Strasbourg, 15 November 2005                                          P-PG/Ethics(2005)9

4^th MEETING OF THE

EXPERT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

Thursday 13 and Friday 14 October 2005

Strasbourg (France)

REPORT AND LIST OF DECISIONS

●        Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda

Mr Patrick Sansoy (France, Chair of the Expert Committee on Ethics) opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. Apologies for absence were noted.

Mr Sansoy reminded the participants that the aim of the meeting was to prepare

a draft recommendation on ethicalissues relating to drug testing, particularly in schools. The basic documents were the papers drafted by Mr. Martins and Mr. Padieu, taking into account the technical report and the comments and written suggestions from all the experts. A presentation by a representative of the NGO ENCOD would provide a complementary perspective.

The platform might also tackle other subjects – for example, drug testing in other settings such as the workplace and prisons – and consider proposals of topics for future meetings.

The revised draft agenda (P-PG/Ethics(2005)6rev) was adopted.

1.      GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

Documents:

Decisions taken by the Permanent Correspondents

at their 55^th meeting, on 26 and 27 May 2005                  P-PG/(2005)14

Report of the Bureau meeting on 15 September          P-PG/BUR(2005)19

Mr Bob Keizer (Netherlands, Chair of the Permanent Correspondents of the Pompidou Group) drew attention to the main objective of the Pompidou Group’s work – to contribute to the adoption of sound anti-drug policies in Europe. The group was uniquely multidisciplinary, which allowed open, non-political discussion. He explained the group’s relevance to the Council of Europe’s main activity, namely the safeguarding of human rights.

The PG’s role in combating drug abuse and drug trafficking in Europe was to bring together practice, science and policies by focusing on day-to-day problems on the ground. In this connection, he described the main thrusts of the 2004-2006 work programme, and drew attention to the changes in structure and working methods which the Pompidou Group ministerial conference had decided for the period 2004-2006.

For example, groups of experts (platforms) had been set up for each of the PG’s six fields of activity (criminal justice, airports, prevention, ethics, treatment, and research and epidemiology). They were responsible for studying specific questions, signalling developments in day-to-day practice and producing recommendations for public policy makers.

In the specific case of the Ethics platform, the working methods might consist mainly in bibliographical research, drafting technical reports and preparing recommendations. Although the platforms’ final "output” could not be entirely predefined, recommendations would obviously be aimed at public policy-makers and other parties concerned with ethical issues relating to drug addiction. It was therefore important that the technical platform members’ opinions be disseminated in language that could be understood by all concerned.

Once the work on the subject chosen at the beginning of the platform’s activity (drugs testing in schools) had been completed, the experts could also explore other closely related areas, such as ethical issues relating to drugs testing at work or in prisons.

Mr Sansoy took the opportunity to inform the participants of the recent publication of "Ethical eye - Drug addiction" in the Council of Europe’s Ethical Eye series. The publication comprised contributions from various European ethics and drug addiction experts. It raised and answered various ethical questions (for example, can a drug addict be forced to seek treatment; should preventive screening be made systematic, particularly in the workplace; do some information and education policies not have the effect of legitimising, or even trivialising, drug use; is the financial cost of treatment justified in the light of society's other needs?).  

2.      PREPARATION OF A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON THE ETHICAL ISSUES OF THE PRACTICE OF DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS

          Reference documents:

Revised technical report, dated 10 May 2005        P-PG/Ethics(2005)3rev

         Articles and papers on the topic, circulated by e-mail

         to the platform members on 7 September 2005

         List of proposals for recommendations on

drug testing in schools                                            P-PG/Ethics(2005)5

Draft recommendation prepared

by Mr Martins and Mr Padieu                                    P-PG/Ethics(2005)7

Draft recommendation prepared

by Mr. Padieu                                                        P-PG/Ethics(2005)8

2.1.      Proposals concerning the recommendation on drug testing in schools

         

The group members again discussed the proposals set out in document P-PG/Ethics(2005)5, and those presented by Mr Simon (Switzerland) and Ms Markellou (Greece).

