 |
|
Pompidou Group |
|
Co-operation Group to Combat Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs |
Strasbourg, 6 October 2004 P-PG/Ethics(2004)7
EXPERT COMMITTEE ON
ETHICAL ISSUES AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
|
DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Study carried out by EMCDDA |
Margareta Nilson
Drug testing in Schools in European Countries
The EMCDDA undertook a survey among REITOX Focal Points in order to get information about the state of the art of drug testing and drug screening in schools in EU member states, the candidate countries and Norway. Answering the survey was voluntary and at this point, I want to thank all Focal Points submitting information, which was very useful, often detailed and accompanied by relevant documents.
Annex 1 gives an overview of the responses, annex 2 includes all answers and documents received.
The questions were:
· Is there any drug testing or screening in schools. If yes, which is the practice and on what (legal or semi-legal) basis?
· Has there been any discussion about drug testing or screening in schools? If yes, which have been the arguments? Who have been the active players?
Of the 29 countries approached, information was collected from 18: Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, UK, Turkey and Norway.
In ten of the countries answering, there is no drug testing in schools, in four (Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, UK) testing takes place sporadically, while four
countries (Czech Republic, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) answer that drug testing is implemented. No country reports systematic or random drug testing or screening.
Where drug testing has been implemented, it has been in cases where pupils have been under suspicion of taking drugs. Usually, consent of the student and parents is required. Urine or blood tests are the usual type of tests, but in the Czech Republic sniffer dogs are also used.
Governmental rules for drug testing have been issued in
· the Czech Republic, where a school may demand drug testing under specific circumstances defined by law;
· Lithuania, where the Government in 2002 approved drug testing in regular health checks or in special cases in agreement with parents and student;
· Finland, where the National Board of Education in 2000 issued a memorandum on drug testing. In this connection, the Parliamentary Deputy Ombudsman stated that drug tests can only be conducted by health care professional, and that students testing positive should receive treatment.
· Sweden, where the Government Drug Commission in its report 2000 discouraged any widening of the legal scope for compulsory drug testing of children under 15, nor did it found appropriate for such measures to be entrusted to school staff or to any other professional categories but the police. The Justice Ombudsman in 2002 decided that a medical doctor can drug test minors, if the parents give their consent;
· the UK, where the Department for Education and Skill has issued a Guidance document for drugs policies in schools, including testing, which is considered one option available to schools; consent is required;
· Norway, where quality criteria were defined in a Social and Health Directorate Circular, which stated that there is no legal basis for enforced drug testing and no legal basis for sanctions on a positive result.
In other countries, like Belgium, Hungary and Ireland, regulations for drug testing are decided by the schools themselves in consultation with the parents. School drug policies can include drug testing.
In most countries, drug testing has been an issue in the public or political debate: in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Austria, Finland, Sweden, UK and Norway, in some cases (Czech Republic, Lituania, Austria, Sweden, Norway) discussion has at times been quite lively. In Estonia, France and Portugal there has been occasional debate on the topic.
In all countries, where there has been a debate, the primary potential group to be tested are students suspected of drug use or students with behaviour problems. Austria and the UK report that testing of teachers or teacher students has also been considered. In Lithuania and Austria random tests and in Finland mass screening have been discussed.
The ethical considerations voiced against drug testing have been based on human rights and childrens' rights. Also, the concern is put forward that testing would interfere with confidence between schools and students. Consent of students and their parents has been required. The UK Guidelines point out that school testing should be part of a comprehensive school drug policy.
In most cases, the schools themselves are reported to be the main supporters of drug testing, although in some countries (Lithuania, Austria, Finland, Sweden), politicians have also been in the forefront backing school testing.
The main argument put forward is that testing serves the purpose of prevention and of protection. It is argued testing might be necessary to safeguard the health of and the development of students and their peers. Some claim that they need to know if a student takes drugs in order to intervene, and that schools test students for other health hazards. In Lithuania, the supporters quote examples of mandatory random drug testing in the USA.
Opponents to drug testing have in many cases been the superior school authorities, e.g. the Ministries of Education or reference bodies, such as “ombudsmän”. Students' organisations have protested against drug testing in Lithuania, Austria and Finland, while student support staff, e.g. school doctors in Belgium and youth solicitors in Austria objected. The arguments against drug testing are derived from from childrens' rights. It is also argued that drug testing would compromise trust, and that it is not an effective method of prevention.