Indiana Nurses Fired After Refusing Flu Shots On Religious Grounds 851
Hugh Pickens writes writes "ABC News reports that Indiana University Health Goshen Hospital has fired eight employees after they refused mandatory flu shots, stirring up controversy over which should come first: employee rights or patient safety. The fired nurses include Joyce Gingerich and Sue Schrock who filed appeals on religious grounds. 'I feel like in my personal faith walk, I have felt instructed not to get a flu vaccination, but it's also the whole matter of the right to choose what I put in my body...' adding that she has not had a flu vaccine for 30 years as a result of a choice she made because of her Christian faith. Over the last several years, hospitals have been moving toward mandatory vaccinations because many only have 60 percent vaccination rates says Dr. William Schaffner, chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Schaffner adds that nurses in particular tend to be the most reluctant to get vaccinated among health care workers, 'There seems to be a persistent myth that you can get flu from a flu vaccine among nurses,' says Schaffner. 'They subject themselves to more influenza by not being immunized, and they certainly do not participate in putting patient safety first.' But Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, says the scientific case for flu vaccine mandates is very weak and that there is no evidence showing that vaccinated workers are less likely to transmit virus. 'The scientific and religious concerns are in a sense backward,' says Orient. 'Advocates of the mandate are full of evangelical zeal and are quick to portray skeptics as wicked and selfish. It's like a secular religion, based on faith in vaccine efficacy and safety.'"
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty happy to hear they were fired for such dangerous, asinine, stupidity. One can only hope the hospital won't be sued, and if they are, that the hospital wins decisively and very quickly.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Is Dr. Orient wrong? Is there evidence that immunized workers are less likely to transmit the virus.
I'm less interested in arguing the point and more interested in getting some information - which the link on that assertion does not do. It just goes to another story about this.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes further then that. Nurses frequently work with patients who have weakened immune systems. These people rely on others, especially medical personnel with whom they have to interact often, to not carry microorganisms that are threatening to their health in amounts significant enough for transmission.
Frankly, this is a bit like pyromaniac trying to work as a fireman.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
It goes further than that. Nurses frequently work with in a field that primarily concerns itself with increasing overall health and wellness. If their religious sensibilities are upset by that, they probably do need to find a new job.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If she's not Christian Science, the faith-based claim should fall as short as the parents of schoolchildren that sued because little Suzie was dresscoded for wearing a crucifix charm necklace, with the court finding no religious mandate or directive to wear a crucifix charm necklace, and the dismissal of their suit.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
An earlier article cited her "belief that the vaccine might be harmful" as her "religious" objection, saying ANY belief is a "religion". That's preposterous on its face, so they may have dug deeper and tried to come up with actual religious ties now. But it's basically "I don't wanna".
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Basic "I dont wanna" i can totally understand. Military makes me get the flu shot every year.
And every year, I get sick from it. Especially now that theyve switched to the nasal spray one; it's apparently "less dead" than the shot in the arm.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You suggest that religious beliefs are only valid if they are institutional in nature. Religious beliefs are not a valid reason to put patients at risk, period. Whether everybody else in her church agrees with her or not is not relevant - only the demonstrated clinical outcomes of vaccination.
And the best thing about (insert your favorite religion here) is that you're the only one that REALLY gets it. What do all true Christians believe? Well, if I profess to be a Christian then all true Christians believe exactly what I believe. If I profess to not be a Christian then they believe in whatever I consider most abhorrent. Nobody identifies themselves as "member of heretical sect." Everybody claims the orthodox for themselves.
Re:Doesn't work (Score:5, Funny)
I bet that, once they heard about it, they sent you packing...
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
They are largley a way to shift personal responsibility to the Big Sky Man.
Spoken in true ignorance.
Aside from the plethora of religions with NO deity, Christianity (one of the biggest religions) see the problem as being oneself-- that is, the responsibility is being shifted nowhere but inward.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll remember that next time I hear a family values GOP candidate tell me my liberal views are destroying America.
Actually, conservatism is against everything Jesus taught. Conservatives hate the poor, but Christ and his followers all were poor. They especially hate the homeless, Jesus was homeless. Republicans are the party of the rich (and if you believe otherwise they've pulled the wool over your eyes), look at the story of Lazarus and the rich man. "It is as hard fro a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through a needle's eye". Look at what Christ had to say about lawyers.
Conservatives are against taxes, but Christ said "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" (e.g., stop bitching about taxes and pay the damned things).
Conservatives are against free health care; Jesus provided free health care. They're against free food, Jesus provided free food to the hungry multitude.
Conservatives say "God hates fags" but the bible says God loves everyone.
Jesus was a liberal. The men who tortured him to death were strict law and order conservatives, and Judas was a narc.
And Romney and Gingrich are probably going to hell.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument could be used for any kind of ideology or belief whatsoever.