2.2.      Presentation of the draft recommendations

2.2.1.        Draft recommendation prepared by Mr Martins and Mr Padieu

Mr Martins (Portugal) presented the entire draft (preamble plus recommendation). The basic stance was a rejection of drug testing for ethical reasons. If, however, the group of experts thought that such tests should be recognised, then the specific requirements for using them must be spelt out. In particular such tests, in the European context, should be part of an overall strategy aimed at lowering risks and preventing drug abuse.

2.2.2.        Draft recommendation prepared by Mr Padieu

Mr Padieu (France) presents a second text, which does not reiterate the explanatory memorandum appearing in the first and, while trying to adopt the form of other recommendations of the Council of Europe, recapitulates also the objectives of the supporters of the tests as much as their adversaries. This project exceeds the only framework of the schools and the discussion emphasized that it could become a guide to the requirements that must be met for conducting drug tests in other environment (work, prisons, etc).

2.3.      Presentation by Mr Artur Radosz (ENCOD Task Force) on drugs testing and drug prevention in schools

The group thanked Mr Radosz for his presentation (see text – in English only - in Appendix C to this report).

 

2.4.      Discussion and amendments

Following a long discussion, the platform of experts agreed on the following ideas:

- the use of drugs tests in schools could conflict with ethical principles, for instance individual autonomy and respect for privacy, insofar as it was an unjustified interference by the public authorities in the private lives of young citizens, subjecting them to humiliating or ambivalent situations without any guarantee that the tests would produce trustworthy results.  The results could be obtained by other less coercive methods; 

- there was no scientific evidence to prove that drug testing in schools was an effective or useful means of preventing drug addiction;

- it was nevertheless necessary to have more scientific research on this subject;

- it would be of interest to meet Council of Europe experts working in the education field.

The experts adopted the decisions set out under paragraph 4 of this report.

3.    DRUG TESTING IN OTHER SETTINGS SUCH AS THE WORKPLACE AND PRISONS

          Reference documents:

Report of the 3^rd session        P-PG/Ethics(2005)4 and 4rev, decision 8

         

The Group examined two documents (without reference numbers), prepared by Ms Roelandt with the assistance of Mr Rodrigues, which specifically concerned drug testing in the workplace. One of the documents, which had been prepared on the basis of the opinions expressed by a number of ethics committees and trade unions, was particularly appreciated.

The members of the platform thought that it was first necessary to draw a distinction between drug testing at the recruitment stage and drug testing during medical check-ups for employees. In this connection, they drew attention to the problem of ensuring that the tests were appropriate to detecting the abilities required for the job.

The experts referred to other problems, such as:

i. detection of legal substances (for example alcohol and psychotropic medicines) and illegal drugs;

ii. the relationship between the amount consumed, the amount detected and the effects caused;

iii. the distinction between occasional drug consumption and drug abuse;

iv. tests in specific working environments (schools, hospitals, etc.)

They also pointed out that, prior to any possible work in this field, it was necessary to have information about European regulations on the subject (a survey was being carried out at the EMCDDA) and to know how occupational health services operated in Europe, particularly with regard to the rules on professional confidentiality.

4.      LIST OF DECISIONS

At its 4^th meeting, the Expert Committee on Ethics:

1. NOTED that the use of drug tests in schools could conflict with ethical principles, such as individual autonomy and respect for privacy, insofar as it was an unjustified interference by the public authorities in the private lives of young citizens, subjecting them to humiliating or ambivalent situations without any guarantee that they would produce trustworthy results.  Moreover, the results could be obtained by other less coercive methods;

2. POINTED OUT that, to date, there was no scientific evidence to prove that drugs testing in schools was an effective or useful means of preventing drug addiction;

3. consequently, DECLAREDthat any form of regulation on drug testing in schools was unacceptable, since, for the reasons given in the two preceding paragraphs, such tests should not be allowed in European schools under any circumstances whatsoever;

4. ASKED Mr Martins to revise both the preamble and the draft recommendation set out in doc. P-PG/Ethics(2005)7. In revising the document, Mr Martins would take account of discussion at the meeting, the previous decisions and amended versions of some of the paragraphs: members of the platform would send him these amended versions by 21 October 2005. Mr Martins would forward the revised document to the Secretariat by 26 October 2006, and it would be appended to the meeting report (Appendix B);

