# pregnancy test



## elizabeth (18 Nov 2004)

I had to have a pregnancy test done during my medical for the reserves and thought it was weird at the time. I thought that they made every female do one but it turns out that one girl who just enlisted did not have to have one. I was just wondering if anyone knew about this discrepancy. Thanks.


----------



## Scratch_043 (18 Nov 2004)

isn't that against the law? it is akin to asking the question 'are you pregnant' or similar questions in a job interview.


----------



## Guardian (18 Nov 2004)

Is it illegal? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Why would it be? Physical health and fitness are critical elements of military service. Pregnancy would have a very definite (albeit temporary) impact on a candidate's fitness. When scheduling a candidate for a basic training course, you want to be sure they're fit for the course. Pregnancy wouldn't keep you out (and shouldn't!) but might very well mean a delay before training.

Furthermore, pregnancy implies an impending change in family status, and family health is also VERY important. These are all things the chain of command will need to know in order to be able to care for its soldiers.

I'm surprised they didn't test the other girl, elizabeth - that's what's weird (unless, again, it IS against the law).


----------



## Gunnar (18 Nov 2004)

I suppose it could be factor in determining if you have diabetes or something...if your blood sugar was abnormally low, then they might be looking for an explanation, which could be covered by pregnancy...it is possible to have temporary "medical conditions" only when pregnant.


----------



## elizabeth (18 Nov 2004)

It is not like the pregnancy test would affect my outcome on course becuase I did not leave for bmq and sq until July and I enlisted in Feb and the test was sometimes before Christmas. I think I would have had enough time to get pregnant and give birth before course! I just thing it was an extremely weird thing for me to have to do but was okay with it because I am sure there is some reason and I also assumed that every female was tested. It was just really odd.


----------



## brin11 (18 Nov 2004)

elizabeth, all the females were tested in Cornwallis at the beginning of basic training.  Not sure if they do it anymore in St. Jean but I think its just a standard test for females.  As for why the other female wasn't tested, who knows?


----------



## m_a_c (18 Nov 2004)

Don't they take blood and urine samples from you for your medical?  Isn't that when they check everything out?  I don't think they would have to tell you if you are having a pregnancy test if they already collected samples from you for testing.  I know when I did my medical they took blood and a urine sample.  Maybe things have changed.


----------



## beach_bum (18 Nov 2004)

Well, I had a urine sample taken.....no blood test...and no pregnancy test.  I spent a few years working in recruiting, and as far as I know, blood tests and pregnancy tests are not something that is regularly done at a recruiting centre.


----------



## combat_medic (18 Nov 2004)

I've never had a mandatory pregnancy test done to me, and I can't see a reason for them to perform one. I think forcing one upon you is pretty discriminatory, and I would voice a serious objection if anyone tried it on me. From a purely medical perspective, you can refuse any medical procedure that you don't want to undertake, and I find it hard to believe the CF would have grounds to force you to take it.


----------



## brin11 (18 Nov 2004)

As I said, it was done during week one in Cornwallis, on my course at least.  Whether it was forced or not wasn't an issue at the time.  They said they were doing a pregnancy test to make sure I was physically fit enough to complete the course without them being liable for some fetal problems and I said "Yes, Master Corporal!".


----------



## Guardian (18 Nov 2004)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> I've never had a mandatory pregnancy test done to me, and I can't see a reason for them to perform one. I think forcing one upon you is pretty discriminatory, and I would voice a serious objection if anyone tried it on me. From a purely medical perspective, you can refuse any medical procedure that you don't want to undertake, and I find it hard to believe the CF would have grounds to force you to take it.



I don't think a mandatory pregnancy test would be discriminatory at all. If it affects your health, it is in the CF's interest to be aware of it (at least the medical system, anyway). If it can affect your ability to fight, then absolutely the CF should have grounds to force a test.  This allows the CF to provide medical support to the soldier's condition with an eye towards rehabilitating him/her to fight. In the case of a pregnant female soldier, ensuring that there are no complications that threaten health - and therefore ensuring that the soldier is not exposed to working conditions that could threaten that pregnancy or the mother's health (certain physical hazards, toxins and chemicals, etc.)

I would apply the same principle to a man who demonstrated signs of prostate cancer - order him in for a test. 

