: that the donor was positive for
morphine without reasonable excuse nor place her in the position for which she had been successful,
despite having dismissed the original medical review officer. The donor remains unable to secure suitable
professional employment in her field because on all subsequent employment applications she must indicate
that she has been refused employment as a result of a positive urine drug test. Each time such violations
occur in drug testing at the workplace programs, insurmountable injustices are placed on the victims, as this
cases demonstrates.
Keywords: workplace, drug-testing, morphine
Page 266