5. INSTRUCTED its Chair, Mr Sansoy, to present and support the draft recommendation at the 56^th meeting of the Permanent Correspondents of the Pompidou Group, (Strasbourg, 21 and 22 November 2005) with a view to its final adoption at the PG ministerial conference in autumn 2006;

6. ASKED Mr Martins and Mr Witton to send the secretariat the corrections to the French and English versions of the technical report P-PG/Ethics (2005) 3rev by 21 October 2005. The Committee finally ADOPTED the report with these minor corrections;

7. INSTRUCTED the secretariat to publish the technical report, appended to the draft recommendation on drug testing in schools, on the Pompidou Group website and to again ensure that it was distributed to the Permanent Correspondents of the PG;

8. DECIDED to address the question of drug testing in the workplace at its next meeting. Consequently the group would mainly devote its 5^th meeting to drafting a proposal for the inclusion of this subject in the PG’s future work programme (to be approved by the autumn 2006 ministerial conference);

9. ASKED the below-mentioned experts to send the secretariat the following documents by 28 February 2006, as a basis for discussion at the platform’s 5^th meeting:

9.1. Ms Nilson and/or Ms Martel (EMCDDA), EMCDDA overview of the legal framework in the European Union;

9.2. Mr Rodrigues, inventory of the different national regulations in Europe, including the question of professional confidentiality in occupational medicine services;

9.3. Mr Padieu, inventory of ethical issues relating to this subject;

9.4. Ms Ambroselli, document on the quality, availability and reliability of drug tests used in the workplace;

9.5. Ms Roelandt, an in-depth examination of the ethical aspects of the subject;

10. INSTRUCTED the secretariat to make sure that all the contributions were translated, disseminated and available in time for the expert committee’s 5^th meeting;

11. DECIDED, after written consultation of all members, to hold its 5^th meeting in Paris on 30 and 31 March 2006.

APPENDIX A

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

BELGIUM / BELGIQUE

Mme. Laurence CLAJOT   F  (Apologised/Excusé)

VSPP

Ministère de l’Interieur                                                      Tel: +32 2 500 4951

B – BRUXELLES                                                   e: [email protected]

Ms Micheline ROELANDT   F  (Confirmed)

Vice-Présidente du Comité de la Bioéthique                      Tel : +32 2 648 9941

27 rue des Fleuristes                                                       Fax : +32 2 648 9941

B – 1000 BRUXELLES                                            e : [email protected]

Monsieur Ivo HOOGHE           F

Secrétariat Permanent à la Politique de Prévention

Rue Royale 56                                                                 Tel : +32 2 500 49 68

B – 1000 BRUXLLES                                          e-mail: [email protected]

CROATIA -/ CROATIE

Mrs Josipa Lovorka ANDREIĆ    E

Expert Associate

Office for Combatting Narcotic Drug Abuse                     Tel: +385 1 48 78 123

Preobraženska 4/II                                                        Fax: +385 1 48 78 120

CR – 10 000 ZAGREB                        e : [email protected]

FINLAND / FINLANDE

Ms Ritva HALILA                    E  (Confirmed)

General Secretary

ETENE

National Advisory Board on Health Care Ethics                                                  

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health                              Tel: +358 9 160 73834

PO Box 33                                                                    Fax: +358 9 160 74312

FIN – 00023 Government                                           e-mail: [email protected]

FRANCE

Mr Patrick SANSOY                F (Confirmed)

Chargé de Mission

MILDT                                                                           Tel: +33 1 44 63 20 90

7 rue Saint Georges                                                     Fax: +33 1 44 63 21 19

F – 75009 PARIS                    e: [email protected]

M. René PADIEU                     F  (Confirmed)

Inspecteur générale honoraire de l’INSEE

4 rue du Cloître Notre-Dame                                        Tel : +33 1 43 54 57 39

F-75004 PARIS                                                      e : [email protected]

