BUSINESS SENSE BY JUSTIN KYLE, DRUG & ALCOHOL TESTING COMPLIANCE SERVICES (DATCS)


Ethics for Collectors A


s a trainer in the drug and alcohol testing industry, I oſten find myself asking students, “Is it


necessary and/or relevant to consider if ethics play a part in a collector’s everyday responsibilities, and if so, what is the ultimate sacrifice of ethics a collector can make?” Other than the obvious answer (helping a donor cheat), the worst choice a collector can make that betrays good ethics is to break protocol. If the entire drug testing process is fundamentally based on a complex set of checks and balances (i.e., random selections, a third-party collector, objective scientific instrumentation, evaluations by a medical review officer), then a collector’s most significant contribution and goal to this process should be simply to follow protocol. Of course, this is sometimes more


easily said than done, especially when considering rare extenuating circumstances. However, some of the more common causes of collectors breaking protocol are incompetence (this includes not knowing the protocol or not being properly prepared for collections to begin with), or even laziness. Additionally, a collector’s responsibilities can seem even more complicated when asking the question, “is adding to a protocol


equivalent to breaking a protocol?” One reason people add to any protocol is to compensate for a lack of specificity. For instance, in 49 CFR pt. 40, it specifically states that the collector “must pay careful atention to the employee during the entire collection process to note any conduct that clearly indicates an atempt to tamper with a specimen.” If you as the collector detect such conduct, you must require that a collection take place immediately under direct observation. Te problem with this sentence is that the word “conduct” is not specifically described. Tough this word is interpreted differently from collector to collector, it’s important to define exactly what the word “conduct” implies as well as what it does not imply. First and foremost, the term “conduct”


does not apply to a donor’s sex, age, race, clothes, overall appearance, company, or any other label people use to judge other people. In fact, the moment one of these labels enters the collector’s mindset, the collection as a whole has lost its innocence and, debatably worse than that, the collector their objectivity. Even though the drug testing process is designed to deter and remove drug users of all ages, sexes, and races, there will always be those who will atempt (some successfully) to circumvent the system. If collectors do allow this fact to replace the simple and fundamental philosophy of following protocolwith the goal of stopping drug users, it could potentially influence not only their behavior towards donors but also crucial decisions in future collections. Ironically, the best way for collectors to stop drug users, if that is indeed their goal, is not to feed a mindset that causes unnecessary efforts of judging a donor’s looks or behavior; it is by following the collection protocol set forth by the Department of Transportation.


22 datia focus With this being said, collectors should


be cautious when considering what behavior or “conduct” justifies taking action during a collection. It can always be problematic, in the legal sense of the word, when a collector acts based on either physiological or psychological assumptions that they are not qualified to make. For example, a collector conducts a second collection under observation because they concluded that a donor’s conduct implied “nervousness” and therefore was most likely cheating. If questioned about how they arrived at this conclusion, the collector might say that “the donor was talking a lot, their face was red and their hands were shaking.” In this situation, the collector acted based on a subjective conclusion that could be explained simply by a friendly donor having low blood sugar. Even if a donor does appear to be nervous or anxious, this is in no way indicative of cheating or tampering. Aſter all, it is understandable for a donor to be a litle nervous handing their urine over to a stranger for the purposes of testing, especially if a donor has never undergone a drug test or been to a collection site. On the other hand, if a collector hears noises when the donor is in the restroom like a popping of a condom or rubber band, the squeezing of a botle, the opening of a container filled with liquid, or any other noises that clearly indicate tampering, the collector should consider this conduct (actions by the donor) that merits an immediate second collection under direct observation. Tough both of these collection scenarios included a collector’s interpretation of a donor’s conduct, in the 1st


scenario, the collector acted based


solely on an opinion that should have required years of formal training to justify


winter 2018


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52