The point is that when "the system" is too uncaring, these are the kinds of consequences. A false positive from a mediocre field test caused this woman no end of grief. The takeaway is that when we, as engineers, design systems, we have to remember edge cases like these, we need to remember the person.
When your automated spam detection system flags an account, are you going to outright lock/delete it with extreme prejudice, or are you going to allow the account owner some recourse, and a chance to explain themselves to a real human?
I think this article highlights some huge problems with systems that have too much confidence in their tests / checks. Definitely a useful story for all of us to know.
Well said.
I'll only add that this concern needs to extend all the way back to the initial decision to start designing a system. Technology can have a large impact on people simply by existing; it's worth taking the time to consider what that impact will be and how it will affect people, even the edge cases.
This is becoming increasingly important as the effects of technology start to reverberate through the foundations of society. This makes the popular attitude of only considering the technology increasingly irresponsible; there is "No Neutral Ground in a Burning World"[1].
[1] https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272...
Drug tests are not a "magical black box", there's a process that goes on. And they aren't always right. They usually first start off with immunoassay test on the urine which attempts to measure substances in urine through the use of antibodies. These are "okay" tests -- not bad per se, but they are definitely subject to a wide variety of false positives (http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/7/387.full). The reported false positive rate I can Google is all over the map, but I've seen articles suggesting as high as 10% (http://www.webmd.com/news/20100528/drug-tests-often-trigger-...).
Drug testing uses these first because they are quick and relatively cheap. The gold standard, however, is GCMS testing. Very accurate, but expensive and time consuming. I assume that's the test performed in the article that took three weeks to resolve the false positive to the negative.
Assuming the story as reported is true, I'm a little bit peeved that there was a de facto assumption by the nurses that the test was correct. The meth / amphetamine test in particular seems to be one of the more problematic immunoassays in the literature in that it false-positives with all sorts of prescriptions, along with some non-prescription drugs (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/726897_2). 90% correct is not correct enough in my opinion when it comes to messing with people's children by threatening CPS.
If just reading about it frustrates you this much, imagine how the mother must have felt.
Ring ring, hello, so you're not on drugs after all, have a nice day, bye.
This is how the system apologizes, and it's not humane.
And no, throwing lawyers at the problem is not a solution.
One day I got a call at work from an ex. "What's up?" "You need to come home, we need to talk."
I duly do.
"So I went to the doctor earlier today. Had an issue. They swabbed me and told me I have an STD. So they did a full STD and blood test, we'll see how that goes. In the mean time, who did you cheat on me with?"
"Uh, nobody."
Back and forth, arguing etc. Me insisting I'll go get tested.
Doctor rings back the next day. "Looking again under the scope, not an STD, just a yeast infection."
Relationship relief.
A month later, call from the clinic: "So about this bill for $290 for a full workup and testing, can you pay that today."
No. Not a chance. You not only misread a test, you gave my girlfriend factually inaccurate information that you -knew- was going to be controversial, and on the strength of that told her "if it wasn't you, you really need to get fully tested if you don't know where he's been".
And then send me the bill? No.
Then again, this is par for the course in the drug war.
I added the link on the root level.
I almost want to flag this post off the front page due to how goddamned useless that article is. And the thing is? It's actually pretty decently written. It was engaging enough to finish reading it.
Or rather, not finish reading it: there is at least two paragraphs left that have not been published. Was it a lab fuckup? The inhaler (which also indicates a lab fuckup, since they should have looked at her medical records to deal with known false positives)? Is she going to sue for mental distress, malpractice, whatever?
What the hell.
Edit: Oh, and like half the HN community are asthmatics and are on inhalers. Can one of us be whisked off by the government for lab fuckups? Can this go on our permanent record due to their incompetence?
And as for that woman, can she get this expunged off her record? Once you're tagged by CPS, unless you deal with them with a firm hand, they love to fuck up children's lives.
Disclaimer: I grew up in Maine, I've seen repeatedly what CPS has done to families due to their incompetence, I have no reason to think that CPS in other states are any better.
If you're a parent, and you care about your child, treat the CPS like a terrorist threat. Do not talk to them unless you're with your lawyer, do not answer their questions, and teach your child the same. Their job is to make you guilty to justify their budget, not protect children.