Really what youre saying is, bad beliefs firmly held are bad.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but what did he teach? What words did he use and how do you interpret that in the context of a modern society? Even the "reference book" you use might have different translations with some conflicting advice.
This problem isn't unique to Christianity, of course. I'm Jewish and there are tons of different interpretations about what is allowed and what isn't and how you should live your life. I follow what I agree with and don't follow what I don't agree with. I'm sure that makes me a "Bad Jew" according to some religious folks, but I don't live my life on their moral code. Some other folks will call me names for following "the wrong religion" or for even following a religion at all. I don't care because I don't live my life on those people's moral codes either. I live it on my own.
Of course, there are limits. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I can observe my religion, but don't expect anyone else to act differently to accommodate me so long as they also don't specifically exclude me based on religion without a good reason. (e.g. I don't expect you to stop eating pork, but if my office made a rule requiring people to eat pork to be employed I'd have a problem with that.) While the nurses claim the hospital has made a rule against their religion, the rule was made with patient safety in mind and them not following the rule puts patients at risk. So the nurses have to weigh whether their religious beliefs are stronger than their connection to that employer. If so, quit and find a new job. If they find that all jobs in their chosen profession have this requirement (and I believe many do), then they might need to reexamine their religious beliefs or their career path.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
my thoughts exactly. the only group I know of as well is the christian scientists, and they dont just eschew immunizations, but ALL medicine. they believe, as a core tenet, that all sickness is caused by fear or a lack of faith, and by extension that medicine isnt real. thus i find it hard to believe these nurses would be part of that group.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
But then why work as a nurse? 90% of the things she does can be interpreted by not trusting God. Washing your hands - not trusting God to decide if the germs get you or not. Dressing a wound - not trusting God to protect against infection.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
The only reason I can think of (except them being in Christian Science) is that she follow the same line of thought that leads some (and I stress: SOME) protestants to have issues with contraceptions and/or ensurance: By taking such precautions you don't trust God to do what's best for you.
She must have never heard the story iof the drowning man.
There is a flood, the police come by to evacuate and the man says "no, God will save me from this flood." The water rises and he's standing at the window when a rowboat comes by for him. "No," he says, "God will save me." The water rises to the second floor and he's standing at the window when another rowboat comes by for him. "No," he says, "God will save me."
The water rises over the roof and the man drowns. In heaven he wails "God! Why didn't you save me?"
God says "You moron, I sent a cop and two rowboats!"
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
THAT should be irrelevant. What matters isnt what they believe, but whether it has an impact on their job, which it does.
I do not believe that the government should be able to force anyone to get an immunization. But certainly if theyre working in a situation where not being immunized puts others at risk, then they need to make a decision on whether their beliefs or their jobs are more important.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not an epidemiologist; but it is worth noting that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons [wikipedia.org] is sort of a John Birch version of the American Medical Association, with some... intriguingly contrarian... theories on a variety of matters.
Whether they are, in fact, correct in this case, and 'herd immunity' doesn't work as expected for some reason with flu vaccines, is a somewhat different question; but I'd treat their pronouncements on matters medical with only slightly less skepticism than Discovery Institute work on evolutionary biology...
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I noticed that too - but at the end of it all the bottom line to me is, "What do the facts support?"
The op's response is just what the Dr. describes and if that response is based on her being wrong - then I think it is justified. But it ought to be pretty easy to point out if that is the case.
If no one actually knows for sure -- then I find being so self-righteous about it to be a bit problematic.
I get a flu shot every year. I am really glad vaccinations are available and my kids have had all theirs. But this specific ramification of being vaccinated or not I don't know much about.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring the religious grounds part of the argument as it really doesn't come into play, it should be quite simple to look at the flu rates of those hospitals mandatory flu vaccinations vs those without. What one finds, when doing so, is that flu transmission is not based on whether or not the staff is immunized, but on the viral load of the patients, themselves. What has been found, though, is that flu vaccinations reduces loss work time from staff from contracting the flu (when the vaccines guessed right on what strain to produce). However, studies also show that proper hygiene measures by the staff also have the same effectiveness (ie. latex gloves, sanitizing hands, etc.).
Based on the data, it appears that the mandatory flu vaccine has more to do with the business side of the hospital than with the patient care.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
You mean based upon your data. The CDC reports [cdc.gov] that compliance with hand washing runs around 40%. So while it may be as effective as vaccination, its effectiveness is directly limited by compliance rates.
So if the hospital is concerned about flu transmission, particularly to the young, elderly and immunocompromised for whom flu could be fatal, what is the most effective way to reduce transmission?
Proper hand hygiene should, of course, be in place in a hospital. But, despite years and years of effort, it still presents a problem. While that is the case, requiring a vaccination seems pretty reasonable for anyone who is patient facing and who does not have a documented medical condition that would make them an unsuitable candidate for the flu vaccine.