Ms Claire AMBROSELLI           F  (Confirmed)

276 boulevard Raspail                                                   Tel: +33 1 45 38 58 67

75014 PARIS                                                                     e: [email protected]

GREECE / GRECE

Ms Stamatia MARKELLOU       E/F  (Confirmed)

Avocate-Criminologue

Conseiller Juridique de l’organisation

greque contre la drogue (OKANA)

21 Averof Street                                                          Tel : +30 210 52 00 700

GR – 10433 ATHENS                                                     e : [email protected]

THE NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS

Mr A.D.J. KEIZER                   E ( Confirmed)

Senior Drug Policy Advisor

Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport

Directorate of Mental Health and Addiction Policy

Parnassusplein 5                                                          tel: 00 31 70 340 69.37

P.O. Box 20350                                                           fax: 00 31 70 340 78 58

NL - 2500 EJ THE HAGUE                                       e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Anton VAN KALMTHOUT    E (Confirmed)

University of Tilburg

NL – TILBURG                                                    e-mail: [email protected]

Mrs Femke HOFSTEE-VAN DER MEULEN  E                       Tel: +31 34 6287187

Prison Watch                                                          Mobile: +31 (0)6 41822212

Schippersgracht 6a                                                         Fax: +31 34 6287423

3603 BL MAARSSEN                                                  e: [email protected]

POLAND / POLOGNE

Mr Artur RADOSZ                   E  (Confirmed)

KANABA

PL – WARSAW                                                              e: [email protected]

Mrs Boguslawa BUKOWSKA    E (Confirmed)

Deputy Director

National Bureau for Drug Prevention                              Tel: +48 22 641 15 01

Dereniowa 52/54                                                          Fax: +48 22 641 15 65

PL – 02-776 WARSAW                              e: [email protected]

PORTUGAL

Dr Joaquim Augusto RODRIGUES  F  (Apologised/Excusé)                                

Consultant

Instituto da Droga e da toxicodependencia

Av João Crisóstomo 14                                                                   tel : 00 351 21 415 32 23

P – LISBON                                                                e: [email protected]

Mr. Lourenço MARTINS           E/F  (Confirmed)

Juge de la Cour Suprême de la Justice

Chalet Zaida, EN3                                                       tel: 00 351 243 321 018

P - 2000-473 SANTARÉM                                               e: [email protected]

SWEDEN / SUEDE

Ms Elisabet Svedberg              E  (Apologised / Excusé)

Senior Administrative Officer

The National Board of Health and Welfare                    Tel: + 46 8 555 553 804

S- 106 30 SWEDEN                           Fax: [email protected]

SWITZERLAND / SUISSE

Dr Olivier SIMON                    E/F  (Confirmed)

Psychiatrist, Head of Clinic

Centre Sain-Martin                                                         Tel: +41 21 316 16 16

7 rue Saint-Martin                                                         Fax: +41 21 316 16 26

CH – 1003 LAUSANNE                                             e: [email protected]

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr JOHN WITTON                   E (Confirmed)

National Addiction Centre                                               

Addiction Sciences Building                                       Tel: +44 (0) 20 7848 0428

Box PO48 4 Windsor Walk                                          Fax +44 (0) 20 7701 8454

UK - LONDON SE5 8AF                                         e-mail: [email protected]

                                                                                                                            

EMCDDA / OEDT

Ms Margareta NILSON               E  (Apologised / Excusé)

Programme Coordinator

EMCDDA                                                                        Tel: +351 21 8113007

Rua Cruz da Sta. Apolónia, 23-25                                 Fax: +351 21 813 7943

P – 1149-045 Lisboa                                   e: [email protected]

Mrs Cecile MARTEL                   F  (Confirmed)

Project Manager, EU Legislation

EMCDDA                                                                       Tel: +351 21 811 3000

Rua Cruz da Sta. Apolónia, 23-25                                 Fax: +351 21 813 7943

P – 1149-045 Lisboa                                             [email protected]

SECRETARIAT

Mr Angel RUIZ DE VALBUENA   E/F

Administrator

Pompidou Group                                                            Tel: +33 3 88 41 21 58

