PS508 Unit 7 Workplace Drug Testing Paper Example

Course	PS508 Ethics for Addictions Professionals
Unit	Unit 7
Paper type	Workplace drug testing ethics paper
Length	About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	MS in Psychology
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PS508 Unit 7

Forklifts, Random Tests and a Request for Results: A PS508 Unit 7 Paper on the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS508: Ethics for Addictions Professionals

Unit 7 Workplace Drug Testing Ethics Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the program, the plant, the client and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingOpening with a specific request for records frames the paper around a decision rather than a general debate.

The Request

The largest seafood processing plant in our town runs a random drug testing program for workers in safety-sensitive jobs: forklift drivers, freezer operators and the crew who run the ammonia refrigeration system. Workers who test positive are suspended and offered a return-to-work agreement if they complete an assessment and follow its recommendations. Our program provides many of those assessments.

In February, the plant's human resources manager emailed me about Andre, a 29-year-old forklift driver who had tested positive for methamphetamine and was attending our outpatient program. The plant asked for three things: Andre's weekly urine test results, a copy of the treatment plan and "any concerns about Andre's honesty." The plant's return-to-work agreement, which Andre had signed, said that Andre would "authorize the treatment provider to release information as requested."

This paper examines whether the plant's request is ethical, what the law allows us to share and how the program should respond.

The Ethics of Testing Itself

Cranford (1998) frames workplace drug testing as a conflict between an employee's right to privacy and an employer's interests, especially in safety. The strength of the employer's claim depends on the work. A forklift driver moving pallets of frozen fish past workers on foot holds a safety-sensitive job, where impairment can injure others. The case for testing such a worker is much stronger than the case for testing an office clerk, whose drug use, however troubling, rarely endangers anyone else on shift.

Even where testing is justified, how it is done matters. A test detects past use, not current impairment, and some drugs remain detectable for days after their effects have faded. Testing that is random, limited to safety-sensitive positions and paired with a path back to work treats employees more fairly than testing that is targeted or punitive. The plant's program meets several of these conditions. Its weakness, from an ethical standpoint, is the open-ended release it asks workers to sign.

What the Law Allows

Andre's chart at our program is a Part 2 record, kept under the federal confidentiality regulation for addiction programs. Under that rule, the program may disclose information to an employer only with a written consent that names the employer, describes the information to be disclosed and states its purpose (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2024). A clause in an employment agreement promising to authorize release "as requested" is not itself a valid consent to us. The plant's request therefore could not be answered from that agreement.

Andre could sign a consent form with us, and it would be valid if it met the rule's requirements. The question then becomes what the consent should cover.

What Ethics Asks Beyond the Law

The NAADAC code asks addiction professionals to protect client privacy, disclose only the minimum necessary and make sure that clients understand what they are consenting to (NAADAC, 2021). A consent signed under pressure, as a condition of keeping a job, can still be valid, but it places a heavier burden on the counselor to explain what will be shared and how it might be used.

The plant's safety interest justified knowing whether Andre was safe to drive a forklift; it did not justify reading Andre's treatment plan.

What this part is doingMatching the scope of disclosure to the scope of the employer's legitimate interest is the core of the argument.

The three items the plant requested call for different answers. Weekly test results are directly related to safety in Andre's job and to the return-to-work agreement; sharing them with consent is defensible. The full treatment plan includes information about Andre's family, history and mental health that has no bearing on whether Andre can operate a forklift safely. Sharing it would go well beyond the minimum necessary. "Concerns about honesty" invites the counselor to offer opinions about Andre's character to an employer, which could harm Andre and the counseling relationship and is not something the plant needs to manage safety.

The Program's Response

I discussed the request with Andre at the next session. I explained what the plant had asked for, what the law required and what I thought was reasonable. Andre agreed to a consent form allowing us to send the plant weekly test results and a monthly statement of whether Andre was attending and following treatment recommendations, for the six months of the return-to-work agreement. Andre declined to release the treatment plan. The director replied to the plant's manager with the signed consent and explained that we would not provide the treatment plan or opinions about Andre's honesty.

The plant's manager pushed back, saying the agreement required "full cooperation." The director replied that Andre was cooperating fully with what the law allows and that the plant could decide whether Andre's results and attendance met the agreement's terms.

The Counselor's Dual Role

This case also involved a quieter ethical issue. By reporting test results to an employer, the counselor becomes, in part, a monitor for the plant. That can affect what Andre is willing to say in sessions. I told Andre plainly that I would report only test results and attendance and that what Andre said in sessions would not be shared. Andre later said this made it easier to talk about a relapse in March, which appeared as a positive test and which we addressed in treatment without the plant hearing the details.

