November 1: Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/10/nat ... ber-1.html

Last edited by AspieUtah on 28 Oct 2014, 6:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Are people this stupid in believing vaccinations cause Autism and other stuff still?

The vaccines kill people, it is rare, but they reason that it is an "acceptable loss" if a few die a year.

This has nothing to do with autism. The vaccine-autism connection was made in connection to vaccinating children and these are adults. Their main protest is that it carries slight risk (the risk is far slighter than for children) and that it is of unpredictable effectiveness (since it relies on epidemiological forecasting of ever-changing strains) and that they will be fired if they don't. I don't support this since the risk of flu to patients they may expose is so great. If they were really at risk for vaccination reaction, that would have been caught at a much earlier point in their lives.

I don't support it. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the vaccine autism controversy.

This year is a critical year for flu vaccination. The initial symptoms of flu are exactly the same as the initial symptoms of ebola. They are indistinguishable at first, a fact that is going to make 2014/2015 a very burdensome year when flu gets mistaken for ebola or (god forbid) vice versa. The best way to reduce that situation is to have the maximum number of people vaccinated against flu. Since nurses are the ones most at risk for getting ebola while treating a patient (spending more time doing end-of-life care than any doctor in the U.S.) it is critical for there to be no flu/ebola mix-up.

I haven't supported this in previous years and this year it is an even worse idea than it ever has been before.

Get vaccinated, nurses!

This report isn't about the efficacy of any vaccine or what people wish nurses would do. It is about those nurses who disagree with mandatory vaccinations, and are questioning the legality of requiring universal vaccinations.

In other words, should nurses be required to be vaccinated?

Are employers legally allowed to make the vaccination a condition of employment? Yes, they are. Note that this is different from the legality of requiring universal vaccinations- something that is not actually on the table. It is possible to opt out but then you also opt out of being employed by any hospital/clinic that requires them.

Should nurses be required to be vaccinated? I don't think this should be a government mandate but rather be upheld as an employer mandate (not all employers of nurses require it). They work with the elderly and immunocompromised - two populations most likely to die from flu and also not able to respond as effectively to the vaccine themselves. This is for the protection of those patients.

For the record, doctors are under the same mandate in hospitals and are just as required to get flu vaccinations as a condition of employment. But you never see them protesting it.

I don't think the flu vaccine is particularly efficacious because you're gambling that you'll hit the most prevalent strains. I seem to remember that the Cochrane report is often misrepresented but still.

I wonder whether the costs actually outweigh the benefits for hospital workers passing on infections. I'd be surprised, but I'm genuinely open to arguments - as far as I know the evidence is quite finely balanced. I think you're most infectious before

Still, if I were a nurse I'd certainly want it. The flu is pretty horrible and effortlessly reducing your changes of getting it is a no-brainer. I'm assuming the employer or insurer pays for it.

Your citations? And, what happened to the protections of patient consent and patient privacy under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)? Employers in most states are prohibited from even knowing the details about their employees' health-care choices. It is no different for employees who happen to be health-care workers except in those cases where a health-care worker has foolishly signed an employment contract which agrees to any and all future vaccinations.

The idea of "herd immunity" (an offensive phrase by itself) is largely misunderstood, especially by health-care professionals. If an individual wishes to avoid risking infection with the latest virus, the individual may choose legally to consent to being vaccinated against that virus (and all that comes with it). Once vaccinated, that individual is presumably immune to contracting the virus from anyone. So, if one or more of the others chooses legally to decline the vaccine for personal, medical and/or religious reasons, what is the risk to those who have been vaccinated? There is none except to others who have also declined vaccination with their informed choice, correct?

There are many reasons for individuals (including those who are health-care workers) to decline one or more vaccinations. Those with Guillain-Barré syndrome risk deadly health conditions if they are vaccinated. Those who have religious objections are protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. Others who have personal ojections are protected by laws in most states. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed these protections from unwarranted medical abuse of authority. In other words, there are certainly those who want to know patients' identifying information and other details of certain health-care choices (like elective abortions or vaccinations), but, absent the patient agreeing to share that information or a court order requiring it, any attempt to determine such information will be prohibited by law.

In my state, at least, health-care workers who choose legally to decline one or more vaccinations may self-quarantine from possible workplace infections under state law, and may not be dismissed from employment for invoking that right.

http://health-care.lawyers.com/immuniza ... he-us.html





Employers knowing the vaccination status of an employee is not a violation of HIPAA. The employer certainly can't ask about health care choices out of curiosity, but there is a long list of work-related exceptions to knowing certain health facts about an employee.


Incorrect. The flu vaccine has reduced effectiveness for the elderly, immunocompromised, and people with certain chronic conditions. By no great coincidence, these are the people most likely to be cared for by a nurse. Since the vaccine works less well on them, they need the extra protection of being surrounded by the effectively vaccinated.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm





The people with a specific risk (Guillain-Barre syndrome for example) are your strongest argument. Although religious exemption is covered by law, it is a pretty weak reason unless the person actually does practice the religion that bars it. I have seen too many parents suddenly fake religion just to get an exemption for their kids. It gets abused more than any other exemption (I doubt the other exemptions even get abused at all) so I take a pretty dim view of it although it is legit. In those cases, the nurse should wear a mask all flu season (the solution settled on by several hospitals).



That sounds fair. But on the other hand it would really limit what departments you can work in.

In Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829 (1989), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=829 the U. S Supreme Court determined that "[w]hile membership in a sect would simplify the problem of identifying sincerely held beliefs, the notion that one must be responding to the commands of a particular religious organization to claim the protection of the Free Exercise Clause is rejected.? The opinion determined, therefore, that a state may not deny an exemption simply because an individual who claims the exemption isn?t a member of a particular religious organization.

In Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 5&invol=67 determined that ?it is no business of courts to say that what is a religious practice or activity for one group is not religion under the protection of the First Amendment.? The opinion determined, therefore, that a state may not deny an exemption simply because an individual is a member of a particular religious organization instead of another organization.

While the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't reviewed the issue of religious-exemption sincerity, other federal (New York; Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, CV 87-3116 (1987), and Levy v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, CV 87-3197 (1987)) and state (Wyoming; LePage v. State of Wyoming, No. 00-10 (2001)) courts have determined that certain state laws may not deny an exemption simply because an individual isn?t a bona fide member of a recognized religious organization, while certain other state laws may not deny an exemption simply because an individual who claims the exemption isn?t considered sincere about the individual?s religious beliefs.

Between the U.S. Supreme Court and its subordinate courts, the judicial sentiment clearly appears to reject any requirement of the expression of certain religious memberships, exercises and sincerity beyond stated beliefs.