Re:Quarantine works (Score:4, Insightful)
While this might be true, you're ignoring a far more practical reason people go to work sick: Because they don't get paid otherwise. Many employees in the US these days don't get paid sick leave, so if they stay home sick, they don't get paid. For people who get paid a wage, this adds up very quickly, especially for anything worse than a cold. I'd lose 10 percent of my paycheck if I stayed home sick for one day.
The US is one of the few developed nations that doesn't require employers to provide paid sick days. Maybe it's time we started, as a matter of public health.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
What theyre making an argument from should be irrelevant in this case; they have the right to believe whatever they want, and the hospital has the right to set whatever policies it deems fit. If the two are in conflict, the natural course seems for the nurses to leave, and as a private institution this doesnt seem like a problem.
Even if the hospital's policy were over the top, dangerous, or immoral, the nurses should probably leave regardless.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
A good point well made. Many people treat these questions as if they have obvious answers, but they don't.
However, I would like to add my voice in favour of mandatory vaccinations. This may seem like a severe position to take, but I simply do not see any rational argument for allowing someone to refuse it.
- Vaccines work. Nobody can deny this. There are years of data in various countries showing that getting your flu shot is statistically a good idea.
- If at some point, our understanding of the subject is good enough that we can say, "don't take vaccine X if you have gene Y or condition Z", then that must be factored in. At present, if we don't have such information, the best guess we can make is that the vaccine is a good idea for the person.
- One must raise the question of whether anyone has the right to risk getting an illness themselves. i.e., can I refuse the MMR shot and risk getting measles, mumps or rubella? Me getting a serious illness, needlessly, is just a waste of resources, which could be put towards patients with unavoidable ailments. I don't see why I should be allowed, without a damn good reason.
- Is there any good reason? The article says that the vaccine was refused on religious grounds. What religious grounds, exactly? "Religion" is not a method for making arbitrary personal decisions.
- Finally, if a valid argument can not be produced for why someone should be allowed to refuse it, I believe the remark:
there is no evidence showing that vaccinated workers are less likely to transmit virus
should also be considered as
there is no evidence showing that vaccinated workers are more likely to transmit virus
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
There is very good evidence for herd immunity for things like polio and measles. These vaccines are highly effective, and there has been very good epidemiologic evidence that 1) the vaccine is very effective 2) the disease is largely controlled when the majority of the population gets the vaccine, and 3) the disease beings to increase in frequency when vaccination rates wane.
The evidence is much less compelling for the flu vaccine. It is complicated to study because its effectiveness varies drastically from year to year, based on whether they guess right about which strains to immunize against. This year and last appear to have been a bad guess. Some years are better, but there are respected epidemiologists that argue that the evidence overall on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in preventing hospitalizations and death is pretty weak.
A hospital certainly has the right to make policies they believe are in the interest of their patients and fire people who don't follow those policies. But to suggest that we should all be getting the flu shot because it doesn't do any harm is stupid. It is a pretty substantial cost to society and its use and effectiveness, like all immunizations and medical treatments, should be evaluated critically.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Any statement she makes should be viewed with suspicion, check out the wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, it's journal has made some interesting statements such as 'that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern' and 'that HIV does not cause AIDS'.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Dr. Orient wrong? Is there evidence that immunized workers are less likely to transmit the virus.
'Flu is transmitted (among other routes) by airborne water droplets [virology.ws]. It also causes the sufferer to cough and sneeze (thus spraying such droplets).
It's hardly conclusive, but based on those facts I find it a little hard to believe that the vaccine (which will prevent the coughing and sneezing) has no effect on transmission...
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes sense to me too - but quite often when we actually study stuff we find that our common sense assertions are wrong.
If we are going to take away people's jobs I would rather it were based on scientific study.
And if it can be proven that their choice hurts patients - then yes let them get vaccinated or leave. It seems like if this is already known it ought to be easy to point out.
Otherwise decisions are being made without evidence. Given the current climate I'm not upset with getting rid of health care workers who wont get flu vaccinations because God told them not to. They may advise patients not to get vaccinations for more serious diseases. But I'm also worried about what thing some hospital administrator might decide is necessary next if they aren't held to a scientific standard.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I have no particular evidence but here is my educated rambling. Yes if you are immunized you don't spread the virus as much as you might if you were not immunized and have the infection. You can be contagious for about 1 day without knowing you have the infection during that time you can spread it. According to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/spread.htm [cdc.gov]
Vaccinated or not, in a hospital setting, during flu season, the major source of the spread of the virus is from infected patients, not the nursing staff. The vaccine protects the nursing staff, but it doesn't kill the virus in their system immediately, it keeps it from taking hold. Also, the virus can be spread by touch and the vaccine does not work on the surface of the skin, clothing, stethoscopes, thermometers, etc.
