# Steroid Testing in EMS...your thoughts?



## Bay_Medic (Nov 9, 2009)

first time posting here although ive been lurking for quite a while.

ive been hearing talk thrown around about EMS agencies (public and private) and fire deptartments modeling their pre-employment testing requirements after Pheonix to include a steroid test, as well as random tests during employment. this issue was brought up at work yesterday and suprisingly it grew into a fairly heated discussion. some felt it was necessary and justified, others seemed to think it was too invasive and a waste of money given the prevalence of their use (apparently these tests are very expensive). 

just curious to get others opinions on the issue. do you think anabolics are a problem in our field? to be honest, i always thought these tests were included in the pre-employement drug test.


----------



## Seaglass (Nov 9, 2009)

Fire is another story, but I hadn't heard of them being a problem for people who only work EMS before. If there's enough budget left over after testing for more common drugs, I have nothing against testing for them, though.


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 9, 2009)

Unfortunately there have been a few headlines about this and agencies may be justified in their reasons for drug testing. Some FFs are fairly obvious in their anabolic steriod use especially if they are competitive body builders. In many FD hiring disqualifiers you will probably see this:


> must not have used illegal drugs including anabolic steroids in the last twelve (12) months


 
*Police, Firefighters Face Different Steroid Standards*
*'Police Enforce The Law. We Do Not,' Asst. Fire Chief Says*

August 2007
http://www.kpho.com/news/13899975/detail.html

*Valley firefighters and police tied to federal steroid probe*
Oct 30, 2008 
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/i...e-tied-to-federal/GiUfvs6anEK86zX6aAIHOQ.cspx

*Local Firefighter’s Arrest Part Of Probe Stretching From China To Texas *
June 1, 2009​*http://www.kwtx.com/copperascove/headlines/46658807.html*

*FDNY Firefighter Put on Desk Duty After Steroid Bust*
http://www.firehouse.com/node/59818

And yes, since some areas like CA and FL, EMS and Fire are both the responsibility of the FD.


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 9, 2009)

ive definitely noticed that steroid use is becoming more common, especially on the fire side. it seems like its now a disqualifier for most fire departments yet none of them are actually testing for it. i guess theyre just seeing if something comes up in their background/polygraph.

im really not sure where i fall on this debate though. with a modest background in chemistry and pharmacology im certainly aware that the dangers of steroids are beyond over-stated for a responsible user and much of the risks are media-myths. but at the same time, misuse and abuse _can_ lead to health problems which would seem to effect statistics and insurance rates. and in the end, theyre still scheduled substances.

i heard a rumor that AMR was testing for steroids in certain areas. any truth to this?


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 9, 2009)

It was actually much more prevalent in the 70s  and 80s to where it was common knowledge as to who was using.


----------



## guardian528 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bay_Medic said:


> given the prevalence of their use



i'm not aware of their use being that prevalent, maybe more so in fire but i couldn't say.

i have no knowledge on how to test for steroids, but it seems logical to have them included in drug tests.


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 9, 2009)

guardian528 said:


> i'm not aware of their use being that prevalent, maybe more so in fire but i couldn't say.
> 
> i have no knowledge on how to test for steroids, but it seems logical to have them included in drug tests.



oh i meant to say some people thought it was a waste of money because their use is not prevalent. especially on the EMS side.


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 9, 2009)

Bay_Medic said:


> oh i meant to say some people thought it was a waste of money because their use is not prevalent. especially on the EMS side.


 

That depends.  Some EMT(P)s want desparately to move on from AMR to the FD and may use the anabolic steriods to gain an edge in physical performance.


----------



## denverfiremedic (Nov 10, 2009)

I've been told we may be tested but it never happens! testing for roids coast a lot of money and you might have some trouble if you single people out so to test everyone would coast thousands. I dont see why a privet company would bother they usually have more seriouse drug users ETOH and such to worry about.. oh and yea AMR guys would need to juice to get into fire anyways hahaha


----------



## citizensoldierny (Nov 11, 2009)

Why would they want to discourage steroids? They should start you lifting weights and giving you shots in the *** the day you start in the ems field that way back injuries and the like could be avoided and Americans could safely get bigger.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 11, 2009)

Seriously? Do some research on the side affects of steroid use. There are _very_ good reasons that people shouldn't be using them. You don't need to be a body builder to be able to lift and lift with good form. 