Where Code and Law Meet

In this case the law and the code pointed in the same direction, but the code asked for more. The law required a proper consent; the code required that the consent be limited, understood and in Andre's interest. Following only the law could have produced a broad consent that complied with the rule while exposing far more than the plant needed. This is a pattern worth noticing for future cases. Employers, courts and family members often ask for everything because they do not know what they need, and the counselor's job is to translate their legitimate interest into the smallest disclosure that serves it.

Conclusion

Workplace drug testing can be justified for safety-sensitive jobs like Andre's, as Cranford's balance between privacy and the employer's interests suggests. The federal substance use rule required a specific written consent before any disclosure, and the NAADAC code required that the disclosure be limited to what the plant genuinely needed. Sharing test results and attendance, but not the treatment plan or opinions about character, met the plant's safety interest while protecting Andre's privacy and the counseling relationship.

What this part is doingEnding with the three items sorted into shared and withheld shows the analysis produced a concrete, defensible answer.

References

Cranford, M. (1998). Drug testing and the right to privacy: Arguing the ethics of workplace drug testing. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1805-1815. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005742923601

NAADAC. (2021). NAADAC code of ethics. NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals. https://www.naadac.org/code-of-ethics

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2024). Confidentiality of substance use disorder (SUD) patient records. Federal Register, 89, 12472-12631. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/16/2024-02544/confidentiality-of-substance-use-disorder-sud-patient-records

Reading the PS 508 Unit 7 instructions

For Unit 7, weigh law and ethics in a workplace drug testing dispute or a similar conflict over privacy. Describe the employer's testing program and the information it requested. Evaluate whether the testing itself is ethical, using a scholarly source on privacy and workplace testing and attending to the kind of job involved. Explain what the federal substance use confidentiality rule requires before any disclosure to an employer. Use the NAADAC code to judge how much should be disclosed even when the law permits it. Describe how you discussed the request with the client and what the program did. Address the counselor's dual role as treatment provider and monitor, and conclude by sorting the requested items.

How the PS 508 Unit 7 example is put together

The paper opens with the plant's testing program and an email asking for three things about one driver. A section on the ethics of testing uses Cranford and the safety risks of a forklift job, then notes that tests show past use rather than impairment. A legal section explains why the employment agreement is not a valid Part 2 consent. An ethics section applies the minimum-necessary standard item by item, under a highlighted line on safety versus the treatment plan. A section describes the session with the client and the program's reply and pushback. Sections on the counselor as monitor and where code and law meet precede a sorting conclusion.

PS508 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points

The strongest papers evaluate the testing program itself before turning to disclosure, using a source on privacy and relating the analysis to the safety demands of the job. Graders expect an accurate statement of what the federal substance use rule requires for a valid consent to an employer. Credit rises when the paper applies the code's minimum-necessary principle item by item instead of approving or refusing the whole request. Involving the client in the decision shows respect for autonomy. Recognizing the counselor's monitoring role, and how it may affect what the client shares, shows awareness of dual roles. A clear sorting of what was shared and withheld, with reasons tied to the codes and law, completes the analysis.

PS508 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points

Weak papers on this topic either defend every employer request because the client signed something or refuse everything to protect privacy, without examining the specific items. Students often assume that a clause in an employment contract is a valid consent to the treatment program, which is incorrect under the federal rule. Another common gap is ignoring the type of job, though safety-sensitive work changes the ethics of testing. Opinions about a client's character offered to an employer are rarely questioned in student papers, but they should be. Before submitting, list each item requested, mark it shared or withheld with a reason and confirm the consent you describe names the employer, the information and the purpose.

Get a PS508 Unit 7 example written to your instructions

Send the case and the instructions with the rubric. A custom paper weighs privacy, safety and law in one testing dispute. It comes back within 24-48h, first one free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More PS508 papers and MS in Psychology samples

PS508 Unit 7 questions, answered

Is workplace drug testing ethical?

It depends on the job, the risk and how results are used; safety-sensitive work makes the strongest case.

Can an employer see a client's treatment records?

Only with the client's written consent that meets federal requirements.

What happens when a code and a law conflict?

Counselors follow the law, try to resolve the conflict and act in the client's interest within it.

Where can I find a free PS508 Unit 7 sample paper?

A complete PS508 Unit 7 paper on a seafood plant's request for a forklift driver's test results is shown above.

What does the program withhold in the PS508 Unit 7 sample?

The full treatment plan and any opinion about the driver's honesty, which go beyond what the plant needs for safety.