I am in favor of the flu vaccine, however, its use is not preventative as in the polio v
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly, the flu shot is a strange beast to me. It very much seems like a pharmaceutical ploy to have a guaranteed subscription based source of reoccurring revenue. I've personally known people who have gotten the flu shot and still got the flu "because the shot was for a different strain". These vaccinations are not the same as the ones we get when we are children for polio, small pox and other such things. One time shots that are proven to work and have eradicated diseases. The flu shot has no hope of era
Re: (Score:3)
If you didn't catch the flu, or has the infection period considerably shortened by the vaccine, doesn't that count as a reduced effect on transmission?
Or am I living in a magical world again?
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think it all boils down to something that simple? I bet there are more variables at play, especially in a hospital setting.
And the kind of dismissive insults that are so prominent in this thread indicate of level of certainty that ought to mean someone knows for sure. And I hope someone does. I like knowing rather than wondering. But I haven't seen someone offer up some solid information yet.
I have little tolerance for people who wont vaccinate their kids, because as I understand it hard science has shown that it's not going to give them autism but it will stop the spread of disease. I didn't just pick a position though immediately because I thought it was on the 'side' I wanted to be on. I read up whatever material I could understand. I'd love to have access to more information here to try and form an informed opinion rather than a knee jerk one.
I can think up scenarios where the benefits of flu vaccines for nurses in a hospital are negligible without resorting to magic. Honestly - I doubt that this is the case. But as I've said earlier in the thread - if we are going to fire people we should have solid facts backing up that action, not just assumptions. I'm funny that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Is Dr. Orient wrong? Is there evidence that immunized workers are less likely to transmit the virus./p>
Yes.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Is Dr. Orient wrong? Is there evidence that immunized workers are less likely to transmit the virus./p>
Yes.
Not according to the CDC. The main benefit to immunizing hospital workers against the flu is that if their is a pandemic, they will be in a position to care for the sick. It has nothing to do with the reduced transmission of the virus by hospital staff.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
The other side of the argument is that there are medical indications that flu shots prevent patients from possible exposure to influenza. It's a safety measure taken to protect patients. For the sake of that side of the argument, lets assume that flu shots simply work in the expected way. Again, whether it actually does or not is not important as that is not being questioned by these religious people.
So here we have a discussion of patient safety versus religious belief. I find it insulting that a nurse would expose patients (which might one day include myself) to threats they could easily avoid by taking the shot. I think it's a pretty arrogant and selfish attitude, especially for a nurse.
Re: (Score:3)
He is flat out wrong to the point where it makes it questionable as to how he got his medical license.
Frankly, it makes one wonder what is next? Can a pyromaniac work as a fireman and refuse to work on fire prevention on religious grounds?
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Use common sense...
A worker who is not sick will not be generating more of the virus to spread... they will not be blowing their nose, sneezing, coughing--spreading the virus around, which is reproducing and thriving at this point in them...
So yeah... a not-sick worker is less likely to transmit the disease, right? And it's not possible to guarantee that sick workers will not come to work because some of them may be getting sick and not realize it, some of them may come to work regardless of being sick because they do not want to use sick time, etc...
Vaccination is proven to result in fewer sick workers.
Therefore it is a true statement that vaccinated workers will be less likely to transmit the virus.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons [wikipedia.org]
Among other things, their official positions include that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, human activity hasn't contributed to climate change, the FDA is unconstitutional, that medicare is "evil", and that people are conspiring to replace creationism with evolution. (also, that requiring mandatory immunizations is wrong. They aren't a medical advocacy group, they are a political advocacy group. If they quote peer-reviewed research that shows immunizations aren't effective (and not from their journal) then it will deserve a citation in response. Until then, they are just making stuff up.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
If they had refused the flu vaccine because they're allergic to eggs, would you still approve of them being fired?
Yes. Hospitals are critical infrastructure, and they need to be able to keep functioning during major epidemics, like the 1918 flu pandemic [wikipedia.org]. If a nurse may not be available for that, or is a possible vector for the disease, then he or she should be terminated and seek employment at a non-critical medical facility, like maybe a cosmetic surgery clinic.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The hosptal can fit the bill for egg free flu shots http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/11/fda-approves-its-first-egg-free-seasonal-flu-vaccine.html.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the vaccinate you against what they guessed last year, would be this years flu. They aren't worthless, just a gamble.
Re:They're worthless anyhow (Score:5, Interesting)
Adding to your anecdote: I've had the flu shot every year without fail since 1995 and haven't had the flu since. Before that I used to have it every winter.
Here here. I was a chronic flu sufferer, with the usual complications, particularly bouts of bronchitis most winters. I finally had a nurse practitioner inform me that I was one of those people who should get a regular flu vaccination. And I've probably had bronchitis only once in the 18 years since. Getting my daughter vaccinated made a similar improvement in her winters.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal choice includes the choice of one's employment and accepting the consequences of one's other choices. If my religion requires me to refuse to serve alcohol, I can't take a job as a bartender. If my personal choice is to have a dog lick my hands clean rather than wash them, I can't take a job as a cook.
