Lawsuit says hospital reported new mothers to authorities over drug tests tripped by poppy seeds

‘All because I ate a salad with poppy seed dressing, Garnet Health treated me like an unfit mother,’ says new mom Jane Doe

Nathan Place
New York
Wednesday 22 December 2021 18:36
Comments

How poppy seeds can cause positive results on drug tests

In a new lawsuit, human rights groups say a hospital in New York reported two mothers to child services after they tested positive for drugs – but only because they’d recently eaten poppy seeds.

According to the New York Civil Liberties Union and National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the two women – referred to as Crystal H and Jane Doe – both gave birth at Garnet Health Medical Center in Middletown, New York. But instead of welcoming the women into motherhood, the hospital allegedly drug tested both of them “without consent” and then, when the tests came back positive, reported them to the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.

The reason, for Ms H, was a poppy seed bagel. For Ms Doe, it was a salad with poppy seed dressing. Heroin and other opiates are derived from poppy plants, whose seeds – though perfectly legal and safe to eat – can cause a false positive on drug urine tests.

“Garnet Health turned the joy of becoming a new mom into an absolute nightmare,” Ms H said in a statement. “Right after delivery, hospital staff didn’t permit me to nurse because of a false positive drug test result after having eaten a poppy seed bagel. Those bonding moments with my newborn are moments I will never get back.”

Ms Doe was furious as well.

“All because I ate a salad with poppy seed dressing, Garnet Health treated me like an unfit mother, told me I wasn’t allowed to breastfeed, repeatedly denied my requests for a confirmatory test, and ensured my name would be on the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment,” she said.

Garnet Health told The Independent it was unable to comment.

The NYCLU and NAPW are now suing the hospital on the two women’s behalf. They argue that Garnet discriminated against both women on the basis of their gender and pregnancy, and caused “invasive searches of their homes by local child welfare authorities.”

But according to the lawsuit, it could have been even worse. Positive drug tests, the groups say, can unfairly cost a parent their job, housing, or even access to their child.

“No parent should ever endure what Crystal and her husband endured,” said Gabriella Larios of the NYCLU. “Non-consensual drug tests prioritize stigma over science and are a relic of racist War on Drugs myths.”

Emma Roth, an attorney at NAPW, said she hopes the case has wider consequences.

“We’re filing the complaint to shine a light on Garnet Health’s discriminatory practices and we hope other hospitals take notice,” Ms Roth said. “No new mother should ever face such traumatic and discriminatory treatment.”

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in