[ Q&A Home | 2007 Posts | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Robert Swotinsky MD
Password: orange
Date: 02 Oct 2007
Time: 08:05:31 -0700
Remote Name: 68.184.42.162
Experimental data indicates that skin exposure to cocaine does not cause positive urine drug test results. One experiment published in 2006 that looked at workers who handled concentrated methamphetamine used to make training aids for drug detection dogs reported meth levels as high as 262 ng/mL but averaging 18 ng/mL among those who tested positive. The bottom line is, passive exposure does not explain the test result(s) that you've posted here.
You are under no legal obligation to notify the donor's other employer of the positive test result. You may choose to do so, and you may be legally protected if it's clear your action is taken to protect the public. Reporting the donor's test to the third party is an infringement of confidentiality. The question remains, Is it a reasonable infringement. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. But, I suspect you'd be protected, but you also might be sued which would be unfortunate even if you win. I've heard others say that this kind of information should be given to the police anonymously. I don't see how you could remain anonymous, especially when the information you would need to give the police is so specific.