If there is solid, double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence that my refusing to take a flu shot creates a risk to patients, then my personal choice of religion means that I can't take a job as a nurse, where I'm dealing with people with vulnerable immune systems. I could request a switch to an administrative job or one that doesn't involve patient contact, but my employer is not required to give that to me. If I developed a physical condition that precluded getting a flu shot, then it might count as a disability, in which case the hospital might (IANAL) be required to give me an alternative position, but a disability is inherently out of my control.
God will provide (Score:5, Funny)
you with new jobs.
Re:God will provide (Score:5, Funny)
God will provide you with new jobs.
Oh the optimism of Apple fanbois! Face it, Steve has gone.
It's employers rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's employers rights (Score:5, Insightful)
which should come first: employee rights or patient safety.
Employee rights include the right to get your ass to a new job.
Public safety should ALWAYS be #1 without exception.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smoking and drinking alcohol aren't contagious. But, by that note, if a nurse smoked in a patient's room in the hospital, I absolutely guarantee you he or she would be fired immediately. Same if they were caught coming in to work drunk.
It's not about what a person is doing to their body, it's about the health of the patients/customers. Infection in hospitals is a serious enough issue without the health care professionals adding to it.
And, from the article: 'There seems to be a persistent myth that you c
Re:It's employers rights (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between requiring something to get a job (peeing in a cup) and making something a requirement after someone already has a job (requiring flu shots after a longtime policy of it being optional).
I work in a large nursing home and flu shots are offered here (free), but if you refuse it then you have to sign a document for the Dept of Health saying you opted out.
Re:It's employers rights (Score:5, Funny)
Our new company policy says that we have to pee in a cup any time the employer asks.
The unofficial opinion in our department is "I'll pee in the cup any time you want, but you're holding the cup!". It's the front line management that suffers the most I tell you.
Re:It's employers rights (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a big difference between requiring something to get a job (peeing in a cup) and making something a requirement after someone already has a job (requiring flu shots after a longtime policy of it being optional).
It's really not a big difference. You just need to get rid of the idea that once you are hired, you are entitled to that job for good, until you either become unprofitable or start stealing staplers. It's the employers money, and they should be free to spend it how they please.
Re:It's employers rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I had to pee in a cup to get my first job. I didn't like it but I wanted the job.
Yeah well, that's pretty bloody stupid.
Infecting sick people with flu where your job is to make them better seriously inhibits your ability to do your job.
Smoking weed on a holiday to the Netherlands 1 week before starting work does not. Employee drug tests are needlessly intrusive and entirely pointless for almost all jobs.
Not only that, but they don't even work for the most common things, like being whacked out on over the counter cold meds and trying to operate machinery. Oh and they can give "false positives" (not really false) if you eat too many poppy seeds from normal rather than opium poppies.
Re:It's employers rights (Score:5, Informative)
People WERE dying by the millions. Influenza, smallpox, polio, diptheria... guess what? Vaccines were developed and now smallpox has been eradicated while the risk of polio and diptheria has been reduced so much many people have never heard of either of them.
Re:It's employers rights (Score:4)
Re:It's employers rights (Score:5, Informative)
Oh my oh my what did we do back in the stone age of the 50's and 60's before the flu shots??
Yeah, because healthcare hasn't improved since the 60s.
Read the AC reply.
Then:
Simple precautions like a mask, hand washing and staying home if sick will do more than the flu shot.
Only up to a point. Having people not infected with flu is even better. Fun fact: flu is at its most infectious stage early on in the cycle, i.e. before you even know you have it. So much for staying home.
Also, people in hospitals are likely to have (a) suppressed immune systems and (b) more chance of dying from an infection so the stakes are much higher.
Re:It's employers rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, is there a reason why we think it's appropriate to fire/force someone to take an injection, when the simpler answer is for employers to stop being arses about people staying home ill?
Flu immunisation may/may not shorten exposure time (I want to see an experiment, damnit), but staying home reduces that exposure to 0.
Why are we quoting the AAPS? (Score:5, Informative)
The AAPS is a fringe group with less than 3000 doctors. It's like the American Osteopathy Association: its members are whack jobs, not real doctors.
Of course there's evidence that vaccination reduces transmission. Did OP even try to research that claim or its source before reprinting it? Did we think the pertussis wave in northern California came from some reason other than that non-vax transmit where vax don't?
So tired of this knee-jerk "well let's give time to the other side" bullcrap. No. Figure out if they're insane first.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vaccinated+less+likely+to+transmit [lmgtfy.com]
Re:Why are we quoting the AAPS? (Score:5, Informative)
You beat me to it. My 1st thought was "wtf is the AAPS?"
From the linked wiki, they're "a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to 'fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine.'"
Oh.
