Should Welfare recipients submit to drug testing - Essay Example

Should Welfare recipients submit to drug testing? Should Welfare recipients submit to drug testing? This paper deems to reflect on the pettiness of imposing a testing regulation on welfare recipients in their daily routine. This paper draws the negative impacts of using the drug testing in accordance to workers at their work place. Though the employer may have a perspective of positivity in drug testing it does not draw the same to the employees. The first disadvantage in the line of employees is the invasion of privacy (Jenkins, 2008).

There are many employees that do not need any invasion into their private life and private medical life. Therefore, there is a lot of information that will be spread whilst in the line of duty in testing the employees. In the course of testing there are some instances where other parts of the body are exposed. This could lead to exposure of private materials and parts of the employees. Some employees may feel that their rights are infringed by imposing the testing regulation. In addition to this, the employees do not have a clear perception in accordance to their samples.

Since the samples are in the hands of the doctors and the testing medicals there is a possibility that they may test for other specimens in the samples. For instance, HIV positive employees will have a notion that their status may be leaked to the public. This may lead to stigmatization and groupings in the place of work. In addition to this, some employees may have used the drugs in their past life. Therefore, the traits of the drugs are still in their bodies. Imposing a testing could lead to discovery of these traits, though they might have left the vice long time ago.

For instance, marihuana is known to be present in the blood stream for close to seven years. Therefore, a worker will not be at ease if such occurrence were in his past life. The second disadvantage of drug testing to employees is the humiliation of the testing. Drug testing is a practice that involves various procedures that may humiliate some of the patients (Nutt, 2006). For some patients, there are acceptable testing techniques, which are normal to their daily indulgence. However, some of the employees feel humiliated with some of the testing techniques.

The employees will have to induct themselves to the testing, yet they still have a notion of humiliation. This will reflect a negative relationship between the employees and their employer. This is due to the induction of the testing techniques in the work place, which could be averted. In the end there could be eruption of conflict between the employees and the employer. For instance, testing needs the employee to provide a sample of urine. Some employees feel humiliated when they have to urinate in a cup.

The most humiliating moment in the testing is when the employees have to present the urine in the cup to the doctors administering the testing. Though it might be flagged off as a normal occurrence, some people do not have a clear conscience about the process. Therefore they might have to quit their occupation due to the humiliation by the drug testing. In conclusion, employers may deem it right to have frequent drug testing. It is in the good of the employer to have all the workers tested as it will reflect utter discipline and professionalism.

However, it is on the contrary to the employees subjected to the testing. Employees may have a negative attitude towards drug testing in the course of their working, which may reduce their esteem to work. Many of these employees have their privacy that needs to be fully protected, and would like their privacy to remain so. Therefore, inflicting the employees to testing reduces their performance. References Jenkins A. J.(2008). Drug Testing in Alternate Biological Specimens. New York: Humana Press. Nutt D. J.(2006). Drugs And the Future: Brain Science, Addiction And Society.

New York: Academic Press.