Judge rejects vaccine choice law in health care settings

originally posted by: Maxmars
I'm no legal professional, but it would appear that this ruling will face challenges still.

I was amused by the characterization of the ruling as a "win for all Montanans." A rather one-sided characterization I expect more than a few would say. Ultimately, this is probably intended to add the phrase to the 'think-speak' space of the wild... as encouragement or as an irritant, I wonder?

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this being a "Whose side are you on?" kind of thing.

I expect to hear more (if it gets reported) about the challenges that will face this ruling...certainly there will be some!

Kind of a one sided statement for sure...I'm almost positive that not all Montanans think this is a win!

It's always been a "Whose side are you on?" thing...that will likely only become more true as time, and things like this hit the court system! That's part of the process...division...pick a side because not picking one is not an option!

a reply to: jerryznv

Don't get me wrong though. In a clinical setting, where people are continuously exposed to communicable illnesses of any sort, it seems reasonable to ensure the act of seeking treatment itself doesn't pose a risk for contagion. Doctors and nurses must see this as a high-value decision, and some standards must be in place. A single instance of infection could escalate, becoming the object of great regret.

Some doctors and nurses lack the confidence of others in regard to this 'nationally sponsored' policy of vaccinate first ask questions later. Why? It's hard to say, as each individual will have their own reasons. I guess the medical community culture, such as it is, has a test to resolve with this. I would have thought that has to happen 'within' their community...

But the judiciary has been given this decision and created 'precedent' not so much to resolve the actual problem, but instead to mandate conformity. That's a hard pill to swallow... in a land where many believe that if you want me to do something - you have to convince me... not order me. Such are the perils of unchecked democracy.

a reply to: Maxmars

But the judiciary has been given this decision and created 'precedent' not so much to resolve the actual problem, but instead to mandate conformity. That's a hard pill to swallow... in a land where many believe that if you want me to do something - you have to convince me... not order me. Such are the perils of unchecked democracy.

This is also my actual entire problem summed up nicely!

I live under enough laws, mandates, ordinances, regulation, statutes, codes, etc...I hardly want anymore stuffed down my throat under any circumstances!

I hate to be the guy saying it but...this is how it happens...fear driven "this is what's best for you" ideology and it's working on almost everyone! Worked for masking, vaccinations, distancing, etc...and it's still working!

The idea that convincing me to do something isn't working by these standards, so we're going to make it illegal if you don't become convinced is crap!

Call me old fashion...but I have had enough!

a reply to: DAVID64

Collectivism is a dark path. It never leads to anything good.

originally posted by: jerryznv
I agree...being sick is no fun...at any age but certainly not as I get older myself!

Being treated by the most professional, safest means possible is my expectation of my health professionals too (it would be great if they washed their hands also)!

It's part of your right to good health care.

So this sub-clinically infected statement is the one I want to talk about!

So as it pertains to Covid specifically...we would be discussing asymptomatic infection/disease!

It refers to any infectious disease. And yes, some people have very very mild cases... but they're still shedding the virus.

What troubles me...and I suspect this is where we may not agree...is that this has to be taken in front of a judge and then passed down as law because people want to work in the medical field without being discriminated against because of Covid!

If they're going to make vaccinations "optional" then that would also apply to hep-C and other vaccines. That means your health provider may or may not be vaccinated against a disease that could harm you, or a newborn, or a family member, etc. Vaccinations are currently required for people who work in the food industry (no more Typhoid Marys and Hep-C is a real issue.)

So now I am going to talk about the vaccine! Should all medical care workers be forced to get vaccinated in order to continue working in the health care field? My answer is no...that's ridiculous! If they test positive for Covid should they not come to work? Of course they shouldn't come to work (asymptomatic or not)! Should that be mandated into law to protect the general health seeking public?

So... you don't mind if a surgeon who objects to vaccines starts operating on you (and he's got hepatitis or another infectious disease)?

Maybe you don't but that's a quick way to ensure a lot of patient deaths. We've gone through this before... requirements like washing hands and so forth are only about a century old. In the past, people avoided hospitals because of the heavy death toll there and part of it was due to physicians carrying disease from patient to patient. Sanitation and vaccination proved effective in curtailing this.

There is too little we know...and too much we don't know about Covid, the vaccine/vaccines/boosters, to effectively be able to mandate anything into law!

I think you guys should avoid the "untested" claim, since it's now been tested on well over a billion people (vaccine plus boosters.)

I'm an non-vaccinated person...laws were written to protect me long before Covid was even thought of and yet I was subject to discrimination (I was fired for not getting vaccinated), denied treatment for not getting vaccinated, not allowed to travel freely to places I wanted to go for not getting vaccinated, etc...the list goes on!

That was your choice. If you had hepatitis or tuberculosis, the same situation would occur for you. You might be fine but other people don't want to die from whatever you have.

So there's a public factor to this. If the disease doesn't spread easily (a good example would be cervical cancer, an HPV caused cancer) then having optional vaccinations is a non-starter (I don't care if my physician is vaccinated against HPV because my doctor isn't a sexual partner.) But if the disease is airborne (tuberculosis, flu, smallpox, polio, respiratory syncytal virus (RSV), etc) then we're talking a whole different issue.

"I have a lifetime job, and part of the reason for judges having lifetime tenure is you're not supposed to be subject to public pressure or discourse.

Says this and then goes on to complain how the current pressure and public discourse (I read that as ‘the narrative’) has an impact on everyone.

Time to introduce tenure?

a reply to: quintessentone

originally posted by: namehere
what did you expect, a nation exists for the sake of its people as a whole, not individuals.

A government exists solely to accomplish what no one man can do alone. Ostensibly for the betterment of all.