Re:Why are we quoting the AAPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
A little googling finds lots, lots more dirt on the AAPS. It's basically a conservative pressure group pretending to be a medical organisation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funnily I never met such nut jobs in the physics and maths and CS faculties. Just a couple of
Re:Why are we quoting the AAPS? (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, I'm from the UK where they DO have the National Health Service and I always got in to see my doctor the same day I made the appointment as long as it wasn't too late in the day. And FYI I'm about as far from being elite as you can get...
Re:Why are we quoting the AAPS? (Score:5, Informative)
Man, where do you guys get these stories? As a Canadian, I and most other non-elite persons, are very happy with the medical service here. I was diagnosed with kidney disease a while back, so I'm not looking from the outside in, I have first hand experience. They found a problem with a routine blood test, and within a month I saw a specialist, had a biopsy and was diagnosed, and continue to be treated.
You want to see a doctor, there are many options from walk-in clinics, family doctor, or emergency room - neither will have a wait of more than a few hours. The emergency room might take a little longer if your problem is less severe than the guy coming in with his fingers in a bag or something.
Also, taxes are not that different in Canada than they are in the US [denverpost.com]
Re:Why are we quoting the AAPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
The AAPS is a fringe group with less than 3000 doctors.
Exactly this. I am so sick of articles quoting fringe groups with authoritative sounding names but failing to disclose the fringe nature of the group.
The dead giveaway, of course, was the part where the alleged doctor tried to claim there was no scientific basis for vaccination... Fucking loons.
Influenza vaccination has been shown highly effect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Influenza vaccination has been shown highly eff (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but that is not what the blurb is stating - they are arguring about patient safty. A Flu vaccine helps you build up an immunity to the virus - in other words, if you are exposed to it, you are less likely to get sick, and if you do, the symptoms are not as bad. Getting a flu vaccine does NOT mean that you will not carry the virus. As such, firing on the grounds that they fired these workers on is not based on science, and as such, there is no grounds for termination. Whether the workers refused the vaccine based on religious grounds or not is moot.
Now, if they said the workers were fired becasue the shots were mandnitory to cut down on worker sick time, that would be different, at which point it becomes a question of if an employer has the right to pass mandates that violates workers religious beliefs. However, as these workers are already in the medical field, it's hard for me to believe that they can seriously claim refusing vacinations based on religious beliefs.
Of course patient safety comes first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course patient safety should come before religous crap.
I'm very much for equality under the law, and "religious reasons" for refusal amount to no more than someone saying "I don't want to" for unspeficied reasons.
If you refuse to do your job for unspecified reasons (and a nurse leaving themselves prone to serious transmissible infections pretty much counts) then you get fired. If not, then anyone could refuse to do anything they don't like (e.g. hard work). If you allow it for "religious reasons" and not "other reasons" then you are state sponsoring a particular religion over a particular other religion.
After all, serviscope_minorism (in which I believe with utter faith) tells me that that 3p4pm on a wednesday afternoon is the only non holy time I'm allowed to work, and for religious reasons, I need to be allowed to carry a loaded crossbow and running chainsaw as well as wearing a clown outfit.
Religion has nothing to do with it except it gives people "reasons" to make entire series of whacky choices.
Re:Of course patient safety comes first. (Score:4, Insightful)
You may carry your crossbow and your chainsaw, and I begrudge you not your clown outfit. If you use any of them to inflict harm upon me, however, your religious belief will not be a defense.
I think this is pretty fair.
AAPS - The Fox News of medical associations (Score:5, Informative)
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a well known conservative medical association. Considering they only have about 3,000 members it's kind of silly to even seek their opinion. They certainly have a right to lobby for changes to government health care policy decisions but when they cross the line and contradict verified and tested scientific and medical research they should be ignored. They were one of the groups on the anti-vaccine bandwagon back in 2003.
Re:AAPS - The Fox News of medical associations (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's why a new name is all you need for your League of Nutjobs. Call it Concerned Parents for Sedentiary Equines. Instant Oprah invitation.
Today a spokesman for the CPSE(Concerned Paravents for Sedentiary Equines) today has confirmed that indeed the world did end on December 21st. He has dismissed the comments of a Mayan spokesperson who said they 'simply started a new calendar as they always had planned'.
There. Instant, reasonably sounding newsblurb. Totally asinine. Film at 11.
Employee can change job, patient cannot (Score:3)
So if the nurse is not okay with the flu shots, she has the choice to go elsewhere for another kind of job.
While when a patient arrives in a hospital, he should not have to choose an establishment which respects the minimal sanitary practices.
Evidence-based best practices limit liability (Score:3, Informative)
It's a generally free country. People can do and say and think what they want, whether it is supported by evidence or not. However, to avoid legal liability in medicine, and other public safety / public service occupations, one must adhere to evidence-based best practices.
You can secretly believe that getting naked, painting yourself with fresh cow's blood while running in circles and barking at the moon will keep you disease-free, that's your right. However, until your study results are repeated and published in a peer-reviewed journal, don't expect the hospital to pay you to do it or advocate it to patients.