I don't suppose anyone actually knows the regs on this, do they?  :-[


----------



## beach_bum (18 Nov 2004)

I do know that if you are a serving mbr and suspect you are pregnant, you must report so immediately.  You will be sent for a pregnancy test....and if you are found to be pregnant, you are placed on a temp cat etc.  How this applies to someone in the recruiting process..........I don't know.


----------



## Scratch_043 (18 Nov 2004)

This convo brings up another point that is sitting in the back of my mind.

Is the military exempt from the Employment act? (ie. hiring practices)


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

You know, rather than look for a discriminatory or prejudicial reason for the CF asking you take a pregnancy test you could always look at it with the mindset that they may have your best interests at heart. If you began intense physical training and you were pregnant, there are obvious health concerns there. For both the baby and the member. 

I don't think it's a violation of your rights rather a means of helping determine what is in the best interests of the CF as well as yourself.


----------



## combat_medic (18 Nov 2004)

As a member of the CF, if you believe you might be pregnant (as was already mentioned), you must report it. To randomly test everyone for pregnancy, whether or not there is just cause is as ridiculous as randomly testing all members for diabetes, epilepsy, or cancer even with no indication of the illness. Yes, there is a minute possibility of having the illness and not being aware of it, but does that justify the test? Hardly. Just because you're female doesn't mean you're automatically pregnant every time you're sick, or that you're so irresponsible that you wouldn't report it if you suspected it. 

If all men were subjected to a test for prostate cancer (and I think we ALL know what that test involves...), just in the off chance that someone might have it and not report it, because it could adversely effect their ability to do their job, there would be an uproar. I think most people are more than capable of looking after their own health, and are responsible enough to report a problem that would interfere with their work. Besides, if they knew and didn't report it, they could be charged.

Again, how would a pregnancy test be relevant on a recruiting test? Would it not be just as discriminatory to deny employment to a pregnant women as it would be for a father of young children? By the time she made it in, the kid would have been born already.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

Ok.......I think you'd be hard pressed to find an employer who would knowingly hire someone who would only work long enough to go on maternity leave. I'm not saying thats right by any means, but c'mon. Think from a personnel management point of view. Do you want to hire someone who is going to be gone right away? Doesnt make sense. I've had the old finger in the *** treatment on a workup physical in 1995. I didn't question it, but it was required. Big deal. I think you'll find that as the costs of healthcare increase, mandatory prostate exams are going to be coming sooner than later in the CF. Big deal, better to be violated for a second or 2 than dead of prostate cancer. I watched my uncle die of it, and I choose the finger in the backside before going through that agony.

Anyway, I think there are probably legitimate reasons behind the test. Rather than look at it as a violation of your rights, all I was suggesting was that it's possible there are certain things this person would be subjected to during their training which might be harmful to her or her fetus if pregnancy was not detected. If the test was not done and something happened to her or the baby, who'd get sued?

In this day and age of recruiting etc, they're OVERLY cautious. It's your right to refuse to take a pregnancy test sure. But if a pregnancy test, or a drug test is a condition of hiring and you want the job, it's already in law ( I cannot reference it specifically) that it is acceptable.

You want the job, take the test. You don't want the job, don't take the test. I think you'll find no prejudice, just conditions of employment........


----------



## dutchie (18 Nov 2004)

To randomly test everyone for pregnancy, whether or not there is just cause is as ridiculous as randomly testing all members for diabetes, epilepsy, or cancer even with no indication of the illness.

Are you suggesting that it is just as likely that a man has prostate cancer as a woman is pregnant? One is a rare (relatively) disease and the other a physical condition that most women experience at some point in their life. Also, it is impossible for women to tell they are pregnant (outside of intuition) until they miss their next period, so I don't think you could charge a woman for not reporting a pregnancy when she didn't know.

Just because you're female doesn't mean you're automatically pregnant every time you're sick, or that you're so irresponsible that you wouldn't report it if you suspected it.  

I don't recall anyone suggesting that female CF members are being tested after they complain of being sick, nor that they wouldn't report it. Instead it was suggested it was part of the Medical in clearance. Two different scenarios.


Again, how would a pregnancy test be relevant on a recruiting test?  