Council of Europe                                                         Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 85

F - 67079 STRASBOURG                                      [email protected]

APPENDIX B

Draft recommendation*

on ethical problems linked to drug testing in schools

A. Lourenço Martins (Portugal) and René Padieu (France)

Preamble

1. Attentive to a wide range of ethical issues associated with policies to combat drug abuse, and concerned in particular about drug users' access to medical care and health services, treatment arrangements, the role of the judicial institutions, economic aspects and the lack of financial resources, protecting data arising from epidemiological and other forms of research and drug testing, particularly at school and in the work place, in February 2003 the Pompidou Group organised a European seminar on "ethics, professional standards and drug addiction". 

Following the seminar and as part of its 2004-2006 work programme, the Pompidou Group set up an Expert Committee on Ethics to consider the ethical and human rights aspects of these issues from the specific standpoints of research, practice and policies, drawing on the experience of the different countries concerned.  The aim was to produce agreed documentation and codes of conduct that could serve as a basis for national regulations.

In fact, national practice in the Council of Europe member states varies widely.  The absence of detailed studies is particularly noticeable and in many cases there is something of a legal vacuum to accompany the multiplicity of initiatives and activities in this field.

There are also commercial interests at issue in drug testing which must be borne in mind.

One issue that has particular ethical implications is the collection of information on drug use - in schools, at work, among drivers and in prisons and other locations and circumstances – particularly through the use of tests over which the courts and judicial authorities exercise no supervision.  The expert committee was therefore asked to examine the practice of drug testing in schools.

2. Ethics and morality both have their origin in the notion of "mores", a way of behaving based on repeated usage. To differentiate slightly between them, ethics can be said to "deconstruct" the rules of conduct that constitute morality and thus goes beyond the latter to consider its rational justification.

There are several approaches to identifying an ethically based ideal of life.  For Aristotle, it involved the search for happiness within concrete forms of government in which man evolved. John Stuart Mill was concerned with the search for the greatest happiness for the greatest number, not excluding the author of the action. In Kantian philosophy, it entailed a duty, in the form of the categorical imperative, to ensure that the maxim governing each individual's conduct had the value of a universal principle.

This last approach, in which humanity is viewed as an end in itself and not as a means, embodies the ethic of respect for both the individual human being and humanity in general. Happiness is to be found not in simple pleasure but in awareness of duty accomplished, in the tranquillity of a good conscience.

Nevertheless, ethics is currently less concerned with the theoretical discovery of the art of living than with the rational goal of establishing how one can live better in clearly defined situations.

3. Ethics, morality and deontology, or moral obligations, are thus related but not identical concepts. They may be viewed as concentric circles. Ethics occupies the outer circle, as the study of values and virtues, with the focus on human beings' ideal conduct in their search for happiness.  In the middle circle, morality lays down rules that human beings must respect, thus imbuing their human and social behaviour with ethical principles[1].  In the inner circle, deontology translates certain moral rules into rules of professional conduct.

4. In considering the role of law, we have found certain points of convergence with the notions of ethics and morality, particularly when the law is seen as the minimum level of morality compatible with men and women living in society.

Law is more concerned with external behaviour than with intention, the principal focus of morality, and establishes a practical link between rights and obligations.  When the rules it lays down are violated, this then triggers off the coercive power of the state.

The values of human freedom and dignity are increasingly evident in modern, so-called developed and pluralist societies, in both moral and legal rules. One good example is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the source and inspiration of many rules of international and national law.

4.1. In the context of this discussion, Article 26.2 of the Declaration states that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.

Similarly, under Article 16 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child[2], "no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy", while Article 29.1.b states that the education of the child shall be directed to the "development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations".

In considering this range of values, different aspects of which are gradually securing acceptance by the community, the 1997 Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine is especially relevant, particularly its emphasis in Article 5 on free and informed consent for any intervention in the health field, which may be freely withdrawn at any time.  It also establishes the principle that where a person lacks the capacity to consent, this must be replaced by the authorisation of his or her representative or an authority or a person or body provided for by law.

