Pregnant nurse FIRED for refusing risky flu vaccine

Best post on ATS all week! Well said St0rD :-)

St0rD
Reading all the posts above made the last minutes
of my existence very desperating.

I am a Nurse and I couldn't bear all the oppression I've had to endure at the hospital in the last few weeks. They almost forced us to take their so-called 'miracle vaccines' every day of the WHOLE month of November.

For those of you who think that being a nurse in this system equals the duty of being vaccinated... I say complete BS.

If people really wanted to have a strong immune system and healty life, they would do it all by themselves. No need of an exterior human entity (Nurses in this instance) to be vaccinated in order to protect their own lifes.

Seriously, the immune body system is built with the idea of resisting to virus like influenza, no need of vaccination for that.

The thing people don't seem to understand is that in order to be healthy you've got to make some actions in regards to it. But people nowadays don't give a #.

They don't eat well, they don't exercise everyday, they don't sleep well, they are stressed, they are unhappy, all they do is consume entertainment etc etc etc, and then, they complain and beg for a vaccine they think will help protect their miserable life.

Let me tell you something. You want to be protected from virus and bacteria? Don't count on vaccinated hospital staff for that, but work towards it in your own life.

BE healthy, and stop seeking it.

It seems a simple thing to me...and it's ironic given how this is being debated on another topic at the moment, from opposite directions in some cases...on the very same base issue.

A I understand this, taking the flu shot is a contract issue? Failing to follow policy for taking it is a violation...hence the ability to fire both there and in the U.S. on that very issue.

So, someone accepts the work on contractual agreements, finds part of that is no longer acceptable, and doesn't quit but stubbornly refuses. Firing is the result. I don't see the problem here.


Whether it's speech, vaccines or the moral clauses coming to be common in some contracts too? It's still terms of employment from an employer who has the right to set them. If it doesn't work....find one who doesn't or get the terms changed with numbers and protest?

Pardon?

I'll ask again, what risk?
You are assuming that there has to be a risk.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The reporting is almost non-existent, they would need to put a proper reporting system in place to produce accurate results. Fortunately common sense tells us not to inject with Mercury and Aluminium during pregnancy.

The real question is why is it forced on them, not whether they should give in and allow it to be force on them. It's all about money, money has changed hands at high levels, the system is corrupt and rotten to the core. This is about getting rid of the good people, they will scare off the people who understand the dangers of vaccines. They only want the robots who do what Big Pharma say. Junk science is being used to increase Big Pharma profits.

Wrabbit2000
It seems a simple thing to me...and it's ironic given how this is being debated on another topic at the moment, from opposite directions in some cases...on the very same base issue.

A I understand this, taking the flu shot is a contract issue? Failing to follow policy for taking it is a violation...hence the ability to fire both there and in the U.S. on that very issue.

So, someone accepts the work on contractual agreements, finds part of that is no longer acceptable, and doesn't quit but stubbornly refuses. Firing is the result. I don't see the problem here.


Whether it's speech, vaccines or the moral clauses coming to be common in some contracts too? It's still terms of employment from an employer who has the right to set them. If it doesn't work....find one who doesn't or get the terms changed with numbers and protest?

ketsuko
reply to post by whitewave

 

The thing is that it's very easy to point to the negative things connected with shots, but it's not easy to point to the number of people who may have been protected or even saved by shots.

The negatives are very obvious when they happen (assuming, of course, all the negatives were directly caused by the shot), but no one can look at that person who would have caught the flu if not for either them or someone near them taking the shot or maybe even had their life saved by it because it didn't happen which was the whole point.

It makes the anti-vaccine crowd's job easy.

And that very uncertainty factor is the exact reason she should not be expected to risk the health of her baby. Until we all know more about ALL effects of vaccines and how each vaccine effects a particular individual, we should err on the side of caution.

The big advantage to Big Pharma of vaccinating during pregnancy is that if your baby comes out disabled, they say "Genetic, was always going to be born disabled", whereas if your child gets disabled at age 2 after a vaccine, then Big Pharma says "It was nothing to do with the vaccine, just a coincidence" many parents will argue and want compensation. It's beneficial for to Big Pharma for have Autistic newborns, rather than healthy 2 year olds regressing into Autism after a vaccine.

reply to post by Maluhia


I work for a hospital and it was recommended we take it but not mandatory. I suspect that the flu vaccination will be mandatory next year though. Most hospitals in our area already have mandatory vaccinations or employees who refuse are terminated. My previous employer (another local hospital about 30 miles away) had this rule and a few people were fired the year I left. One of the risks of being an "at will" employee.

If I'm forced to take it next year, I will insist on the nasal spray (which I will blow out immediately). I don't care what the FAQ's say, I ALWAYS get sick after getting a flu shot. And, I'm not right for MONTHS afterwards.

I don't even work in the main campus or deal directly with patients. Heck, I'd even wear a mask if I had to go over to the main facility. The only plus I have is that my manager feels exactly like I do about the vaccinations.

whitewave
And that very uncertainty factor is the exact reason she should not be expected to risk the health of her baby. Until we all know more about ALL effects of vaccines and how each vaccine effects a particular individual, we should err on the side of caution.

That's it, it should be made clear from the start that if you agree to be vaccinated you and your baby are guinea pigs.

My wife works in a hospital where it's easy to ask a doctor to sign to say you had the vaccine when you did not, the doctors know flu jabs are based on junk science, they know the system is corrupt. I'm sure you'll find a way of doing this too where you work. The majority of nurses in my wife's hospital avoid the vaccine, but the doctor's happily sign for them.

Freenrgy2
reply to post by Maluhia

 

I work for a hospital and it was recommended we take it but not mandatory. I suspect that the flu vaccination will be mandatory next year though. Most hospitals in our area already have mandatory vaccinations or employees who refuse are terminated. My previous employer (another local hospital about 30 miles away) had this rule and a few people were fired the year I left. One of the risks of being an "at will" employee.

If I'm forced to take it next year, I will insist on the nasal spray (which I will blow out immediately). I don't care what the FAQ's say, I ALWAYS get sick after getting a flu shot. And, I'm not right for MONTHS afterwards.

I don't even work in the main campus or deal directly with patients. Heck, I'd even wear a mask if I had to go over to the main facility. The only plus I have is that my manager feels exactly like I do about the vaccinations.

reply to post by hiddencode


Oh I understand the issue is another one to tear out the old Vaccine Good Vs. Evil debate. That's fine and it's entertaining to watch sometimes. I think I've about given up on it since science gets checked at the door of selective inclusion and quoting almost from the opening notes.


The people who fired her likely didn't give a hoot either way about that debate. There, in policy for a hospital, it said Thou Shall Take Preventative Measures ..or something to that effect. She said no. They said goodbye.

I'd expect no less if I seriously objected to an employer's policy and demand, to the point I simply would not back down. If their demand was legal and proper by standards of society (and this was) then there is a choice. Walk out protesting ...or be thrown out protesting ...but out the protesting employee goes. Such is the way of the world ...and if anything, it's about changing Hospital policies, if that's called for.

Personally, I don't want someone anywhere near my elderly mother, when she's in the Hospital for something else and weak to begin with, who may be a flu carrier by CHOICE of refusing the prophylactic measure. That's just me though, and second to the Employer/Employee issue which seems lost here.

Employee has no right to say no and expect to keep their job. She didn't. Either way.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I don't agree with forced inoculation, but I'll give you "if it's in the contract...". Don't know if it is or how that works. But, she was NOT pregnant when she signed the contract! I believe it says in the article that she got a shot back in 2008. She is not refusing the vaccine to make a stand against "forced flu vaccines" - she is literally fearful for the viability of her pregnancy and the health of her child!

To take such a hard ass stand and fire her is in a nutshell what is becoming a big problem in this country - no compassion, no common sense, no negotiating, no thinking outside the box! Follow the rules, do what we tell you....or else!

reply to post by Maluhia


The Pregnancy issue is a whole different matter and wouldn't that add a complication to bring maternity leave into it? I would be curious why that couldn't have been done through the flu season and where this matters anyway.

She still wouldn't be potentially dangerous to patients but wouldn't have had this kind of Holiday present either.

I dunno..how does that work in the UK for leave on Pregnancy when the Pregnancy is what complicates the situation for work? If that's what you'd point to as making this different, it seems fair to explore?

I don't have the time right now to read the entire thread. However, my stepdaughter (who is a nurse) got a required flu vaccine two years ago. She was pregnant when it was administered. Six hours later she miscarried. One of the first questions her doc asked was, "Did you just get a flu shot?" Only after that did she read the materials handed to her with the shot which recommended that pregnant women NOT take the vaccine because the effects on the fetus had not been studied.
Did the vaccine cause the miscarriage? There is no way to prove that it did but her doctor certainly believes it did and made an official report. However---due to the pharmaceutical company's agreement with the US government, they cannot be held responsible for their product's effects on subjects.
Issues of medical responsibility/irresponsibility are the very reason I left the medical profession, when I realized that a goodly number of the pills being pushed were doing far more harm than good. The attitude that was expressed thusly: Here, take this pill for what ails you. Now, you might have some side effects from this pill that are worse than your original symptoms but we have more pills for those side effects.

Maluhia
reply to post by Snarl

 

The doc's not gonna give you one if it's gonna put you at risk.

Her doctor recommended that she NOT get the shot.

Her doctor wrote a note saying she had anxiety from the shot and given that she had miscarriages before he recommended she be allowed to forego the shot so it didn't cause her more stress. The doctor didn't make a diagnoses of any underlying condition.

Hell, that be the same thing as me walking into work saying that doing spreadsheets give me anxiety (they do), so I don't have to do spreadsheets anymore. (Except I'm my own boss so I'd have to fire myself.)

She should have just taken maternity leave, or looked for a medical establishment with a different policy. Everyone seems to be missing the fact that she worked in a geriatric care facility, not a hospital. Many hospitals allow people to forgo the shot with proper preventative measures.

There are only a few people in here that I would say are American's (I see this has to do with the UK, so no offense or anything) or for freedom in general, otherwise I'd believe we live in a Communist / Liberal fantasy. Mandatory vaccinations? LOL Let's completely circumvent your rights as an individual and just allow the state to make your health care decisions from now on. Welcome to the fourth reich!

Has the current influenza vaccine, in its' current form and mixture, been long term tested on pregnant women and children under the age of 4? Oh, right nope! Are the vaccine manufacturers liable at all for individual cases? NOPE!

So then why would anyone make the demand that they put themselves and their children at risk for unknown effects? Or possibly even death? The only people I know (personally) who have contracted an influenza virus in the past 5 years have had the jab. I've never had the jab and I have never contracted the flu. I've been sick 1 time in the past 8 years.

No job is worth possibly finding out you or your child are the exception to the "rule" (I tend to call it propaganda) with these flu vaccines.

Peace.

Pardon?
As for the comment on the narcolespy, aside from being extremely rare, had they caught the flu itself they would have more than likely developed that very same narcolepsy.
www.newscientist.com...

I was using this example to illustrate that the vaccines are different every year so you can't take a general study on one of the previous vaccines as evidence it is safe. And is it OK that the vaccine triggered this disorder because without it they MAY have caught the flu which MAY have triggered it anyway? Personally I think it is not OK.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Next time you happen to see a box of standard surgical face masks take a look at the small print.

They are effective at the most for 20 minutes to a hour after that their effectiveness is massively reduced, after that time you are getting more protection than the patient is.

According to the [url=http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/GeneralHospitalDevicesandSupplies/PersonalProtectiveEquipment/ucm055977.htm]FDA[/u rl]

While a facemask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a facemask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes or certain medical procedures. Facemasks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the facemask and your face.

OK I didn't know this, but do you accept the flu shot is only about 50-60% effective so perhaps the mask is as effective? The mask will also help protect the patients to an extent in the first stages maybe before the nurse knows she has the flu and stays home but can still pass it on, whereas vaccinated nurse will not be wearing a mask. The mask will also help stop nurse catching the flu as you have said.

Pardon?
Rather than read up about it, go and actually speak to an expert in the matter.
If as your username suggests you live in or near to Liverpool, the Women's Hospital will be happy to speak with you at length to allay any fears. Or you could try Alder Hey hospital.
That's your best bet.
Unless you're able to discern what constitutes proper research and what constitutes nonsensical fear-mongering then I'm afraid using the internet will be counter-productive.

What makes you think I am unable to discern real research from fear mongering, you have no idea what I have read or dismissed? I have spoken with medical professionals and receive the same scripted speil each time, and blank looks when I ask further questions. I think it's really important to research inportant decisions like this so you can be comfortable with your decision.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The Pregnancy issue is a whole different matter and wouldn't that add a complication to bring maternity leave into it? I would be curious why that couldn't have been done through the flu season and where this matters anyway.

That's the question I and others have been asking. A leave of absence, a transfer to a less dangerous area, etc. I've been trying to find more info on this case today, but not much new is out there. Maybe as it gets more publicity - we'll get more info.

reply to post by whitewave


I have a license to practice as an RN but am not working. My final straw was the mandatory flu vaccine. My teaching hospital was an early adopter. I took a religious exemption but told my supervisor it was really a poitical statement and she and her supervisors were quizzical. Why would I refuse to "protect" my patients? This is the standard party guilt trip.

Here as everywhere, many people seem to agree that the healthcare worker owes it to society to agree to being vaccinated. My belief is this is just one more move to make us trade our basic rights for the "job". This will eventually spread to the idea that everyone owes it everyone to receive whatever is deemed "for the good of public health". Public health is a statistical measure. A few deaths/injuries/loss of rights of self determinism is personal but an acceptable statistical risk.

Medical systems needs "measurable" data to show the regulatory agencies the best faith effort to "protect". This kind of mandatory vaccination is not for the public's benefit. It is to "demonstrate" a way to measure "excellence". It matters not if it is more effective than other REAL effective strategies. CEOs count up to 100% compliance and celebrate.

Does this seem like the kind of "health care" a society of free men and women choose?

I am NOT a statistic and this is the fallacy underlying every aspect of the systems we created. Humans are individual and unique and our bodies are created to self repair and heal when given the environment of support (good Florence Nightingale was my heroine).

There is much solid information about alternatives to the flu shot like stress management basic rest, nutrition, treatment of health issues that cause immune dysfunction (not just popping pills to treat symptoms), vitamin D, hand washing.

Do not discount the placebo effect AND the nocebo effect. If I believe the flu shot is a good thing...it will work more effectively. If I am concerned about it or do not think it is for my good, it will possibly harm me.

Considering the truth about how effective the vaccines are, the side effects that have included death to a few, the very sense that our bodies are supposed to be our own to control, an agreement to the vaccine must be individual! The truth about individual health, even the truth of "epidemics" is NOT what is being espoused. I wish nurses and all HCP would be activists for health but I guess the jobs are what count (stupid me).....

Many Massachusetts health care facilities have followed Rhode Island's lead by requiring HCP, under threat of termination, to become vaccinated against influenza.5 Such mandatory vaccination policies have a superficial appeal. The 2012-2013 flu vaccine protects against three influenza viruses - H1N1 virus, H3N2 virus, and an influenza B virus and initial reports indicated that 91 percent of tested virus samples from infected patients this season match one of the three vaccine strains.

Despite its attractive façade, employer mandated immunization policies have limited demonstrated efficacy, ignore less invasive (and more effective) alternatives and threaten to permanently undermine the rights of HCP. Those rights are embodied in the ebb and flow of a century of immunization case law and the development of the concepts of a constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity. Privacy, bodily/medical integrity and constitutional implications

One of the earliest challenges to a mandatory immunization program was the seminal case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, (1905). Jacobson, a Cambridge resident, refused a mandatory smallpox vaccine, challenging a city ordinance requiring the vaccine for all residents.6 Jacobson argued that a "compulsory vaccination law is … hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person." Id at 26. The United States Supreme Court, however, upheld Jacobson's criminal conviction, ruling that "in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand." The court warned, however, that "the police power of a State … may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression."

Jacobson set the stage for over a century of legal wrangling pitting the state's use of its police power in securing the public health against an individual's right to privacy, bodily integrity and to make informed medical decisions.7 Health care providers considering the implementation of a mandatory immunization program should be guided by the development of the constitutional balance with which courts often struggle. This historical balance depends on factors such as the actual threat posed by the disease, the efficacy of the mandate and the impact of the mandate on constitutional rights.

Mandatory vaccination programs against a deadly disease (such as smallpox) or one designed to completely eradicate a contagious, dangerous disease (polio, measles) have been upheld as reasonable exercises of the state police power.. Even the eradication of contagious, serious illnesses (chicken pox) have been upheld as a justified use of police power. The state's police power, however, has not in modern times, been wielded in a situation in which the disease is not deadly and the immunization program is not designed to eradicate the disease.

In the guiding light of these general principles, employers should eschew policies mandating influenza immunization of HCP. Such policies are an unwarranted infringement upon workers' rights when the intrusiveness of such a policy is viewed in light of their limited efficacy and available alternatives.8 www.massbar.org...

The reality in this country is that our laws are crap when it comes to pregnant mothers. We do not have mandatory paid maternity leave and what little leave we have is very short. With my last child I had complications during my pregnancy resulting hospitalization and premature birth. Being that I was hospitalized for the end of my pregnancy, I was forced to return to work while my child was still in the hospital. I had not choice. My maternity leave was up and I would have been with out an income and no way to pay the bills with a child in the NICU. During the couple of weeks I as hospitalized an unable to work due to unpaid maternity leave we were under threat of having our electricity shut off.

We need better laws to protect pregnant women.

Couldn't they have given her other duties to preform where she wouldn't come in contact with patients if they were that worried?

reply to post by calstorm

The reality in this country is that our laws are crap

You could have stopped there.

Sorry to here you went through so much trouble .. Laws here in the US are just becoming silly, passed at the whim of pols who need their egos stroked or payments from their corporate sponsors. Very little real help or protection ever comes through and they usually just end up causing more pain to the people trying to do the right thing.

Stepping off soap box now....