Re:Evidence-based best practices limit liability (Score:5, Funny)
You can secretly believe that getting naked, painting yourself with fresh cow's blood while running in circles and barking at the moon will keep you disease-free, that's your right.
It turns out to be pretty hard to keep that secret.
Why are they even nurses? (Score:5, Insightful)
If their faith prevents them from getting something as simple as a flu shot why are they even working in the field of medicine???
Good - Hers is irresponsible behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
About 48,000 people a year die of influenza. She is in the position to be a super carrier, picking it up from a patient and transmitting it on to many other people. It is in appropriate for her to be a nurse if she refuses to prevent the transmission of disease to patients. She should move into an isolated administrative role well away from other people at best. Firing is appropriate.
in regards to getting the flu from the flu vaccine (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, many of the symptoms of the flu or a cold are caused by your immune system's own response to the virus rather than the virus itself. A vaccine causes an immune response too. Some people really do feel slightly unwell after getting a flu vaccine or any other vaccine. This is why they say it gives them the flu: because they don't define the flu properly, and because the vaccine really does make them feel under the weather. If you look at the side effects of the vaccine, they do somewhat resemble the flu (although they're much milder):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_vaccine#Side_effects [wikipedia.org]
I don't personally get the flu shot because I don't get the flu that often anyway, and I figure I'll just take my chances. But it's completely reasonable to expect healthcare workers to be vaccinated when they're dealing with some groups of people who are particularly susceptible to the flu.
Re:in regards to getting the flu from the flu vacc (Score:5, Interesting)
My mother's a nurse and is, or at least was, a firm believer in the flu shot. She use to make me and my older sister get them every year. She stopped forcing me when I was seven because I was always violently ill afterwards. I hadn't had a flu shot in 20 years and never had more than the occasional head cold. Then last year my wife, who is also a firm believer in the flu shot, was pregnant and asked me to get one for her and the baby's sake. I did and wasn't terribly ill, but for a few days later I was nauseated and sluggish. I got a vaccine this year anyway, but this time I was violently ill. I ended up in the hospital for two days with sever "flu like symptoms" according to the doctor, who wouldn't believe I had gotten my shot. I'm not allergic to eggs so I'm not sure why I would be so sick all of the sudden after 20 years of being pretty healthy.
I definitely believe in the logic of vaccinating as many people as possible and that it's beneficial to everyone, but I also feel the flu shot either doesn't always work as well as some believe, or that it can make some people sick. My wife says it's a one off and I probably already had the flu this year before getting the shot, which is obviously why I got sick. I'll get it again next year and see what happens, but if I'm as sick next year as I was this year, that's the end of it for me.
Also, not to wear out my tinfoil hat, but I'd like to know how much the pharmaceutical industry makes off the flu vaccines and possibly what kind of effect that might have on "research" into it's benefits. I tried to look it up, but only found a few (dubious) sources stating that while they make less off vaccines than other drugs, they still me astronomical amounts. If true, I kind of see that as an incentive for them to lie about the benefits, it's a huge cash cow and you wouldn't want people to all the sudden find out it's a lot of hokey.
Not all vaccinations work the same! (Score:3)
Vaccinations are not a permanent cure (or prevention rather) for a given disease. Many require regular booster shots, and some are so ineffective (e.g. Hep-B) that the CDC and OSHA have made them optional. This relative lack of effectiveness is often cited by the anti-vaccine folks as evidence that they're not worth getting, although they convenient leave out that most vaccines are otherwise harmless, outbreaks can be contained by short-term and weak vaccines, and some vaccines are amazingly effective, like the rabies vaccine. In fact, the rabies vaccine is amusingly left unmentioned in all of the anti-vaccine literature I've seen, because it stands out as a paragon of long-term and high effectiveness in vaccines.
It's also amazing how polarized people get about this. Either it's the holy grail, and we should take them quickly, no matter what, or they're terrible and should never be taken. People don't seem to talk about picking and choosing based on risk and benefit factors, and none of them talk about spreading them out so as to avoid giving a poor kid the symptoms of too many diseases at once. Vaccines can be hard on the immune system and make kids feel miserable, and it makes me angry that doctors often want to give more than one at a time.
40% do not get vaccines? (Score:3)
But just these eight were fired?
Why are just these tiny minority being disciplined? If every other hospital allows free choice, does this one have the authority to without warning start to require it?
Re:40% do not get vaccines? (Score:4, Informative)
I live in this town and my mother in law works in this Hospital. These people were informed six months ago about the requirement and the results if they refused.
That's not "christian" that's crazy. (Score:3)
ya know?
Its not faith (Score:3)
"'Advocates of the mandate are full of evangelical zeal and are quick to portray skeptics as wicked and selfish. It's like a secular religion, based on faith in vaccine efficacy and safety.'"