Given its leading role, however, ethics as a discipline must continue to reflect on our understanding of all human values, particularly those of human dignity and freedom, and their extension, whether or not they are enshrined in international legal instruments or individual national constitutions. 

5. We should now turn to those ethical values of most relevance to drugs testing and screening, particularly in schools.

5.1. The value of "justice" is the executor of the principle of equality, offering equal treatment to those in similar circumstances and unequal, or different, treatment to those whose circumstances vary, determined according to non-arbitrary criteria, so that each receives his or her due.

In the allocation of responsibilities or constraints pupils within a particular school must not be treated unequally, nor must there be unjustified differences of treatment between schools[3].

Nevertheless, far from violating the principle of justice, offering vulnerable groups favourable treatment, in other words positive discrimination, is a means to achieving it.

5.2. The concept of individual autonomy implies the non-exploitation of others and the right to non-interference by the state or fellow citizens, on condition that this does not cause harm to others and that information is available to allow the right choices to be made. However, this does not exempt individuals from contributing to the common good, starting with certain minor restrictions, so long as these do not affect any fundamental values and are necessary to secure beneficial results for the community that cannot be achieved by less coercive means.

Respecting individuals' autonomy means not interfering in actions that are part of the normal process of fulfilling their personality – everyone can make of his life what he wishes – so long as this does not result in unjustified harm to others.  Specific infringements of individual autonomy can only be justified as a means of re-establishing this same autonomy.

5.3. Respect for privacy is an evolving concept, which at the very least means that third parties should be prevented from gaining access to information on persons' private and family lives and that no one should be allowed to disclose such information without the authority of the individual concerned.

Because peace and tranquillity are preconditions for their happiness, the confidential nature of citizens' private lives is a prerequisite for enjoyment of the freedom of private live itself.

When the interests of society dictate that data should be collected on individuals' private lives, this must remain confidential.

If such data reveals a possible link with criminal or related activity, special precautions must be taken to ensure that the data subject does not suffer any unwonted side-effects.

However, the leading role granted to defending privacy may not be taken to the point of inducing individuals – and in particular children – to withdraw from the human community by generating forms of self-exclusion that the modern state can neither encourage or maintain.

5.4.Nevertheless, when it is decided to conduct screening tests the important issue remains of how to obtain the consent of persons under 18 years of age.

Whenever persons are required to give their consent, this must be free and informed and may be withdrawn at any time. In the case of those aged under 18, it must be obtained through their representatives or guardians, and from the young persons themselves, if they have the relevant degree of understanding. Ideally, an independent third party should be used to obtain the consent, to ensure that it is genuine[4].

Apart from capacity for understanding and lack of pressure, informed consent implies the provision of all necessary information for a good decision.

Even though it does not happen often in schools, the capacity for understanding of children or young persons may be affected by drug abuse.

5.5. Other ethical values to be included in this discussion are those of beneficence, or doing good to others, and non-maleficence - doing them no harm, or reducing their suffering to a minimum.

Although it is more closely linked to other factors, such as availability of resources for treatment or automatic treatment, there is also the issue of paternalism, where the state or some other authority takes action that it considers to be clearly in "patients'" own interest but fails to take account of what the latter think or want, or alternatively because it does not consider the latter capable of deciding for themselves.

6.  There are, of course, arguments in favour of testing in schools: the threat of exposure due to testing should make transgressions less frequent; identification and action at an early stage can help to nip drug abuse in the bud; action can strengthen young people's ability to resist taking illegal drugs. Psychologically these arguments are based on the power and the threat of surveillance and on the young people's perception of the risk of being caught.

Thus far, however, regardless of what other values are taken into account, the plausibility of the theory has not been backed up by any hard evidence.

7. As the United Nations has recently emphasised, the role of ethical principles is to offer warnings and guidance in response to practical situations, rather than provide comprehensive solutions. Correct solutions have to be identified and tested separately for each individual case, on the basis of wide-ranging debate in which all participate.

Recommendation

1. To avoid drug abuse by young people in school it is essential to help them forge prospects of a worthwhile future. Governments must offer young people an education that enables them to find other means of achieving fulfilment in a society that must be open to all.

