This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

H. Westley Clark, MD, JD, MPH; Karen L. Sees, DO
Veterans Affairs Medical Center San Francisco, Calif

JAMA. 1992;268(17):2377.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Workplace drug testing continues to be a major issue in the United States. As commentators debate the propriety of random workplace drug testing, the knowledge base about the process of drug testing continues to evolve.

The formal drug testing programs sanctioned by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Transportation rely on a series of security procedures to discourage the dilution of a specimen or the substitution of a false specimen for a real specimen. One such measure is the placement of bluing in the toilet bowl at the collection site to prevent a specimen "donor" from either substituting toilet water for a urine specimen or diluting a real urine specimen with toilet water.¹

We would like to remind practitioners in the field, especially physicians working as medical review officers, that there are legitimate medications that contain methylene blue (Prosed, Webcon Pharmaceuticals, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?