No, its based on evidence of efficacy and safety.
Superspreaders (Score:5, Interesting)
Orthodox Pastafarianism position? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters? (Score:4, Informative)
Nerd == only interested in tech? False.
Besides, vaccinations are technology.
Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters? (Score:5, Insightful)
> But I'm just not seeing the connection to TECHNOLOGY on this story.
Medicine is technology.
Deal with it.
Furthermore, there are different types of nerds. There are medical nerds too, just as there are astronomical nerds, chemistry nerds, and computer nerds. Would it be nerdy to have a tattoo of caffeine on your arm if you're a pharmacy tech, student, or registered pharmacist? You betcha.
There are model railroad nerds too.
Nerds are everywhere.
OB Topic:
If you are a nurse, your first priority is to not harm patients. This means you should prevent yourself from being a carrier of diseases that can kill, and the flu kills thousands of people every year. There is no excuse except actual allergy, and if that's the case, you should be assigned to push more paperwork as an RN during flu season (LPNs aren't allowed to push as much paperwork).
The accusation that flu vaccine proponents are "just as evangelical" as the anti-vaxxers is an IKYABWAI argument better left for the elementary school recess playground.
--
BMO
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The language is a bit archaic; but Locke really nailed it in his 'Letter Concerning Toleration':
"In the next place: As the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he any power to forbid the use of such rites and ceremonies as are already received, approved, and practised by any Church; because, if he did so, he would destroy the Church itself: the end of whose institution is only to worship God with freedom after its own manner.
You will say, by this rule, if some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or (as the primitive Christians were falsely accused) lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer: No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting. But, indeed, if any people congregated upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law. Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man's goods. And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that there be no injury done to any man, either in life or estate. And thus what may be spent on a feast may be spent on a sacrifice. But if peradventure such were the state of things that the interest of the commonwealth required all slaughter of beasts should be forborne for some while, in order to the increasing of the stock of cattle that had been destroyed by some extraordinary murrain, who sees not that the magistrate, in such a case, may forbid all his subjects to kill any calves for any use whatsoever? Only it is to be observed that, in this case, the law is not made about a religious, but a political matter; nor is the sacrifice, but the slaughter of calves, thereby prohibited."
Someone who exercises state power('the magistrate') may not either enforce or forbid specific religious practices without doing unjust violence to the religious liberty of others. However, merely attaching the stamp of 'religious practice' to a given action does not render it immune from magisterial power, so long as that power is exercised uniformly, and for the purposes that the magistrate is justly responsible for.
In this case, it would be clearly unjust(and unconstitutional, since the intellectual grunt work on the constitution was mostly done by Lockeian enlightenment types) to, say, suppress the 'Christian Scientists' for their curious abstention from most modern medicine. However, it would in no way be unjust to impose a uniform requirement on all medical workers in close contact with patients that they be immunized against common and dangerous infectious diseases, regardless of whether their objections are religious or otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
To play a bit of devil's advocate here: could not the nurse make the exact same argument? The patient's right to be protected ends when it involves injecting a substance into the caregiver. Especially when you consider that if the same caregiver is following proper hygiene for someone in his or her position, chances of infection are already minimal -- even if they got the flu, and even if they actually came into work while infected with the flu.
Not saying that I agree with the nurses' decisions here, but
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Strawman/car analogy FAIL There ARE laws against driving in a such a way to "infringe on the rights of others", so nobody is allowed to drive a car that way.
There SHOULD be laws against religion having any kind of sway over the science that is healthcare. If your religious views conflict with that, drive a bus.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Selfish (Score:5, Interesting)
Also while I know some branches of Christianity are opposed to things like blood transfusions, I have never heard of one being against vaccines or other injections.
Is there a denomination that actually believes this or, is she just using her religion to shield her anti-vaxx beliefs?
Re:How about employers rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Employment is an agreement between two people or legal entities. You do what I say and I'll pay you. If the employees don't want to do what the employer says they need to find another job.
Suck my cock, or I'll fire you. What, you don't like it? Back into the job market with you.
Am I saying there's a direct parallel here? No. Am I saying that what you said is ludicrous? Yes, yes I am.
Re:Herd Immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Influenza mutates fast. As other posters have noted, this year's flu shots are a guess about what last year's strain will evolve into, and to keep costs down, it's a matter of "well it could evolve into this, this or this, but only this one seems to be dangerous".
I've had flu shots for 8 years as a teacher, and I've gotten plenty of flu. Instead of calling us ignorant bible-thumpers (I'm humanist/agnostic-leaning-towards-athiest actually), how about ponying up the evidence?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - which usually means that I'd have to prove flu shots are ineffective. But when billions are spent per year on flu shots, and qualified professionals are fired because they express skepticism, it is suddenly the medical profession making extraordinary claims. "All this expense and disruption is necessary." Show me some evidence.