{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020517395182872437, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.268156424581005, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Ethics of Mandatory Reporting of Positive Drug Tests in Newborns and Pregnant Parents at the Time of Delivery.

The opioid epidemic has renewed debate about how to structure laws, agency policies and hospital protocols for mandatory reporting of illicit substances during pregnancy. This paper analyzes the ethics of Rhode Island's approach to mandatory reporting - in particular, reporting of positive maternal and newborn drug tests at time of delivery. Given that state intervention is generally perceived by pregnant people as punitive and threatening to their family, we consider how four elements often used to justify punitive action by the state - retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation (societal protection) - apply to Rhode Island's policy and approach to prenatal substance use. In addition, the paper considers the equity implications of Rhode Island's approach. It concludes that, given the potential for the policy to do more harm than good, investment of resources would be better spent on clinical and community services that support substance using parents and their newborns.