2. Also at the school level:

§  even the best information and training to combat drug abuse can only be understood by young people who have been educationally prepared to grasp the implications in terms of their own experience;

§  recognition of human dignity in all circumstances and human rights, as enshrined in the main international instruments, must be included in syllabuses and curricula, as a basis for building this dialogue between the generations;

§  according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, schools must assume their responsibility to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 

3. At school it is necessary that teachers and educators develop, maintain or restore an open dialogue with their pupils and the pupils' parents. This makes it easier to detect when pupils are at risk or in trouble, and to help them overcome the problem.[5]

4. All teaching establishments should have a multidisciplinary team, comprising, for example, a doctor, nurse, psychologist and social worker, to whom pupils in difficulty can turn, or to whom they can be referred. It is not advisable for teachers to play the part of both teacher and social worker.

5. If we want to teach young people self-respect and respect for others, it is important that the various players involved treat them with respect from an early age, which rules out all forms of violence, whether physical, psychological or emotional.

We should give them access to objective information about illegal drugs, which means understanding the risks associated with each drug. This also means informing them of the risks associated with the consumption of legal drugs.

6. There is currently no pedagogic evidence of the effectiveness of drug testing in schools as a means of preventing drug use and abuse.

7. The use of such tests in school may undermine the confidence necessary for a good pedagogic and educational relationship between teachers, parents and pupils.

8. Testing in schools may conflict with ethical principles such as individual autonomy and respect for privacy, to the extent that they are unjustified intrusions by the state or other authorities into young citizens' private lives that expose them to humiliating or ambiguous situations.

9. Such tests may also infringe the beneficence – or doing good – principle, since it is doubtful whether the benefit of carrying out tests in schools for preventive purposes outweighs the disbenefits for the young persons concerned, and the non-maleficence – or not doing harm – principle, since the young persons would always suffer unnecessary inconvenience from being subjected to such tests.

10. Authorities responsible for drug policies in schools, including parents’ representatives, at all levels, should be given the facts on and arguments for and against drug testing in schools and strategies for effective drug prevention. They must also be offered reliable, documented information about how preventive activities are organised and conducted, the results obtained and how effective they are.

11. The Pompidou Group must make publications on screening tests in schools available to political decision makers and education and school authorities, together with any material it has produced on the subject that it considers relevant.

12. In view of the questions surrounding the problems of drug use by young people at school, more information is needed about the conditions in which drug use is developing and how the various authorities responsible for the pupils' protection and education – teachers, parents, public authorities and international human rights organisations – are involved in combating drug use. A European research project should be organised in order to cater for this need.

APPENDIX C

DRUG PREVENTION AND DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS

Artur Radosz

European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies, ENCOD

Dear experts and members of Ethical Platform,

Thanks very much for this opportunity to speak on the subject of drug prevention and drug testing in schools. I represent the European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies - ENCOD, a platform of more that 100 organizations from Europe. Our members represent citizens who are either directly or indirectly affected by drug policies, as users, relatives of users, health agencies, research institutes, policy think tanks, prevention workers, activists and others.

Therefore I would like to present our views and opinions on drug abuse prevention and especially random drug testing in European schools.

Drugs of all sorts abound in our society. We are constantly confronted with a wide variety of substances that have recreational and medicinal uses and that can be purchased over the counter, by prescription, and illegally. Its important to note that many of them can and are used by people without making problems to themselves and society.

However, increasing drug use between young people and mass-media hysteria is sometimes leading decision makers to look for easy answers. Instead of trying to understand problem and find best solutions, usually under heavy lobbing, they are taking easy one, like drug testing. In past we had observed many attempts in different European countries to introduce random drug testing in schools. Fortunately they was usually dismissed because violation of constitutional rights to freedom and privacy.

For the safety and well being of young people, it is crucial to develop programs that effectively address drug use. But as scientifically evidences, from countries that implemented random drug testing in schools, shows it does not effectively reduce drug use among young people.

We believe that to be successful, drug abuse prevention programs must be grounded in research, compassion, and health. They must also promote trust and honest dialogue between adults and young people.