I would be interested in seeing the results of a study assessing how frequently people are being found to use steroids. Just because of the culture differences I can see how it would be a larger problem in fire departments than in the private sector, but that doesn't mean I would be shocked to hear about someone in the private sector using. 

Personally I don't think it's a bad idea, but I'm also a fan of random drug testing across the board for any public or government employee.


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 11, 2009)

Aidey said:


> Seriously? Do some research on the side affects of steroid use. There are _very_ good reasons that people shouldn't be using them. You don't need to be a body builder to be able to lift and lift with good form.
> 
> I would be interested in seeing the results of a study assessing how frequently people are being found to use steroids. Just because of the culture differences I can see how it would be a larger problem in fire departments than in the private sector, but that doesn't mean I would be shocked to hear about someone in the private sector using.
> 
> Personally I don't think it's a bad idea, but I'm also a fan of random drug testing across the board for any public or government employee.



after working for a private ems company and now an fd, youre absolutely right, its more prevalent in the fd. although i wouldnt necessarily call it a "problem" since their use doesnt conflict with or jeopardize their quality of work (from what ive seen). 

i also disagree with the side effects of steroids being a serious issue for a knowlegable/responsible user but i do agree with random drug testing. the fact that this isnt done on a regular basis for rec drugs is unbelievable. not that i think its a big problem, but it just takes one bad apple for a serious problem to happen.


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 11, 2009)

Bay_Medic said:


> i disagree with the side effects of steroids being a serious issue for a knowlegable/responsible user but i do agree with random drug testing. the fact that this isnt done on a regular basis for rec drugs is unbelievable. not that i think its a big problem, but it just takes one bad apple for a serious problem to happen.


 
LOL!

*Bay*_Medic, are you from California?   If so, haven't you read about your own Governor's medical history which most of it has been attributed to anabolic steroids?

Also, did you not read any of the news links I posted?  The FFs, LEOs and EMTs aren't getting these steroids from their family doctor.  Actually some are getting them from Paramedics, either private or with the FD,  who think they are doctors. 

You need to do your homework before spouting off about something you may know little about.  It also sounds like you are using steroids and are trying to justify their purpose.  If you as some one who has a little medical education can not determine what side effects and health problems are caused by anabolic steroids, maybe your calling isn't in a medical profession.  You might consider picking a career where drug testing will not be an issue.   The medical professions generally require a certain amount of accountability and supporting illegal drug activity usually isn't part of that.


----------



## 46Young (Nov 11, 2009)

As far as steroid use in EMS being a problem, I don't see it. The majority of EMS workers leave much to be desired both functionally and asthetically, from my personal observations. It's also tough to get in gym time when you're working two or three jobs in addition to family time and hobbies. 

I don't see much performance benefit with steroid, GH, or insulin use for either the fire side or EMS. Steroids don't affect connective tissue, so muscle tears are to be expected at some point. You're mostly gaining mass for mass' sake, with little functional carryover. It's also much more strenuous to move around all that mass, and you'll likely accelerate your ASHD potential as well. As far as illicit thermogenics, I could see some going that route. They work, but I wouldn't want to find out the hard way if my ticker can handle that stress or not. I've worked 6 arrests in gyms for males in their 20's. Steroid or thermogenic use is at the top of my differentials, followed by congenital cardiac defects.

As far as aspiring FF's, fireground tasks can be made much easier with a few simple exercises - conventional deadlifts, olympic style (elbows forward) front squats, overhead dumbbell walks, DB/KB swings, renegade rows to name a few. It's really not that hard to do it the right way.


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 11, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> LOL!
> 
> *Bay*_Medic, are you from California?   If so, haven't you read about your own Governor's medical history which most of it has been attributed to anabolic steroids?
> 
> ...



whoa, first off, the fact that you are insinuating that im using drugs is ridiculous. for the record, im not and never have and completely disagree with their usage. i made the thread not to justify the use of steroids, but to discuss the need for drug testing which is more of a budget issue if anything. 

but if you'd like to get into this topic...i will say that, as someone with some medical knowlege, i do understand the risk of side effects that come with using certain drugs. im also able to look at things objectively and know that the majority of side effects associated with steroid use have little scientific merit, mainly due to the lack of human trials. whether youre a user or not, its hard to disagree with this.

the point id like to make is this, i dont condone steroid use in public service at all, but we'd all be lying to ourselves if we acted like it was the major problem in this field. rather than spending an exorbitant amount of money on testing for these drugs, why not use the money on more serious problem like alcohol use? how about nutritional guidelines for firefighters?


