Forcing a person to get a flu shot is no different than assult and battery!!!

reply to post by Unity_99


Do you know what polio is?

Do you think that vaccinations were key in its defeat? If so, Why now is it illogical to use vaccinations to battle new and more deadly strains of the flu virus?

it would be nice if you thought really hard about what your saying.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Raxoxane

 

The thing is, we're talking about a nearly universally accepted method of protection from the flu. It normally seems to work, not withstanding screw ups on the guess for strain like this year of course. Now the way to attack vaccines in general, if they need to be attacked, is protest and the law. Fair enough. It's NOT protest inside the facilities sick people come to, IMO.

A nurse's right to protest a vaccination comes to a screeching halt at the line I arrive at a hospital or other medical facility expecting the best care they can offer.....not protesting staff putting me at even more potential risk.

After all, a nurse is facing nothing LIKE a normal risk of infection themselves. They work where infected people come.....then work around people that don't WANT that themselves. Get the shot or quit. Simple enough.

As a critical care RN, I agree wholeheartedly. There is a time and place to talk to communities about reducing risks (and that includes risks of vaccinations) but within the hospital is not the place to attempt to take a stand about the flu vaccine.

Responsible and prudent nurses will willingly get vaccinated. If a nurse is unable to be vaccinated, then it up to that nurse to find a position that doesn't involve direct patient care. The onus is on the nurse and should not be a risk that is placed upon the patient.

The firing of the nurses not only reduced the risk to patients, it also reduced the risks of the nursing staff in the involved hospitals.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Brother Wrabbit, let me ask you a question.

Does the right to health of the nurse end when she enters the hospital?

Sacrificing ones rights for another is what we're seeing here.

What I don't understand is, if someone uses force to invade your country, it is acceptable to use force in return and kill them. If someone uses force to invade your bloodstream, it is apparently unacceptable to use force to defend it.

At least the pharmaceutical companies should take 100% responsibility for what their product does to you. If they want to use force to put something in my blood, at least compensate me if something goes wrong. I'm not your science experiment.

reply to post by NiteNGale2

But would wearing masks,and putting on disposable gloves between tending to different patients,not be as effective,or more? Im just thinking that any nurse or doc could be incubating Anything,like meningitis,chickenpox(i was 24 when i first got it),the common cold,mumps,other sicknesses.Thats just as risky around already sick people.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Brother Wrabbit, let me ask you a question.

Does the right to health of the nurse end when she enters the hospital?

Sacrificing ones rights for another is what we're seeing here.

Certainly good questions,

Their right to protest the methods health is delivered, ends when they enter the hospital. Working where sick people come for care and treatment does, by absolute necessity, limit the range of protest compared to the public square. Wouldn't that make sense?

As the parent of an Autistic child, trust me, I'm exceptionally sensitive to the vaccine issue and it is maddening to not know. Woulda? Coulda? .... Color me among the % who really demands some answers on that in definitive ways.

At the same time... Polio, Small Pox, Whooping Cough, Tetanus and Rubella are among the nasties once known as a simple, lethal part of life but are largely to entirely gone now thanks to vaccination. Who knows what, if any within the super-boosters they give today could be doing the damage to our children?

I won't take a flu shot myself...for instance. I won't work in a medical facility or expect others to accommodate me so I could though, either. It's not at all about their right to say no....but their right to force a private employer and medical facility in particular to participate or tolerate their protest when it can very well cause the infection of those least able to handle it?

Originally posted by Raxoxane
reply to post by NiteNGale2

 

But would wearing masks,and putting on disposable gloves between tending to different patients,not be as effective,or more? Im just thinking that any nurse or doc could be incubating Anything,like meningitis,chickenpox(i was 24 when i first got it),the common cold,mumps,other sicknesses.Thats just as risky around already sick people.

Yes. There is what is called the prodromal period when a person is ill but not showing any symptoms. That is a very real risk. People can infect others even if they feel and appear healthy. Nursing students have to provide inoculation records or medical records showing treatment for the major communicable diseases that aren't often seen nowadays because of successful vaccination programs. Blood tests can be used to show if antibodies are present for those whose records are lacking or are able to relate information about having a specific communicable illness. The flu strains vary and mutate year to year so there are years when the vaccine isn't as effective as one would hope.

