It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
I'll ask again, what risk?
You are assuming that there has to be a risk.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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