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 11, 2009)

46Young said:


> As far as steroid use in EMS being a problem, I don't see it. The majority of EMS workers leave much to be desired both functionally and asthetically, from my personal observations. It's also tough to get in gym time when you're working two or three jobs in addition to family time and hobbies.
> 
> I don't see much performance benefit with steroid, GH, or insulin use for either the fire side or EMS. Steroids don't affect connective tissue, so muscle tears are to be expected at some point. You're mostly gaining mass for mass' sake, with little functional carryover. It's also much more strenuous to move around all that mass, and you'll likely accelerate your ASHD potential as well. As far as illicit thermogenics, I could see some going that route. They work, but I wouldn't want to find out the hard way if my ticker can handle that stress or not. I've worked 6 arrests in gyms for males in their 20's. Steroid or thermogenic use is at the top of my differentials, followed by congenital cardiac defects.
> 
> As far as aspiring FF's, fireground tasks can be made much easier with a few simple exercises - conventional deadlifts, olympic style (elbows forward) front squats, overhead dumbbell walks, DB/KB swings, renegade rows to name a few. It's really not that hard to do it the right way.



totally agree with this


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 11, 2009)

Bay_Medic said:


> i made the thread not to justify the use of steroids, but to discuss the need for drug testing which is more of a budget issue if anything.


 
Can you come up with numbers to back up your point to where the cost of drug testing is not justified?

How about calculating the cost of insurance rates?
How about the cost of replacing those arrested or death from drug use?
Do you know how much it costs to train one FF?
How about the PR costs after each arrest or death from illegal drug use?

The FD departments have been striving for higher standards which is why many do stress no steroid use or even cigarette smoking for one year before hire.  Maybe if the private ambulance companies raised their bar a little above any warm body will do and police their own, some of the things like drugs and alcohol would not have to be discussed so often.  Until then random testing may have to be an option.


----------



## mycrofft (Nov 11, 2009)

*Steroid abuse is unlawful. End of story.*

If they'd refuse you for too many speeding tickets or simple assault, why not breaking health and safety codes and assoicated crimes (conspiracy, maybe accomplice to theft or theft of drugs, mopery and doipery)? Can't be bonded. Subject to arrest. Besides, you want to work with someone who likes to skirt the law and discipline issues?


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 11, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> Can you come up with numbers to back up your point to where the cost of drug testing is not justified?
> 
> How about calculating the cost of insurance rates?
> How about the cost of replacing those arrested or death from drug use?
> ...



i actually dont know the exact cost and dont think i ever said it wasnt justified. i've just always been under the impression that these tests are expensive (more so than the standard rec drug tests, i know that) which is where the discussion came from in the first place. 

i dont undertand why you seem to be getting so pissed of at what im saying. especially since im agreeing with you that random drug testing should be done and also agree that a few dollars spent in prevention could save a lot of money in the long run (because yes, i know how much the rest of what you referred to costs). overall i think fd's should be setting the same standard as law enforcement, im just unsure if this step should take priority over others, thats all.


----------



## VentMedic (Nov 11, 2009)

Bay_Medic said:


> i actually dont know the exact cost and dont think i ever said it wasnt justified. i've just always been under the impression that these tests are expensive (more so than the standard rec drug tests, i know that) which is where the discussion came from in the first place.
> 
> i dont undertand why you seem to be getting so pissed of at what im saying. especially since im agreeing with you that random drug testing should be done and also agree that a few dollars spent in prevention could save a lot of money in the long run (because yes, i know how much the rest of what you referred to costs). overall i think fd's should be setting the same standard as law enforcement, im just unsure if this step should take priority over others, thats all.


 
If you don't know the cost, how do you know they are as costly as you have "heard"?    In a profession that fails to police itself about a lot things including patient care, why should employers look the other way with illegal activity?  Don't you think that it would end up costing them more?