Masks and gloves are a very important part of preventing infection. But, they are generally used when a patient has an infection that highly communicable or of a bacterial variety that is resistant to antibiotics. Masks, gloves, plastic gowns, foot covers and face shields may be used to protect the staff from the patients infection...

Gosh. I realized that blathering about precautions. And, that isn't the point.

The point is, you did mention illnesses that just aren't that common in the average healthy adult population that is the health-care field in the US. Possible but just not likely.

Flu is very, very likely though. I do have the right to say that I'm willing to accept the personal risk to my health by refusing the flu vaccine but I sure as heck don't have the right to force the consequences of my decision onto a patient.

I think the OP does provide some good points in general regarding this thread.....
I personally, 100% disagree with getting a flu shot. I will NOT get a flu shot, because I don't know what is in it and not even a medical professional can tell me exactly what is in that shot, and yes I have asked on more than one occasion and did not get a definitive answer.
When my children where vaccinated I asked for the mercury free shots and got them, and now with my youngest daughter I asked for the mercury free shots and was told they don't use mercury anymore? I don't think I will continue to give my baby the rest of her shots as I don't trust what is in them, and or how it was possibly made?

With that being said, in the medical profession they have what's called the hippocratic oath "to do no harm", and in my opinion refusing a flu shot is NOT a violation to that oath, especially if the refusal was due to conflict of religious or personal beliefs. I also believe that the statement "do no harm" is fairly generalized, and could be viewed as do no harm Period. directly or indirectly to anyone including ONES SELF?
If you genuinely and honestly thought the shots would pose more harm to you than good, I suppose the "hippocratic oath" would apply to medical staff as well? would it not?

Just my humble 2 cents?

reply to post by NiteNGale2

I starred your reply,you addressed this very well.It IS a dilemma,though.I wonder if many aware young people would be put off entering the nursing profession,knowing they would have to get a flu shot every year.I know i would have,and doubtlessly many others would feel the same.
I hope a way can be found to accomodate medical staff that absolutely do not want flu vaccinations.I feel they shouldnt face unemployment and possible destitution because of their decision.

reply to post by Violater1


Disagree, a better comparison would be saying that it is the same as paying taxes. In case of the state. Now as a work requirement it should be part of the contract or it would/should just be illegal, whatever the rational presented.

What I have never understood is that Nurses who work with flu victims can still carry the virus for a short time. It can still enter their bodies and can still be transmitted, even though the nurse is safe, it doesn't really make that much difference to the patients. Also being immune to the virus may make the nurse think she can still work and be around people even whilst the virus is contained within her, whilst a nurse that feels bad will stay at home [you'd hope] and therefore reducing the contact with others.
Of course from the nurses point of view it should be more about: "do I want to catch anything or be off work for a while or not?"
However to justify it for an employers point of view [I don't want my employees off sick] is dodgy.
Because the employer doesn't 'own' your body, nor can they force you to do something you disagree with just you stay a good little slave.

Would you take a contraceptive jab every 3 month because your employer doesn't like you to get pregnant?
Would you stop any hobbies because of a job? [Hang-gliding and other sport can lead to many days off work]


Yes, vaccination is a nice idea but if you don't want it, you should never be forced [unless it is stated in your contract BEFORE you sign up.
In my whole life I've only had the real flu about twice, the rest were very bad colds. Its each case on its own.

I was in an doctors office recently and there was a sign saying any employee that could not get a flu shot would be wearing a mask on their fsce to avoid contracting the flu from patients

it's a simple solution


would you object to that ? is that some form of abuse ?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I do understand your point too.But it sits wrong with me,that those who go into the nursing field, because they genuinely care to relieve suffering and want to help people,have to either get these flu shots or get fired.Or work at some other career,that is not their "heart choice".I understand what you are saying-if you dont like it,find another career.It just seems wrong that because you dont want the ingredients of the vaccines in your body,you should have to settle for a career where getting a flu shot,is not enforced.Everyone always does best at the career that is their choice,the thing they Really want to do with their lives.

reply to post by Violater1


Somehow I just can’t wrap my head around the reasoning for this rant. By your same reasoning your next rant could be applied to those in the medical field having to wash their hands. Sorry no dice on this topic you are way off base and if you had your way it would put others’ lives in jeopardy.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Unity_99

 

Do you know what polio is?

Do you think that vaccinations were key in its defeat? If so, Why now is it illogical to use vaccinations to battle new and more deadly strains of the flu virus?

it would be nice if you thought really hard about what your saying.

