Pubdate: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 Source: Quad-City Times (IA) Section: Opinion, Pg A6 Copyright: 2001 Quad-City Times Contact: 500 E. Third St., Davenport, IA 52801 Fax: (319) 383-2370 Feedback: http://www.qctimes.com/write_edletter/writeletter.html Website: http://www.qctimes.com/ EVERYONE MUST RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY Fourth Amendment: High Court Upholds Law The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches was appropriately upheld last week, although the ruling may provide little comfort for those seeking to protect unborn children. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public hospitals cannot test pregnant women for drugs and turn the results over to police without patients' consent. The decision stemmed from a South Carolina case, where some women who tested positive for crack cocaine were arrested from their bedside before or shortly after giving birth. The program of having health-care workers test pregnant women and inform police of suspected drug abuse was initiated by South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon. Even though the ultimate goal was to prevent women from harming their unborn children - and, eventually, drug treatment was offered - the hospital, in effect acted as auxiliary police by collecting evidence. While the intent to protect the innocent is admirable, the program at Medical University of South Carolina abused the patients' right to privacy as provided in the Fourth Amendment, the high court decided. We agree. The South Carolina program violates the usual required procedure of obtaining a warrant before police can conduct any search or seizure. In the South Carolina case, no one had obtained either the patient's consent or a court -approved warrant to do the testing (i.e., the search) for drug abuse. The South Carolina program also may even discourage some pregnant women from seeking health care because it violates the expected patient-doctor relationship of trust and integrity. This case raises the question of whether drug abusers should be viewed primarily as patients or as criminal suspects. No court or legislature has settled that issue. It's a difficult, troubling question. However, care of the mother and her unborn or just-born child always should be a top priority for health-care officials because addiction is a disease that needs effective treatment by professionals. It's difficult to see how violating a patient's constitutional rights and putting mothers in jail serves that purpose. At the very least, the Supreme Court's ruling requires public hospitals to operate according to the same Fourth Amendment rules that police must observe. In the long run, that principle serves everyone. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth