W. Va Hospitals Will Fire Unvaccinated Workers

[FireDancer]

The same is true for Bubonic plague for that matter. If you think I was referring to exotic bugs that rarely touch our shores, when I said that you'd be mistaken. There are plenty of "normal" bugs that are capable of killing or maiming. The last wave of H1N1, for example, had a noted streak of killing outside of the normal playbook and striking down perfectly healthy people like yourself with perfectly functioning immune systems, who took vitamins, who exercised regularly, had positive outlooks on life, etc. And you also don't have to die to be affected for life. One of my grandfathers lost a significant portion of his hearing due to a case of plain ol' Measles.

All of that is true. There are risks I am willing to take in life and there are some I am not. Risking the flu and the possibility it will kill me is just a risk I am willing to take. I am confident that I will not be permanently effected by it. Nothing more and nothing less. Of course I could turn out to be wrong but such is life.

 

[Geoff_M]

All of that is true. There are risks I am willing to take in life and there are some I am not. Risking the flu and the possibility it will kill me is just a risk I am willing to take. I am confident that I will not be permanently effected by it. Nothing more and nothing less. Of course I could turn out to be wrong but such is life.

So be it... just don't pretend that the consequences of your personal choice begins and ends with you. I also find it hard to understand the calculus in rejecting a prevention that carries a recognized approximate 1:1,000,000 risk of adverse reaction (most of which are 100% recoverable) in favor of risking a common illness that carries an approximate 1:10,000 risk of lethality. Bonne chance...

 

[FireDancer]

So be it... just don't pretend that the consequences of your personal choice begins and ends with you. I also find it hard to understand the calculus in rejecting a prevention that carries a recognized approximate 1:1,000,000 risk of adverse reaction (most of which are 100% recoverable) in favor of risking a common illness that carries an approximate 1:10,000 risk of lethality. Bonne chance...

Perhaps I am just less risk averse then you. Perhaps I only resort to drugs (including vaccines) when absolutely necessary and not as a prevention when I feel my lifestyle is sufficient prevention.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and each do what we feel is the right thing for ourselves. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, I intern don't want to be told what to do.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

People do realize that the biggest spreaders of influenza is well documented to be.....

Children, right?

Specialists in tracking influenza have long recognized that children are prime spreaders of the disease, and the Boston findings appear to provide further evidence of the virus' migration from the young to the older.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/01/swine_flus_impa.html?camp=localsearch:on:twit:health

Why is it so important for children, even those who are older and healthier, to receive the flu vaccine?

Well it's important that they don't catch the flu and that they don't transmit it to other people. If they are healthy, and don't have asthma, they're not necessarily going to be seriously harmed by the flu, but they can spread it. They live in families, and go to school in big groups. Children are a big pool of influenza virus, so to speak.

http://www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom/Site1339/mainpageS1339P351sublevel466.html

So... since children are well known and well documented to be MAJOR spreaders of influenza, is everyone ready to subject their children to mandatory flu vaccines?

Or is this going to be a case of "Not in my backyard" or "Good for the goose but not the gander?" once it's your own child and not a anonymous health care worker?

Just wondering.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I asked you earlier in teh thread to eplain which freedoms are being given up in this scenario and you didn't respond.

sbell, I make it a point to not respond to you because I see much of what you write to me and others as baiting. I have chosen to not pick up the bait.

We just really don't see eye-to-eye on this at all!

I agree with the fact that no one should be able to force me to put a chemical/foreign body/whatever into my body.
It should be my choice.

I still view this as the hospital workers do have a choice! They just forfeit their jobs for making a certain choice.
I don't see how that negates freedom or any of the values of our country. They are welcome to leave and find another job and there are other hospitals in Charleston and the surrounding area.
If CAMC weren't an hour from here I'd happily deliver my baby there rather than the local hospital ... because now I know they are all vaccinated.

I do believe that the hospital is enforcing this rule to try to save the lives of their patients and employees and I think they are well within their (constitutional) rights to do so.
The first few deaths of H1N1 (which I know is not the vaccine they're mandating) were ALL in Charleston. Then it slowly spread to my town. I have friends that go to college there and they said it was crazy when people started dying.

We likely won't see eye-to-eye because it sounds like we're from two different generations and two different parts of the country. It sounds like you're about 20 years younger than I am (I'm in my 40's) and it also sounds like jobs are plentiful where you are (we're in a Depression here in Michigan). If you are in your 20's, then I remember freedoms from my childhood and in my 20's that you'll never have, therefore you will never miss them because you never knew them. I, however, miss them sorely and am sad to see even more freedoms being handed over in exchange for a false sense of safety; security that never materializes although there's always someone to blame for why that happened.

As for getting another job, if this case had happened here in Michigan, it would be a choice between taking a foreign chemical into your body (against your will) that might have a negative health impact on you either now or in your 60's, or be homeless within six months. Here you're more likely to die from cancer or diabetes due to lack of health insurance than you are of someone else giving you a case of influenza.

People do realize that the biggest spreaders of influenza is well documented to be.....

Children, right?

So... since children are well known and well documented to be MAJOR spreaders of influenza, is everyone ready to subject their children to mandatory flu vaccines?

Or is this going to be a case of "Not in my backyard" or "Good for the goose but not the gander?" once it's your own child and not a anonymous health care worker?

Just wondering.

That's what a lot of this seems to be: OK for others, but NIMBY if it impacts me or my children. Unfortunately, if this kind of thing is not fought against now while its in its infancy, by the time things like this get to you or your children, there will be no one left to fight for your rights.

 

[Piecey]

We likely won't see eye-to-eye because it sounds like we're from two different generations and two different parts of the country. It sounds like you're about 20 years younger than I am (I'm in my 40's) and it also sounds like jobs are plentiful where you are (we're in a Depression here in Michigan). If you are in your 20's, then I remember freedoms from my childhood and in my 20's that you'll never have, therefore you will never miss them because you never knew them. I, however, miss them sorely and am sad to see even more freedoms being handed over in exchange for a false sense of safety; security that never materializes although there's always someone to blame for why that happened.

As for getting another job, if this case had happened here in Michigan, it would be a choice between taking a foreign chemical into your body (against your will) that might have a negative health impact on you either now or in your 60's, or be homeless within six months. Here you're more likely to die from cancer or diabetes due to lack of health insurance than you are of someone else giving you a case of influenza.

Fair enough.
I'm 22. I live north of Charleston in one of the richer parts of the state (I don't mean that to sound uppity, it's just true because West Virginia has so much poverty in places) and while the area has been hit hard by the economy no one I know has been directly hurt by it. Plants have closed and even my dad's plant has shut down over half their production but he still has a job.
I'm sure that changes the way I see this, too.

I still just think that if people are that desperate for their jobs they will take the vaccine.
I can even understand more of an outrage if it were the H1N1 because all sorts of people are wishy-washy on whether or not it was put together properly before being released.

But we're talking about the seasonal flu vaccine. I've never met someone who refused to get the seasonal flu shot so that just makes this whole thing a little absurd to me.

In my local area the hospitals constantly have ads in the paper. Maybe Charleston is different, but like I said before... I have friends that drive from here to Charleston to work because the hospitals paid more because they needed the employees.

 

[lsyorke]

The problem is, these healthcare workers are not just taking chances with their own health. They are taking them with the very lives of their patients.

No, they properly use universal precautions which protect any patient much more comprehensively than any vaccine.

Ummm, just above, two medical professionals stated that they don't have the freedom to take off simply because they are sick. Therefore, medical professionals ARE compromising the health of their patients.
I think that you are wrong. Here's why:

Lets say that you come into contact with five medical professionals while in the hospital and you receive five visitors. If no one is vaccinated and the flu is especially bad, your odds of being exposed by these people might be as high as ten out of ten, right? Now, imagine that you are in a hospital that required all of it's staff to be vaccinated. Now, your odds of being exposed by these people are reduced to five in ten. Given that many (most?) sick people will not visit someone in the hospital, your true odds would be much less.

This is assuming that the patient has not been vaccinated.....which if they are such a high risk would place some of the "protection" burden on them. Their exposure in a hospital using precautions(a standard of all hospitals) is far less then their exposure in the general public. Flu vaccines have historically been less than 100% protective from all strains....so once again, this is a feel good measure for the hospital.

The goal should be enforcing universal precautions and not insisting on employees coming to work sick.


The Hippocratic Oath makes no reference to being forced to personally ingest any substance to fulfull a hospitals employment requirement.
Health professionals have rights like any other citizen when it comes to their own bodies.....as evidence by the court decision in New York State.

 

[locolala]

I was vaccinated as a child, vaccines wear off. Had I known that I was going to get pregnant, I would have had a booster shot done before I ever got pregnant. I knew the vaccine was going to wear off this month, but since I didn't expect to get pregnant I wasn't concerned as I planned to get it reupped when needed. Now that I am pregnant, I can't get the vaccine until the baby comes.

Yes, my child will have every single shot the doctors recommend, even *gasp* the H1N1 and the Guardasil. It's called being a responsible parent.

 

[FireDancer]

Yes, my child will have every single shot the doctors recommend, even *gasp* the H1N1 and the Guardasil. It's called being a responsible parent.

This statement makes it sound as though you are calling parents that don't get their child every vaccine irresponsible. That is not the case. There are people who get every vaccine, people who get none, and people who are just selective and make the decision based on the particular vaccine.

All of these people are equally responsible because they are choosing what they think is best for their child. Some parents raise their children as vegetarians, some vegan, some with diets that include meat. None of them are right or wrong, they are choices.

To press your choice on another parent just because you think it is what is right is wrong. Everyone can make their own conclusions and those conclusions should be honored even though at the moment some institutions do not.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I still just think that if people are that desperate for their jobs they will take the vaccine.
I can even understand more of an outrage if it were the H1N1 because all sorts of people are wishy-washy on whether or not it was put together properly before being released.

But we're talking about the seasonal flu vaccine. I've never met someone who refused to get the seasonal flu shot so that just makes this whole thing a little absurd to me.

In my local area the hospitals constantly have ads in the paper. Maybe Charleston is different, but like I said before... I have friends that drive from here to Charleston to work because the hospitals paid more because they needed the employees.

Piecey, this is not just about jobs. It's about personal freedoms. Freedoms that our founding fathers gave their lives for. Freedoms which are currently still sacred in this country.

The issue will get murky because lawmakers will have to balance public good with personal freedoms. We'll have plenty of debates and disagreements about whether the current influenza "crisis" warrants public safety to supercede personal freedoms. Lawyers on both sides are sharpening their pencils as we speak and it should be a really interesting debate to watch.

In the meantime, employers can go ahead and fire their workers who do not want to submit to injections against their wills. And those workers will have a right to fight those firings. Those in New York will be leading the way in the fight.

Here's an example of what we have to look forward to: http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawan...date-on-new-york-mandatory-h1n1-vaccinations/

Food for thought, from the health care worker's perspective:

In addition to the lawsuits challenging the New York mandate, the New York Civil Liberties Union testified before the New York State Assembly Committees on Health, Labor, Education, Higher Education and Workplace Safety, and sent a letter to Mr. Daines explaining that the mandate “conflicts with well established legal principles and public health policy” and “violates the right of competent adults to direct the course of their medical care and treatment.” The NYCLU argues the H1N1 vaccine is distinguishable from other mandatory vaccines because the mortality rate for those who contract H1N1 is lower (compared to smallpox), and the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing the disease, treating it, or preventing transmission (unlike the vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella, diphtheria, polio, and tuberculosis). Furthermore, the NYCLU points out that,

“If significant numbers of health care workers refuse to be inoculated and are fired, health care facilities could be seriously understaffed at the very moment HINI is expected to cause a surge in hospital visits. And if health care workers are confused and upset about compulsory vaccinations, what are their patients to think? As reports of health care workers refusing vaccinations become public, confusion and worry will grow in the general population. And even if vaccination is the appropriate medical option for individuals, people may become increasingly reluctant to choose that option.”

Part of the reasoning behind the mandate is to keep health care workers healthy, so they can care for patients. New York already has a shortage of nurses, and maximizing the number of working nurses will be critical if H1N1 causes an influx of patients. As the NYCLU points out, however, if a significant number of nurses (and other health care workers) are fired because they refuse the vaccination, the mandate will prevent many healthy nurses from caring for patients. George Annas, professor of health law and bioethics at Boston University School of Public Health, adds that “if enough physicians and nurses refuse vaccination, the mandate will be unenforceable, since no responsible public health official would try to close a hospital for failure to comply with the mandate in the midst of a flu epidemic.” How many health care workers would choose dismissal over vaccination? Enough to close a hospital? More than how many, without the mandate, would miss work after catching the flu? How will these changes in staff size and flu exposure impact patient health?

 

[Geoff_M]

All of these people are equally responsible because they are choosing what they think is best for their child. Some parents raise their children as vegetarians, some vegan, some with diets that include meat. None of them are right or wrong, they are choices.

While I won't go so far as to label such parents as "irresponsible", yours is vacuous argument. Something being "What the parent thinks best" doesn't in and of itself make it an equal exchange that is beyond criticism. Would you say that a parent that has decided that "faith healing" is what's "best" for their sick child is likewise neither "right" nor "wrong", but instead just a different choice?

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

I was vaccinated as a child, vaccines wear off. Had I known that I was going to get pregnant, I would have had a booster shot done before I ever got pregnant. I knew the vaccine was going to wear off this month, but since I didn't expect to get pregnant I wasn't concerned as I planned to get it reupped when needed. Now that I am pregnant, I can't get the vaccine until the baby comes.

Yes, my child will have every single shot the doctors recommend, even *gasp* the H1N1 and the Guardasil. It's called being a responsible parent.

What does keeping up on the vaccines have to do with being pregnant? Is that the only reason to stay up to date and count on other people to keep you healthy?

I hope your little one doesn't have problems with the vaccines. Crow is pretty nasty. I have one egg allergy in the crew. I had another child spend 24 hours screaming in pain and three days in the hospital after his second Dtap. So much for words like always and every. Actually being a parent teaches you that. It is much more difficult with real children rather than the gonna be kids.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

While I won't go so far as to label such parents as "irresponsible", yours is vacuous argument. Something being "What the parent thinks best" doesn't in and of itself make it an equal exchange that is beyond criticism. Would you say that a parent that has decided that "faith healing" is what's "best" for their sick child is likewise neither "right" nor "wrong", but instead just a different choice?

While I am in the "allow people to make their own choices group" I agree with your statement. I could be blamed for risking my kids after our family had a problem with eggs. Or if one of the other kids got sick from the disease being vaccinated against, because I did not vaccinate, I'd still be theoretically responsible. People want to blame others all of the time. Merely so they can feel superior. IMO.

You are pretty much darned if you do and darned if you don't.

 

[FireDancer]

While I won't go so far as to label such parents as "irresponsible", yours is vacuous argument. Something being "What the parent thinks best" doesn't in and of itself make it an equal exchange that is beyond criticism. Would you say that a parent that has decided that "faith healing" is what's "best" for their sick child is likewise neither "right" nor "wrong", but instead just a different choice?

If you are asking if I would support the decision of a parent who refused medical attention and opted for faith healing, yes I would. I don't agree with it but it isn't about what I or you or even the majority believe, it is about the right to make your own decisions.

Unless it is against the law I never impose my beliefs on anyone and don't want theirs imposed on me. Full Stop. It isn't about what is right and wrong, it is about the freedom to make that choice for yourself and your children.

 

[sbell111]

So... since children are well known and well documented to be MAJOR spreaders of influenza, is everyone ready to subject their children to mandatory flu vaccines?

Sure. The vaccine is already on the 'mandatory' list for my little girl.

sbell, I make it a point to not respond to you because I see much of what you write to me and others as baiting. I have chosen to not pick up the bait.

And I see that answer is a refusal to admit that you cannot provide a good answer to the question.

If you are in your 20's, then I remember freedoms from my childhood and in my 20's that you'll never have, therefore you will never miss them because you never knew them. I, however, miss them sorely and am sad to see even more freedoms being handed over in exchange for a false sense of safety; security that never materializes although there's always someone to blame for why that happened.

You and I are roughly the same age. What freedoms did I have twenty years ago that I no longer have?

As for getting another job, if this case had happened here in Michigan, it would be a choice between taking a foreign chemical into your body (against your will) that might have a negative health impact on you either now or in your 60's, or be homeless within six months. Here you're more likely to die from cancer or diabetes due to lack of health insurance than you are of someone else giving you a case of influenza. That's what a lot of this seems to be: OK for others, but NIMBY if it impacts me or my children. Unfortunately, if this kind of thing is not fought against now while its in its infancy, by the time things like this get to you or your children, there will be no one left to fight for your rights.

No, they properly use universal precautions which protect any patient much more comprehensively than any vaccine.

According to a previous poster's data, universal precautions are not always used.

This is assuming that the patient has not been vaccinated.....which if they are such a high risk would place some of the "protection" burden on them.

Really? If a person cannot take the vaccine because they are allergic to eggs (or any number of other valid medical reasons) and they are infected with the flu because some 'medical professional' didn't take the vaccine, it's their fault? How do you figure?

Their exposure in a hospital using precautions(a standard of all hospitals) is far less then their exposure in the general public.

You know, I visited the hospital on a number of occasions during the heat of this falls flu pandemic. Based solely on what I saw, I would guess that your chance of catching the flu in the hospital is much, much greater than in other aspects of your daily life.

Flu vaccines have historically been less than 100% protective from all strains....so once again, this is a feel good measure for the hospital.

Just because the vaccine doesn't work against each and every strain of teh flu is no reason not to protect patients against the strains that it does protect against.

The goal should be enforcing universal precautions and not insisting on employees coming to work sick.

Unfortunately, emergency departments need to remain staffed.

The Hippocratic Oath makes no reference to being forced to personally ingest any substance to fulfull a hospitals employment requirement.
Health professionals have rights like any other citizen when it comes to their own bodies.....as evidence by the court decision in New York State.

The situation presented by the OP is certainly unlike that covered by the NY decision. No rights are being violated here.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

Unfortunately, emergency departments need to remain staffed.The situation presented by the OP is certainly unlike that covered by the NY decision. No rights are being violated here.

Hospitals need to remain staffed, but they need to do so by hiring adequate staffing. Instead, they cut staff, and then insist nurses show up whether they are ill or not, and try to cut their losses with the madatory vaccine.

Not cool, imo. I admit to being biased as a nurse's daughter!

 

[sbell111]

Hospitals need to remain staffed, but they need to do so by hiring adequate staffing. Instead, they cut staff, and then insist nurses show up whether they are ill or not, and try to cut their losses with the madatory vaccine.

Not cool, imo. I admit to being biased as a nurse's daughter!

Even if they were fully staffed and didn't have a problem with people using their sick time, someone could still show up at work with the flu. Requiring people to be vaccinated minimizes the risk that someone will show up with the flu and infect other people.

 

[Geoff_M]

The situation presented by the OP is certainly unlike that covered by the NY decision. No rights are being violated here.

Technically, I don't think that there actually was a a "decision" in the NY case. The judge imposed a temporary restraining order blocking the rule from taking effect pending a formal hearing at a later date. However, it became moot because before the hearing could take place NY health officials suspended the rule when they realized that they wouldn't have enough H1N1 vaccine on-hand in order to meet the deadline. I think it's safe to say that the temporary order has since expired.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

Even if they were fully staffed and didn't have a problem with people using their sick time, someone could still show up at work with the flu. Requiring people to be vaccinated minimizes the risk that someone will show up with the flu and infect other people.

Of course, someone could. Most have more sense than that. Again, I do admit to a bias.

 

[Geoff_M]

If you are asking if I would support the decision of a parent who refused medical attention and opted for faith healing, yes I would. I don't agree with it but it isn't about what I or you or even the majority believe, it is about the right to make your own decisions.

Thanks, that explains a lot. I must admit, the scope of your moral relativism is quite breathtaking. And legally, such rights don't exist. One person's "choice" in child rearing can in fact be "wrong" and not worthy to be "honored"... morally and legally.