Defeat? Explain the 47,000 reported cases of vaccine induced polio in India last year? And let's face it there were probably many thousand more that went unreported.

It would be really nice if you thought even just a little bit about what your saying.

Next you'll be claiming the smallpox vaccine eradicated smallpox! It didn't. Two years prior to the smallpox vaccine being introduced the incidence of smallpox cases had fallen by 98%. Check your history books. The reduction in incidence is attributed to better sanitation; sewerage, hot and cold running water etc.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Brother Wrabbit, let me ask you a question.

Does the right to health of the nurse end when she enters the hospital?

Sacrificing ones rights for another is what we're seeing here.

Certainly good questions,

Their right to protest the methods health is delivered, ends when they enter the hospital. Working where sick people come for care and treatment does, by absolute necessity, limit the range of protest compared to the public square. Wouldn't that make sense?

As the parent of an Autistic child, trust me, I'm exceptionally sensitive to the vaccine issue and it is maddening to not know. Woulda? Coulda? .... Color me among the % who really demands some answers on that in definitive ways.

At the same time... Polio, Small Pox, Whooping Cough, Tetanus and Rubella are among the nasties once known as a simple, lethal part of life but are largely to entirely gone now thanks to vaccination. Who knows what, if any within the super-boosters they give today could be doing the damage to our children?

I won't take a flu shot myself...for instance. I won't work in a medical facility or expect others to accommodate me so I could though, either. It's not at all about their right to say no....but their right to force a private employer and medical facility in particular to participate or tolerate their protest when it can very well cause the infection of those least able to handle it?

Some points. (after a consult with the wife, an RN)

Universal Precautions

Universal precautions refers to the practice, in medicine, of avoiding contact with patients' bodily fluids, by means of the wearing of nonporous articles such as medical gloves, goggles, and face shields. The practice was introduced in 1985–88.[1][2] In 1987, the practice of universal precautions was adjusted by a set of rules known as body substance isolation. In 1996, both practices were replaced by the latest approach known as standard precautions (health care). Nowadays and in isolation, practice of universal precautions has historical significance.

en.wikipedia.org...

All medical personal use these precautions now to limit exposure.

________________________________________________________________

Passive immunization
-Workplace conditions in a medical setting can and do provide oppourtunities for an individual to become exposed to a variety of viruses, biological affects that build immunization over time.

_________________________________________________________________

Getting the flu shot does not guarantee that someone will become immune to every variant of the flu virus. Staffers working under the assumption that they are immune can make exposure errors that can place the patient in jeopardy regardless.

Treating every patient exposure as if either one of you has a communicable disease would limit true exposure regardless of the flu shot, or health of the patient.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Violater1

 

Somehow I just can’t wrap my head around the reasoning for this rant. By your same reasoning your next rant could be applied to those in the medical field having to wash their hands. Sorry no dice on this topic you are way off base and if you had your way it would put others’ lives in jeopardy.

You said it yourself there. Hygiene is the key to stopping the spread of a lot of infection. Not vaccination. Vaccinations have not been proven to not have side effects that creep up on you over a lifetime of taking your shots. No long term studies have been done, nor are any likely to be done. That's what most people who don't want vaccinations object to. Vaccines are unproven.

Originally posted by MirajI don't get your pregnancy related argument, since pregnancy is not a communicable disease.

I don't know, my old lady caught it from me, twice. Apparently I'm a carrier.

Originally posted by Labrat3162

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Violater1

 

Somehow I just can’t wrap my head around the reasoning for this rant. By your same reasoning your next rant could be applied to those in the medical field having to wash their hands. Sorry no dice on this topic you are way off base and if you had your way it would put others’ lives in jeopardy.

You said it yourself there. Hygiene is the key to stopping the spread of a lot of infection. Not vaccination. Vaccinations have not been proven to not have side effects that creep up on you over a lifetime of taking your shots. No long term studies have been done, nor are any likely to be done. That's what most people who don't want vaccinations object to. Vaccines are unproven.

edit on 13-1-2013 by Labrat3162 because: Missed words

I couldn’t disagree with that statement more I believe that to blatantly false information. That is why I said I can’t understand that reasoning. I am only responding to you out of courtesy but I will say my mind is made up on this matter because I have done my own research and vaccines are proven to work and the idea that they do not is utter nonsense.