To make sure young troopies are not going to hurt themselves or miscarry because they are pregnant. The CF doesn't like lawsuits. Could you not honestly see some female recruit suing the CF because she didn't know she was pregnant, and miscarried because of her job? 


Would it not be just as discriminatory to deny employment to a pregnant women as it would be for a father of young children?

That father wouldn't be hauling that baby into the field in his belly, so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## beach_bum (18 Nov 2004)

Okay.....enough of this.  In 11 years I have never been randomly tested for pregnancy, nor have I ever met anyone who has.  That is insane.  So, I decided to phone the MIR just now and ask.  I have been informed that they DO NOT randomly test for pregnancy.  The only way you would get tested is if YOU suspect you are pregnant.  ALSO, a pregnancy test IS NOT part of the enrolment medical, unless you or they have reason to suspect you are pregnant.  
As for serving members,if you did not know you were pregnant, you can not be charged.  If you are aware you are pregnant and do not disclose this to your chain of command you can be charged.  This is to protect both the baby and the mother.


----------



## X Royal (18 Nov 2004)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Ok.......I think you'd be hard pressed to find an employer who would knowingly hire someone who would only work long enough to go on maternity leave. I'm not saying thats right by any means, but c'mon. Think from a personnel management point of view. Do you want to hire someone who is going to be gone right away? Doesnt make sense.



Inquiring about a females pregnancy status before an offer of employment is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This information is available by a simple internet search. What would   be next : ask if a man is married then require his wife to take a pregnancy test because he may elect to take parental leave.
And then even if your not married you still could get a woman pregnant and be entitled to parental leave so whats next : insist that all members of the forces male or female be sterilized.   :
We have many rights in this country which other places don't so we should stand behind them and be proud.

Best Wishes


----------



## elizabeth (18 Nov 2004)

Okay. So....
   I had to go to a civie doc and get this test done to start with. So, it wasn't really the military's budget it was effecting. 
   Neither I nor the doc had 'reason to suspect I was pregnant'.
  Like I said, If it was for safety concerns about going on course (which I totally understand), no problems -- but I could have gotten pregnant and had the kid after the test and before course started.
  As far as I can tell, it was random but I did not really ask the doc why I had to get it done because I sorta assumed it was manditory for females. 
  So, no other females on these boards have every had to have a pregnancy test? Then it is just plain odd that I did.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

X Royal,

Requiring the test as a sole condition of hiring would be a violation of human rights yes. I am not disputing that fact at all. However, if there existed the possibility that a candidate is pregnant, and they were for instance to be training in nuclear medicine, it would probably preclude them from the training, and employment temporarily. Therefore it's feasible that a condition of enrollment for a specific trade may be that they are required to have a test of some kind. Whether a drug test, an aids test or a pregnancy test, a condition of employment is a condition of employment. If someone is sexually active, there is always a possibility that there might be an unknown pregnancy.

Companies have the right to test for drugs or other physical conditions as a part of their application processes, what makes the CF any different? I would say that pregnancy is a physical condition, albeit a temporary one. 

I'm not in any way whatsoever saying that if it is not a specific condition of trade employment that they should submit themselves to it, rather I'm suggesting that someone might actually be doing something right........


----------



## beach_bum (18 Nov 2004)

elizabeth said:
			
		

> Okay. So....
> I had to go to a civie doc and get this test done to start with. So, it wasn't really the military's budget it was effecting.
> Neither I nor the doc had 'reason to suspect I was pregnant'.
> Like I said, If it was for safety concerns about going on course (which I totally understand), no problems -- but I could have gotten pregnant and had the kid after the test and before course started.
> ...



Well, the PA at the recruiting centre must have had some reason to suspect you were pregnant or he/she would not have sent you for the test.  If this really concerns you, phone them and ask.


----------



## combat_medic (18 Nov 2004)

HollywoodHitman: If you suspect you're pregnant and don't report it, you can be charged. If you don't suspect you're pregnant, then the test is discriminatory and has no medical basis. Also, you could just as easily get pregnant the day following the test, or be pregnant already but too early along for the test to detect. It's all pretty subjective, and makes mandatory testing pretty irrelevant (even though we've already established that mandatory testing doesn't exist in the CF).

