Pubdate: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) Copyright: 2001 St. Paul Pioneer Press Contact: 345 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101 Website: http://www.pioneerplanet.com/ Forum: http://www.pioneerplanet.com/watercooler/ Author: David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times CONSENT NEEDED FOR HOSPITAL DRUG TESTS, COURT SAYS WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court upheld the medical privacy of pregnant women Wednesday, ruling that hospital officials and police may not conspire to test patients secretly for drugs. In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the Constitution's protection of privacy outweighs the government's need to detect drug use, even when a fetus could be exposed. The decision rejects a controversial drug testing program begun in Charleston, S.C., in 1988, when fears of a ``crack baby'' epidemic reached their peak. Nationwide, nurses and doctors urged women using cocaine to stop, and sent addicted patients to treatment programs. In South Carolina, officials decided to go further and to prosecute mothers for child abuse if they were found to be using drugs. Soon after the first prosecutions were announced, a nurse at Charleston's only public hospital contacted City Solicitor Charles Condon and offered to supply him with test results from women patients who had cocaine in their systems. At least 30 women were arrested, as part of a joint effort by the hospital and police. Some women were handcuffed in their hospital beds and taken away shortly after giving birth. Ten of the women later filed a lawsuit contending the secret drug testing policy violated their privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. The lawyers for the women called the ruling an important victory for the ``right to confidential medical care.'' Had Charleston's prosecutors prevailed, doctors and hospitals might have been encouraged to turn over potentially incriminating medical tests to police. ``This decision slams the door against police searches of private medical information in your doctor's office,'' said Priscilla Smith, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York, which represented the women. She said the ruling also confirms the principle that ``pregnant women have the same constitutional rights as other Americans, including the right to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship.'' The case had drawn extra attention because it raised the possibility that the court would decide whether the health of a fetus affected the rights of the mother. But the ruling sidesteps that issue. It discusses the law on searches and seizures in drug testing, but without focusing on the special situation of pregnant women. Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures generally forbids ``nonconsensual, warrantless and suspicionless searches.'' - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk