Providers Who Use Prescription Drugs

[bunnyslippers]

I am on medications for a chronic illness. At this point, none of them are narcotics. I have in the past had to use narcotics for pain management. When I was taking them, I needed them to manage pain. I never felt that I was unable to function normally while on them. I worked and drove the entire time, under the supervision and approval of my doctor.

It is unfortunate that people immediately equate narcotics with people who are impaired or a re functioning alcoholics. If you NEED the medication, you aren't impaired while taking it. YOu become impaired when you are using narcotics for recreational use.

Please be cautious not to paint people who NEED a narcotic as less than functioning and capable members of society. It is unfair and a bit discriminatory.

OP, if your doctor has signed a release saying you are capable of caring for children, then you are all set. You do not need to disclose every personal thing that happens in your life. As long as you and your medical team feel you are in the clear ~ don't sweat it.

[canadiancare]

I am the type of person who gets loopy on cold meds. I had a kidney stone a few years ago and I was on morphine I couldn't walk down the stairs without help let alone care for 5 two year olds alone.

[MrsSteinel'sHouse]

If a doctor has cleared you for care of children and your licensing agency knows about your condition, I would NOT disclose anything to anyone.

NOT because I think you should "hide" it but because you legally don't have to tell people unless you are required to....kwim?

My husband is a type 1 insulin diabetic. He takes medication to control his condition. He is NOT required by law to tell anyone this information.

Depending on what your condition is and what the possibilities are that you could become impaired enough to not be able to provide care alone, I would keep my personal life private.

Exactly this. I have lupus I do not necessarily disclose that at interviews. Most of my parents know. But, that is after we have that relationship. That way if I look at them and say I am just tired this week so we have been a little more mellow, they know. They know in the summer that the sun does get to me etc. I am not on any meds and my doctor note is with the county stating that I can do childcare etc.

[Willow]

I am on medications for a chronic illness. At this point, none of them are narcotics. I have in the past had to use narcotics for pain management. When I was taking them, I needed them to manage pain. I never felt that I was unable to function normally while on them. I worked and drove the entire time, under the supervision and approval of my doctor.

It is unfortunate that people immediately equate narcotics with people who are impaired or a re functioning alcoholics. If you NEED the medication, you aren't impaired while taking it. YOu become impaired when you are using narcotics for recreational use.

Please be cautious not to paint people who NEED a narcotic as less than functioning and capable members of society. It is unfair and a bit discriminatory.

OP, if your doctor has signed a release saying you are capable of caring for children, then you are all set. You do not need to disclose every personal thing that happens in your life. As long as you and your medical team feel you are in the clear ~ don't sweat it.

If you take the emotions out of it drug facts are facts.

Narcotics impair functions. No one ever said all function, but certain functions, yes. It's exactly why they work.

Narcotics (opioids specifically because that's what was mentioned in the OP) do not treat or rid the body of pain. They simply impair the central nervous system so it can't send messages to the brain that the body is in pain and what messages it does send are "altered" by the brain so the body doesn't feel those return messages as pain.

The fact that one has a legitimate need for a powerful narcotic as opposed to one who takes it for recreational purposes does not change the effect of a drug on the body or brain. The fact that some people smoke marijuana to regain their appetite during cancer treatments and others take it just for the high does not change what the THC does to the brain kwim?


Too add to what you said about your personal situation bunnyslippers - while your pain meds may have a different effect on you than they do on someone else doesn't change the fact that they can and do impair others. Significantly. Taking that for what it is how does one determine who can function adequately while on them and caring for children and who can't? If licensing says no one on narcotics should be allowed to care for children how is that fair to you? If licensing says anyone on narcotics should be allowed to care for children what of the person who IS physically and mentally altered while on them? If they say everyone on narcotics should be given a chance to prove they can adequately provide for children in their care how do you quantify that ability? And who would be qualified to make such an assessment? Who's going to pay for it? Who should be privy to the results?

I don't have the answers to any of those questions, but simply saying a doc prescribed them so I must be fine wouldn't be enough for me.

Look at all the people in this world who are able to abuse prescription drugs. Look at how many doctors either don't know they're being shopped by a patient who has many doctors or simply don't care. So if those docs can't and in some cases won't stop an opioid addicts, how do you weed those individuals out? And should they be allowed to care for kids just because you and others like you can? Most addicts will tell you they are functioning. Not that you aren't or weren't in the past but what of the ones who truly aren't and can't see that?


In situations like this I think it should completely be up to the parents of enrolling children to make the judgement call. What do they see, know and feel comfortable with. If they don't have the whole picture though how can they make an accurate assessment?




I hope you are able to step outside of your personal situation and see why as a whole this could be an issue for many providers. How many are going to be honest? And what are the potential pit falls of dishonesty when it comes to children in care?




(just as an aside - my ex father-in-law absolutely needs alcohol at this point too, as in legitimate need. If he tried to quit drinking today cold turkey it would kill him. One could definitely argue whether he is functioning or impaired though.)

[bunnyslippers]

If you take the emotions out of it drug facts are facts.

Narcotics impair functions. No one ever said all function, but certain functions, yes. It's exactly why they work.

Narcotics (opioids specifically because that's what was mentioned in the OP) do not treat or rid the body of pain. They simply impair the central nervous system so it can't send messages to the brain that the body is in pain and what messages it does send are "altered" by the brain so the body doesn't feel those return messages as pain.

The fact that one has a legitimate need for a powerful narcotic as opposed to one who takes it for recreational purposes does not change the effect of a drug on the body or brain. The fact that some people smoke marijuana to regain their appetite during cancer treatments and others take it just for the high does not change what the THC does to the brain kwim?


Too add to what you said about your personal situation bunnyslippers - while your pain meds may have a different effect on you than they do on someone else doesn't change the fact that they can and do impair others. Significantly. Taking that for what it is how does one determine who can function adequately while on them and caring for children and who can't? If licensing says no one on narcotics should be allowed to care for children how is that fair to you? If licensing says anyone on narcotics should be allowed to care for children what of the person who IS physically and mentally altered while on them? If they say everyone on narcotics should be given a chance to prove they can adequately provide for children in their care how do you quantify that ability? And who would be qualified to make such an assessment? Who's going to pay for it? Who should be privy to the results?

I don't have the answers to any of those questions, but simply saying a doc prescribed them so I must be fine wouldn't be enough for me.

Look at all the people in this world who are able to abuse prescription drugs. Look at how many doctors either don't know they're being shopped by a patient who has many doctors or simply don't care. So if those docs can't and in some cases won't stop an opioid addicts, how do you weed those individuals out? And should they be allowed to care for kids just because you and others like you can? Most addicts will tell you they are functioning. Not that you aren't or weren't in the past but what of the ones who truly aren't and can't see that?


In situations like this I think it should completely be up to the parents of enrolling children to make the judgement call. What do they see, know and feel comfortable with. If they don't have the whole picture though how can they make an accurate assessment?




I hope you are able to step outside of your personal situation and see why as a whole this could be an issue for many providers. How many are going to be honest? And what are the potential pit falls of dishonesty when it comes to children in care?

Where I live, you can't provide care unless your doctor signs off on your ability to effectively and safely care for children. The doctor is responsible for evaluating his patient and making that determination.

Medical issues are private, and should continue to be so. Narcotics, as well as a million other mind altering substances, are available to the general public, legally or illegally. People who recreationally use them typically don't tell their employers. So why, if I am legally prescribed a drug by a physician who then agrees I am able to do my job, do I need to reveal it to potential clients? That seems to be discriminatory and could be detrimental to me professionally and personally.

I am not speaking from emotion, but rather from a legal position. My medical issues are private, and I have the right to maintain that privacy, as long as I am not a danger to myself or others. Again, my doctor has approved me to work while taking these drugs (I am not taking them now).

[Blackcat31]

Where I live, you can't provide care unless your doctor signs off on your ability to effectively and safely care for children. The doctor is responsible for evaluating his patient and making that determination.

Medical issues are private, and should continue to be so. Narcotics, as well as a million other mind altering substances, are available to the general public, legally or illegally. People who recreationally use them typically don't tell their employers. So why, if I am legally prescribed a drug by a physician who then agrees I am able to do my job, do I need to reveal it to potential clients? That seems to be discriminatory and could be detrimental to me professionally and personally.

I am not speaking from emotion, but rather from a legal position. My medical issues are private, and I have the right to maintain that privacy, as long as I am not a danger to myself or others. Again, my doctor has approved me to work while taking these drugs (I am not taking them now).

While I absolutely agree with Willow about the effects prescription drugs have on people, I FULLY believe that medical conditions that are being closely monitored by a doctor shouldn't have to be disclosed to anyone simply because of the seriousness of being on medication.

As I said before, my DH is an insulin diabetic. His doctor monitor's his health and well being VERY closely and carefully. He reports my husband's condition to the Department of Motor Vehicles every 3-6 months (depending on requirements and his last test result) so that my husband is ok to drive and continue to hold a valid driver's license.

My DH is NOT required to inform passengers in his vehicle or other driver's on the road that he is currently taking medication to control a potentially serious disease so IMHO, it is NO different for child care provider's.

As long as a doctor is monitoring the condition and signs off on the fact that the person IS capable of doing their job, I still don't feel it is anyone else's business.

[Willow]

Where I live, you can't provide care unless your doctor signs off on your ability to effectively and safely care for children. The doctor is responsible for evaluating his patient and making that determination.

Medical issues are private, and should continue to be so. Narcotics, as well as a million other mind altering substances, are available to the general public, legally or illegally. People who recreationally use them typically don't tell their employers. So why, if I am legally prescribed a drug by a physician who then agrees I am able to do my job, do I need to reveal it to potential clients? That seems to be discriminatory and could be detrimental to me professionally and personally.

I am not speaking from emotion, but rather from a legal position. My medical issues are private, and I have the right to maintain that privacy, as long as I am not a danger to myself or others. Again, my doctor has approved me to work while taking these drugs (I am not taking them now).

So when a child comes down with a weird rash in your care, or a barking cruddy cough that lasts for two weeks, or diarrhea that doesn't go away do you require a doctors note detailing diagnosis, treatment plan and specifics on whether or not the child is contagious or not for that child to be able to return to care -or- do you just take moms word that the child ever even saw a doc and is totally fine?

There are legalities (one still has to disclose such information to licensing whether they want to or not no?) and then there are ethics. As long as you're adhering to licensings rules and regs then of course you're in the clear, but I do hope you understand why many parents expect their provider to go above and beyond what the law merely requires. That's when ethics comes into play and all of that is up for debate.


I will add that I have diagnosed anxiety disorders and take medication very periodically for it (a benzo, so nothing I'd EVER take during care hours - if I needed something that strong to function day to day I'd choose another profession). I absolutely disclose that to my families when they start, let them know that if I had to get up in front of a crowd and speak it would give me a heart attack, it's never prevented a family from signing on with me. We giggle, they sympathize, and then we move on to another topic. I'm not saying that's what you should or shouldn't do bunnyslippers, we all need to do what we believe is best, I'm only saying that I believe my families deserve to know and as a parent it's absolutely something I would expect to be made aware of from the get go.

[crazydaycarelady]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a doctor has cleared you for care of children and your licensing agency knows about your condition, I would NOT disclose anything to anyone.

This!

[Country Kids]

What I'm reading here is as long as a doctor signs off saying you are fine to work, drive, take care of children that is all it takes and no one else needs to know.

Yet, when a doctor signs off a child and says that they are fine to attend childcare, its throughly questioned to the point saying they just to that so the child can be put back into care, and it is up to the provider to determine if the child can come back.

Why shouldn't a parent/employer/passenger have that same right-to determine if they feel right/safe placing that child with the provider, hiring that employee, or riding in that car? Why shouldn't a person be able to make that choice for themselves. Why shouldn't they know there is an underlying medical condition/the person takes medication and have the choice for themselves in what ever the situation it is.

Funny, when its a childcare situation-everyone gets up in arms about a note from the doctor but when its about themselves/relatives its fine.


*****Willow, we were posting at the same time! Our minds must have been linked.

[Unregistered]

I signed in just for funsies...that unreg you quoted was me...I do wonder though how it shows up to the mods...IP's wouldn't be really easy to match...neither would location...Tell us mods...how does it show for you?

Just wanted to say, love your screen name, AND thanks a lot for getting that song in my head!

*logged out for laziness*

[bunnyslippers]

So when a child comes down with a weird rash in your care, or a barking cruddy cough that lasts for two weeks, or diarrhea that doesn't go away do you require a doctors note detailing diagnosis, treatment plan and specifics on whether or not the child is contagious or not for that child to be able to return to care -or- do you just take moms word that the child ever even saw a doc and is totally fine?

There are legalities (one still has to disclose such information to licensing whether they want to or not no?) and then there are ethics. As long as you're adhering to licensings rules and regs then of course you're in the clear, but I do hope you understand why many parents expect their provider to go above and beyond what the law merely requires. That's when ethics comes into play and all of that is up for debate.


I will add that I have diagnosed anxiety disorders and take medication very periodically for it (a benzo, so nothing I'd EVER take during care hours - if I needed something that strong to function day to day I'd choose another profession). I absolutely disclose that to my families when they start, let them know that if I had to get up in front of a crowd and speak it would give me a heart attack, it's never prevented a family from signing on with me. We giggle, they sympathize, and then we move on to another topic. I'm not saying that's what you should or shouldn't do bunnyslippers, we all need to do what we believe is best, I'm only saying that I believe my families deserve to know and as a parent it's absolutely something I would expect to be made aware of from the get go.

Of course I require a doctor's note...just as the state requires one saying that I am in good enough health to care for children.

I understand your point about being forthcoming with parents, and I don't disagree with it. That being said, I think it needs to be done with discretion and with the understanding that you are choosing to reveal personal information to a client (or potential client).

I am not on any narcotics now. I have been in the past, as a result of brain surgery and 50 staples in my head.

When I first interview with a family, I would not be comfortable revealing that I had (or have) narcotics in my home. I don't know these people...who is to say they aren't drug addicts who may decide to come and steal from me and my family? Who is to say they aren't town gossips who are going to spread my personal information around to anyone who will listen? It is private.

Licensing rules are the rules. If I am in compliance with the rules, then I am not diong anything wrong. Legally or ethically! I go well above and beyond for my families. I just believe that some things are personal, and that I have the right to keep them that way. I am professional and run a very good business. I would NEVER endanger the children I care for by withholding information that was dangerous in any way. I also wouldn't work with children if I was unable to do so safely.

I never used any sort of drug in the past, and never have since. It was for a medical issue. I think people are very quick to be judgemental and assume that a person who is on painkillers will end up an addict. It is a very unfair stereotype.

[Willow]

While I absolutely agree with Willow about the effects prescription drugs have on people, I FULLY believe that medical conditions that are being closely monitored by a doctor shouldn't have to be disclosed to anyone simply because of the seriousness of being on medication.

As I said before, my DH is an insulin diabetic. His doctor monitor's his health and well being VERY closely and carefully. He reports my husband's condition to the Department of Motor Vehicles every 3-6 months (depending on requirements and his last test result) so that my husband is ok to drive and continue to hold a valid driver's license.

My DH is NOT required to inform passengers in his vehicle or other driver's on the road that he is currently taking medication to control a potentially serious disease so IMHO, it is NO different for child care provider's.

As long as a doctor is monitoring the condition and signs off on the fact that the person IS capable of doing their job, I still don't feel it is anyone else's business.

I'm with you.....until I think of Marilyn, Elvis, Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson...heck even my much beloved Derek Boogaard

All under the care of a doctor that wrote them prescriptions for legitimate conditions and monitored their health statuses.

All were by many accounts messed the heck up, so who was right? The people that saw them first hand in everyday life or the doctor that saw their patient for 20 minutes time?

All of them are dead. Most are notorious for their behaviors related to their prescription drugs.

I can unfortunately name several others in my own life who have met similar ends or who are on the same path. All would tell me "But my doctor....!!!!"

Fine. Do what you will with your own life......but when it comes to those individuals having responsibility over little ones? I believe there needs to be more than just "but my doctor says...."



OP's own FRIEND suggested she needs to disclose, perhaps that is a massive red flag she needs to consider heeding.

If I told my friends and family that I disclosed my anxiety disorders they'd think it ridiculous....unless it was impacting my life in a way I perhaps I wasn't more aware of.

[Country Kids]

I'm with you.....until I think of Marilyn, Elvis, Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson...heck even my much beloved Derek Boogaard

All under the care of a doctor that wrote them prescriptions for legitimate conditions and monitored their health statuses.

All were by many accounts messed the heck up, so who was right? The people that saw them first hand in everyday life or the doctor that saw their patient for 20 minutes time?

All of them are dead. Most are notorious for their behaviors related to their prescription drugs.

I can unfortunately name several others in my own life who have met similar ends or who are on the same path. All would tell me "But my doctor....!!!!"

Fine. Do what you will with your own life......but when it comes to those individuals having responsibility over little ones? I believe there needs to be more than just "but my doctor says...."



OP's own FRIEND suggested she needs to disclose, perhaps that is a massive red flag she needs to consider heeding.

If I told my friends and family that I disclosed my anxiety disorders they'd think it ridiculous....unless it was impacting my life in a way I perhaps I wasn't more aware of.

Also, most of the mentioned above actually had their doctors pretty much in their homes alot!!! Thats the sad thing-, they knew but just kept prescriping.

[Willow]

Of course I require a doctor's note...just as the state requires one saying that I am in good enough health to care for children.

I understand your point about being forthcoming with parents, and I don't disagree with it. That being said, I think it needs to be done with discretion and with the understanding that you are choosing to reveal personal information to a client (or potential client).

I am not on any narcotics now. I have been in the past, as a result of brain surgery and 50 staples in my head.

When I first interview with a family, I would not be comfortable revealing that I had (or have) narcotics in my home. I don't know these people...who is to say they aren't drug addicts who may decide to come and steal from me and my family? Who is to say they aren't town gossips who are going to spread my personal information around to anyone who will listen? It is private.

Licensing rules are the rules. If I am in compliance with the rules, then I am not diong anything wrong. Legally or ethically! I go well above and beyond for my families. I just believe that some things are personal, and that I have the right to keep them that way. I am professional and run a very good business. I would NEVER endanger the children I care for by withholding information that was dangerous in any way. I also wouldn't work with children if I was unable to do so safely.

I never used any sort of drug in the past, and never have since. It was for a medical issue. I think people are very quick to be judgemental and assume that a person who is on painkillers will end up an addict. It is a very unfair stereotype.

This has nothing to do with fear of addiction.

It has everything to do with *impaired function*

My daughter had brain surgery last January (for the second time ). When she woke up she had a bird at my husband saying she hated him because he killed her unicorn.....in the days that followed on her pain meds she swore she saw dinosaurs out her windows and thought all her food was made out of "towels" because that's what it tasted like.

Legitimate condition, legitimate prescription meds, she wasn't on them but a week and surely wasn't addicted, still equated to impaired function.


Many people who are incredibly impaired on prescription drugs cannot see their impairment and can put on a 20 minute show in a doctor's office to pass as lucid.....I'm wondering in regards to them - how are doctors supposed to always know there is a problem?

I hope you know I'm not targeting your situation specifically when I speak but am considering the issue as a whole and am wondering, without disclosure to parents, how you weed out those individuals who do pose a risk to the children in their care?

[bunnyslippers]

I'm with you.....until I think of Marilyn, Elvis, Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson...heck even my much beloved Derek Boogaard

All under the care of a doctor that wrote them prescriptions for legitimate conditions and monitored their health statuses.

All were by many accounts messed the heck up, so who was right? The people that saw them first hand in everyday life or the doctor that saw their patient for 20 minutes time?

All of them are dead. Most are notorious for their behaviors related to their prescription drugs.

I can unfortunately name several others in my own life who have met similar ends or who are on the same path. All would tell me "But my doctor....!!!!"


Fine. Do what you will with your own life......but when it comes to those individuals having responsibility over little ones? I believe there needs to be more than just "but my doctor says...."

This is the part that offends me. I understand your concerns, considering all of the horror stories in the press and your own personal experiences; HOWEVER, not every person becomes addicted to medications that they truly need. With this attitude, you are perpetuating that stereotype, and it is unfair and hurtful to those people who have used these medications responsibly and only for the time needed.

When I was on these medications for pain management, I stopped taking them the first day that I felt my pain was manageable. The rest were flushed. I never became addicted in any way. And I never endangered a single child. To assume otherwise is wrong.