However, the idea of "women could get pregnant and would therefore be unable to do their jobs" was the basis for sexist hiring practices in the past and, for the longest time, women could also have been fired for having a kid (before the existance of Mat leave - which is also available to men, by the way). It is a violation of charter rights to deny someone a job because they're pregnant, or their spouse/significant other is pregnant. Men can take parental leave which would take them away from their training, but no one asks in the interview if they're expecting a child, because that would be discrimination on the basis of family status.


----------



## X Royal (19 Nov 2004)

combat_medic: It appears we agree.

HollywoodHitman: If you read the "quote" I posted you seemed to condone not hiring women if they are   pregnant. The Canadian Human Rights Code disagrees ( can't even ask). I agree that it may postpone training or employment temporally but how this applies must be decided only after a firm offer of employment. Not many years back women of childbearing age were not even considered for many jobs because she may get pregnant in the future. And also as earlier stated with parental leave this also can apply to men now.

Best Wishes

Ps: Companies subject to the Canadian or Provincial Human Rights Codes (everyone) are very limited on who they can drug test or test for physical conditions and only after a firm offer of employment and where a negitve result would be extremely important.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (19 Nov 2004)

Right, here it is. First of all, I am one of the least gender discriminatory soldiers I know. 2 of my closest friends are women, both who have had children of whom I am exraordinarily fond. Both of whom have jobs traditionally occupied by men and they do just fine. My original post was intended to suggest that the request for this young woman to have a pregnancy test may only have been out of concern for safety or health or whatever. How the he** should I know, I wasn't there. I for one have grown a little tired of people blowing things out of proportion, and my suggesting that there were GOOD reasons rather than discriminatory or sexist ones, was simply to offer a couple of different possibilities. 

As for maternity and paternity leave, I am fully aware of them both and I support the ideas. It's about time really. I'd hire someone who was pregnant, but if they were about to do something that would endanger their health or the health of their unborn child, and there was the possibility that they were pregnant would it not be prudent to suggest a test to ensure they weren't? There is also the 'due diligence' and 'duty of care' aspect to employers informing potential employees of certain risks involved......Could this have been an example of that? I submit again that ANYONE who is sexually active runs the risk of being pregnant, or being a father. 

My problem is the suggestion that this test was ordered as a result of sexist behavior on the part of the recruiter. Gimme a break. I'd be surprised in fact if the recruiter mentioned ANYTHING about pregnancy, rather the civvy doctor probably suggested it for some reason.

As well, if someone is going to suggest that I am condoning something like discrimination based on pregnancy or family status, they might at least read the part in the piece which was quoted, as saying "I'm not saying that's right by any means". How I could condone something which I openly do not condone?...... confuses me.


----------



## X Royal (19 Nov 2004)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> But if a pregnancy test, or a drug test is a condition of hiring and you want the job, it's already in law ( I cannot reference it specifically) that it is acceptable.
> 
> You want the job, take the test. You don't want the job, don't take the test. I think you'll find no prejudice, just conditions of employment........



HollywoodHitman: If I misread your intentions I apologize but I hope you can see that even your own words can give that impression. As for the statement that testing as a condition of employment is acceptable and law is false.
Some employers can skirt around the law by indirectly suggesting something to a prospective employee who will be afraid to not comply with. Sometimes good intensions do not allways mean legal.If a female was asked to get her own doctor instead of the military to do the test then maybe they knew it was wrong. 

Best Wishes

Ps: By saying " I'm not saying that's right by any means"   does not also automatically imply you think it's wrong. This is an open ended statement that with no firm commitment to either side of the question.


----------



## elizabeth (19 Nov 2004)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> My problem is the suggestion that this test was ordered as a result of sexist behavior on the part of the recruiter. Gimme a break. I'd be surprised in fact if the recruiter mentioned ANYTHING about pregnancy, rather the civvy doctor probably suggested it for some reason.


 

My civvie doc did not suggest the test! I was told by the military doctor to go and get it done. My civvie doctor was acutally a complete moron and I had to go back twice in order to be sure it was done properly.
I, personally, do not feel discriminated against or anything like that. I was merely wondering if this was common practice. I knew that I wasn't  (with no chace of becoming) pregnant. The doc probably had some other reason for it that I am not aware of. 
I think it is a good thing that I know that these aren't manditory so that if I have to get one again I can ask why. Anyways, thanks all for clearing up some issues for me!


----------

