Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 I was terminated from CA Pharmacy's PRP for a level of 1100 in May 05. License revocation hearing is next month. , you're the FIFTH CA pharmacist (all female) I know of...ALL were suspended from practice and sent through an IOP based solely on EtG. Primary DOC was not alcohol for any of us. OUTRAGEOUS! Re: SAMHSA Advisory > >> > Here's the advisory...Not sure if this attachment will work > though. Black > > Box warning:> > > > "Currently, the use of an EtG test in determining abstinence lacks > > sufficient proven specificity for use as primary or sole evidence > that an > > individual prohibited from drinking, in a criminal justice or a > regulatory > > compliance context, has truly been drinking. Legal or disciplinary > action > > based solely on a positive EtG, or other test discussed in this > Advisory, is > > inappropriate and scientifically unsupportable at this time. These > tests > > should currently be considered as potential valuable clinical > tools, but > > their use in forensic settings is premature."> >>I'm a pharmacist in CA & very very interseted in this black box warning! I've been ordered to an IOP program and off work for 4 weeks total for 2 bogus tests. I really helps knowing I'm not alone in this mess. Thank-you all for your info/input and support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Hi ! Where are you from? I am a pharmacist in the LA area. I too had to go to an IOP last year because of false positives, as well as miss approx 3 months of work. Bonnie From: Ethylglucuronide [mailto:Ethylglucuronide ] On Behalf Of hartsonkarenSent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:46 AMEthylglucuronide Subject: Re: SAMHSA Advisory > >> > Here's the advisory...Not sure if this attachment will work > though. Black > > Box warning:> > > > "Currently, the use of an EtG test in determining abstinence lacks > > sufficient proven specificity for use as primary or sole evidence > that an > > individual prohibited from drinking, in a criminal justice or a > regulatory > > compliance context, has truly been drinking. Legal or disciplinary > action > > based solely on a positive EtG, or other test discussed in this > Advisory, is > > inappropriate and scientifically unsupportable at this time. These > tests > > should currently be considered as potential valuable clinical > tools, but > > their use in forensic settings is premature."> >>I'm a pharmacist in CA & very very interseted in this black box warning! I've been ordered to an IOP program and off work for 4 weeks total for 2 bogus tests. I really helps knowing I'm not alone in this mess. Thank-you all for your info/input and support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Bonnie, I'm in Bakersfield. Would love to keep in touch with a 'local' sister in the fight! (Thartson@...) RE: Re: SAMHSA Advisory Hi ! Where are you from? I am a pharmacist in the LA area. I too had to go to an IOP last year because of false positives, as well as miss approx 3 months of work. Bonnie From: Ethylglucuronide [mailto:Ethylglucuronide ] On Behalf Of hartsonkarenSent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:46 AMEthylglucuronide Subject: Re: SAMHSA Advisory > >> > Here's the advisory...Not sure if this attachment will work > though. Black > > Box warning:> > > > "Currently, the use of an EtG test in determining abstinence lacks > > sufficient proven specificity for use as primary or sole evidence > that an > > individual prohibited from drinking, in a criminal justice or a > regulatory > > compliance context, has truly been drinking. Legal or disciplinary > action > > based solely on a positive EtG, or other test discussed in this > Advisory, is > > inappropriate and scientifically unsupportable at this time. These > tests > > should currently be considered as potential valuable clinical > tools, but > > their use in forensic settings is premature."> >>I'm a pharmacist in CA & very very interseted in this black box warning! I've been ordered to an IOP program and off work for 4 weeks total for 2 bogus tests. I really helps knowing I'm not alone in this mess. Thank-you all for your info/input and support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.