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 11, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> If you don't know the cost, how do you know they are as costly as you have "heard"?    In a profession that fails to police itself about a lot things including patient care, why should employers look the other way with illegal activity?  Don't you think that it would end up costing them more?



i almost feel like youre arguing with me for the sake of arguing. like i already said...

-i dont know the exact cost, only that they cost more than the standard drug test they already use (this was from a dept. higher up, it could be wrong but ive heard it from other places as well)

-i never said employers should look the other way, in fact i said the opposite (random drug testing).

-and i just acknowledged that it would cost them more (see my previous post about money spent on prevention saving greater sums of money in future hassles associated with not testing).

come on man, im just discussing an issue that probably needs discussing in our line of work and throwing out some of different sides of the argument. no need get so defensive about it, and especially accuse me of being a drug user when im clearing against such things.


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 12, 2009)

ok, after a quick google search it seems that these tests cost between $170-$250. seems like it would be feasible for most local government departments but might get costly for a very large department or large private companies like AMR.

a standard 9 panel drug test looks it costs about $15.

my only argument for or against this kind of testing is based on this...say you have a department that employs 400 uniform personnel. at the low end of $170/test, it would cost the dept. $68,000. at $200/test thats $80,000. i think we can all agree thats a significant sum of money. do you think its worth it or that this money could be better spent elsewhere? maybe to improve nutrition at the stations? just wanted to see what everyone thought.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't think the math is that simple though. I would be interested to know if the employer's auto insurance and health insurance would give them discounts for doing the drug testing. Or even the company that provides the life insurance, or disability insurance. What about worker's comp? 

Lets say random testing is done 3 times a year, $240,000 to ensure 400 people are clean and sober while at work seems like a fair bargain to me. Especially when the people in question are driving very expensive, very heavy, very large equipment around, driving code, and are responsible for the safety and lives of their co-workers and patients. 

I know the economy sucks right now, and taxes are evil and people are sick of paying the high costs of government. But I bet in the long run it is less expensive to drug test everyone than to pay a settlement when someone is killed or injured due to an employee being intoxicated in some manner. Granted, this is going to depend on the department and number of employees and such, but still. Drug testing should not be something we have to worry about funding.


----------



## Bay_Medic (Nov 12, 2009)

Aidey said:


> I don't think the math is that simple though. I would be interested to know if the employer's auto insurance and health insurance would give them discounts for doing the drug testing. Or even the company that provides the life insurance, or disability insurance. What about worker's comp?
> 
> Lets say random testing is done 3 times a year, $240,000 to ensure 400 people are clean and sober while at work seems like a fair bargain to me. Especially when the people in question are driving very expensive, very heavy, very large equipment around, driving code, and are responsible for the safety and lives of their co-workers and patients.
> 
> I know the economy sucks right now, and taxes are evil and people are sick of paying the high costs of government. But I bet in the long run it is less expensive to drug test everyone than to pay a settlement when someone is killed or injured due to an employee being intoxicated in some manner. Granted, this is going to depend on the department and number of employees and such, but still. Drug testing should not be something we have to worry about funding.



good point about insurance coverage, i didnt take that into account until after i posted.

and i see what you mean about it being worth the cost to make sure our people are clean, but what does that say about our hiring process? it seems like we should be able to hire individuals with integrity and know they will hold themselves to a high enough standard to not have to police them. maybe its just the way things are these days.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 12, 2009)

You never know what is going on with someone though, I think it's impossible to trust that many employees. Pre-employment drug testing is not uncommon. I'm pretty sure I've been drug tested for every job I've ever had except for temp summer stuff I had as a teen. 

I can see where drug testing may give people the impression that their employer doesn't trust them. On the flip side though how many incidents have there been in the national news about drunk/high/impaired people at work? On top of that there are all the incidents that don't make the news. People have proven over and over again that they will try and get away with as much as they can, including drug and alcohol use at work.  

Have you ever discussed addiction from a psychological stand point? There are people who are addicted to whatever and are convinced they don't have a problem. Or at the very least they are convinced that it isn't affecting their job/marriage/life etc. How they perceive themselves may not really be at all how they are acting. 

If I was a supervisor I would absolutely prefer that my employees get all grumbly about me not trusting them than have to clean up after a drug/alcohol related incident.


----------