Why we say no to random drug testing

There are many reasons why we say no to random drug testing in our schools. Most fundamental is that, as many experts agree and all research on this topics shows, there is no scientifically evidence of effectives in reducing number of drug users. Instead of providing solution this strategy is leading to many problems and through this is counterproductive and do more harm that good. It costs a lot, leads to invasion of privacy and can undermine relationships of trust between students and teachers and between parents and their children;

 

Drug testing is expensive, taking away money from other, more effective programs that keep young people out of trouble with drugs. As data from United States shows drug testing costs schools an average of $42 per student tested, which amounts to $21,000 for a high school testing 500 students. This figure is for the initial test alone and does not include the costs of other routine components of drug testing, such as additional tests throughout the year or follow-up testing for positive results.

The cost of drug testing sometimes exceeds the total a school district spends on existing drug education, prevention, and counseling programs. In fact, drug testing may actually take scarce resources away from the health and treatment services necessary for students who are misusing drugs – seriously undermining the original purpose of the drug test.

Drug testing can result in false positives, leading to the punishment of innocent students. Over the counter decongestants may produce positive results for amphetamine. Codeine can produce a positive result for heroin. The consumption of food products with poppy seeds can produce a positive result for opiates.

Additionally, because marijuana, which is relative harmless and most popular illicit drug, but is the most detectable drug, that can be detected even month after intoxication, students may switch to drugs they think the test will not detect, like Ecstasy (MDMA) or inhalants. Knowing alcohol is less detectable, they may also engage in binge drinking, creating greater health and safety risks for students and the community as a whole.

In addition, students can outsmart the drug test. Introduction of such tests is leading to growth of anti-test market.  Students who fear being caught by a drug test may find ways to cheat the test, often by  purchasing products on the internet. A quick search on the Internet for “passing a drug test” yields over 80,400 hits, linking students to web sites providing information on how to pass drug test or selling drug-free replacement urine, herbal detoxifiers, hair follicle shampoo, and other products designed to beat the drug test.

Drug testing says very little about who is misusing or abusing drugs. Hundreds or even thousands of students might be tested in order to detect a tiny fraction of students who may have used the drugs covered by the test. Additionally, students misusing other harmful substances not detected by drug tests will not be identified. If schools rely on drug testing, they may undervalue better ways of detecting young people who are having problems with drugs. Most often, problematic drug use is discovered by learning to recognize its common symptoms. Teachers, coaches, and other school officials can identify students with a drug problem by paying attention to such signs as student absences, erratic behavior, changes in grades, and withdrawal from peers

There is of course much more arguments against  drug tests that you can find in booklets I gave you. But even this few shows that such strategy is ineffective and expensive. There are much better drug abuse prevention solutions that could be implemented.

Alternatives to drug testing

There are alternatives to drug testing which emphasize education, discussion, counseling, extracurricular activities, and build trust between students and adults. Schools and civil society should help engage students in extracurricular activities, and athletics since these are among the best deterrents for drug misuse.

Since decisions to use drugs of all kinds is ongoing, quality drug education should be incorporated into a broad range of science classes, including physiology, chemistry,

and biology, as well as psychology, history, and sociology. Drug education should avoid dishonest scare tactics, and it should also recognize the wide spectrum of drug use and misuse, and the reasons why young people might choose to use (or not use) drugs.

Schools should provide counseling for students who are using drugs in a way that is causing harm to themselves or others. An emerging model, which stresses relationships between students.  Counselors who teach about drugs can remain an important resource for students after the formal session ends.

Trust and respect are perhaps the most important elements of a relationship with teens. Young people who have the confidence of their parents and teachers, and are expected to assume responsibility for their actions, are the most likely, in turn, to act responsibly. Schools, if want to be effective in this should ensure that students:

• Receive comprehensive, science-based information on all substances (including tobacco and alcohol)
• Receive help when they need it; and
• Stay busy and involved in productive activities when the school day ends.

We believe, that many members of our coalitions, because they are trusted by drug using people, could help in such hard task.

Thank you very much. I’m waiting for your questions.