This isn't the same as vaccines--You having sex with your boss would not increase the likelihood of your immunocompromised patients contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
If her boss had any kind of communicable disease and infected rnra with it, she would then be putting her patients at risk.
Not all communicable diseases and transmission routes are equal.
The flu is typically spread by droplets that are spread when an infected person talks, coughs, sneezes, etc. Nurses speak to their patients and inadvertently spread droplets in the patient environment all day (and night) long.
Sexually transmitted diseases typically require contact with mucous membranes. The mucous membranes of a nurse should never be touching those of a patient. Consequently, the risk of a nurse spreading that kind of communicable disease would be very slim compared to the much greater possibility of a nurse spreading one that is droplet-borne.
Health care is first and foremost about the needs of the patient. Requiring health care workers to either get the flu shot or to wear a mask is an effort taken to protect patients. It has nothing to do with "controlling your body" (and heck, all our employers "control our bodies" in a sense, of requiring us to bring our bodies to a certain place at a certain time and use them to perform certain tasks). In fact, you've been offered two different options for what to do with your body, either get the shot or wear a mask. Sexual harassment/assault is an irrelevant and poor analogy, because it carries no benefit--which is the point rnra was making. (Oh, and that analogy is downright offensive to boot.) Some may find the utility of the flu shot in the general population debatable, but patients in the hospital aren't the general population--they're sick and vulnerable, and a case of flu could be a big deal for many of them. If you don't want to take steps to protect them, you should get a job somewhere else.
Health care is first and foremost about the needs of the patient.
This gave me an ironic chuckle. Healthcare is first and foremost about profit.
and what the ins co thinks is best for you regardless of what the dr prescribed....how many times we have been given a specific prescription only to have the ins co try something 'cheaper'..in the end, it costs more, due to illness NOT being treated properly...i have witnessed this over and over with myself and kids in this system. Bottom line is the ins co profits, not patient health.
This gave me an ironic chuckle. Healthcare is first and foremost about profit.
I tried to place myself in a patient shoes…..
Would I be annoyed in I were in the hospital and my nurse did not have her flu shot?
Truthfully - no - how could I be when I do not take the flu shot myself? She is still a person who has a right to decide if the risks of the flu shot are worth it to her.
I would be annoyed as hell if she came to work sick, though! I have seen sick nurses at work.
I know sometimes people are contagious before they show symptoms, but that is true of everyone. It is a risk of living.
I would not mind nurses having to wear a mask in flu season. Certainly the unvaxxed, but perhaps the vaxxed as well if the flu is whipping through the hospital. The flu vaccine is not even close to 100% effective.
There are numerous ways to stay healthy and prevent the spread of infection - sleep well, eat well, mild or moderate use of alcohol only, do not smoke, avoid stress., etc. People who lead a healthy lifestyle can get unlucky and catch stuff, but they are less likely to. Personally, I would prefer to have a person who took care of themselves and was unvaxxed standing in front of me than a cigarette smoking, twinkie-diet vaxxed person, yet no one would think of excluding nurses from being hired based on sleep, eat and drink habits.
Here is an article that discusses that smokers are far more likely to get the flu than non-smokers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco
The stuff on the flu and smoking is under a heading 3/4 of the way down.
"The effect of cigarette smoking upon epidemic influenza was studied prospectively among 1,811 male college students. Clinical influenza incidence among those who daily smoked 21 or more cigarettes was 21% higher than that of non-smokers. Influenza incidence among smokers of 1 to 20 cigarettes daily was intermediate between non-smokers and heavy cigarette smokers.[102]"
Shall health care professional who smoke not be hired - or have to wear masks? I would hope anyone arguing for mandatory flu vaccines for hcp would say yes, otherwise I smell some hypocrisy.
This gave me an ironic chuckle. Healthcare is first and foremost about profit.
In the states.
Why I love having moved back the UK. Canada would also be preferable. Odd country you all live in! ;) (FYI I lived there for 8 years and my husband is American, so I feel I have a great love-hate relationship it!).
We've gone a bit off topic though!
the point here is that the job is not mandatory, but the rules of the job are, and they are given up front and in some of the cases have acceptable if annoying alternatives. whatever you thin k of vaccines, the fact that folks coming to work with the flu are more likely to spread it to patients that may be already very sick is a concern and should be. this seems more ok than for instance making school kids get the shot, since without great hassle there is not a legal alternative for grade school. There is other jobs.
this is akin to me complaining that a job i had a few years back required me to wear a lot of protective gear, some of it really irritated my skin and the googles gave me headaches. we talked about it and a few things could get worked around, i bought my own goggles that had the same safety rating for instance. but other things were in place because of the risks of the role. so i sucked it up and did it. i know another guy who was driven to quit over it and that what his choice. he had a choice to go work in another area, but it was let fun so he choose to quit.
yes a shot if a bigger deal than welding goggles, and yes there are more complex issues around the, but at its heart it is the same thing. rules for a job i wanted, that were laid out and i choose to take the job and keep it, other s did not. all ok chooses, including our employer deciding what safety measures she felt were needed in her shop.
yes a shot if a bigger deal than welding goggles, and yes there are more complex issues around the, but at its heart it is the same thing. rules for a job i wanted, that were laid out and i choose to take the job and keep it, other s did not. all ok chooses, including our employer deciding what safety measures she felt were needed in her shoes.
Fwiw, I have more compassion for those whose employers changed the rules on them after they were hired versus those who are complaining about not being able to apply due to rules they do not like.
None-the-less, hospitals here are funded by our taxes, and I imagine many are in the states as well, so it is not just an "employer can do what he wants" scenario.
I don't think anybody gets a free pass on ethics - making a medical procedure mandatory as a condition of employment is ethically questionable to me. Moreover, letting smokers and others who have high risk factors for developing the flu work while barring non-vaxxed from working sounds discriminatory to me.
This gave me an ironic chuckle. Healthcare is first and foremost about profit.
To the extent to which this is true, it shouldn't be, so what's your point? Do you actually want healthcare entities to care more about profits than they do about patient care? Do you want your health care providers to be in it for the money, or in it because they want to care for patients? Unless you actually WANT your health care to be first and foremost profit-driven, you aren't really accomplishing anything by sniping at my post.
To the extent to which this is true, it shouldn't be, so what's your point? Do you actually want healthcare entities to care more about profits than they do about patient care? Do you want your health care providers to be in it for the money, or in it because they want to care for patients? Unless you actually WANT your health care to be first and foremost profit-driven, you aren't really accomplishing anything by sniping at my post.
I want people to wake up and understand how they are being manipulated and harmed by the current medical system.
i very much agree
None-the-less, hospitals here are funded by our taxes, and I imagine many are in the states as well, so it is not just an "employer can do what he wants" scenario.
in many if not most cases, US hospitals are private, for profit enterprises. though I would be interested to see if a broad poll would show a difference in policies between them and the minority city or county funded hospitals.
and there are a lot of companies that have started barring hiring of smokers, because it adds to missed work days and health insurance cost, some would say that was discriminatory (not me) but i think you are right that medical procedures are in a class be themselves. I guess in this case I'm only ok with it because there are clearly alternatives. if there comes a day when someone could have spent the time and money to became a nurse and then after the fact found that there was no where in the country they could work because this was law, then yes i would have a big problem with it. and yes i do see the side that says, if i would have a problem then, then i need to start working on it now. a kind of "when the came for them, i said nothing" sort of scenario.
This gave me an ironic chuckle. Healthcare is first and foremost about profit.
AMEN!
To OP, if you are worried about harmful chemicals in your vax you should try a heavy metal cleanse. There are many methods... google is your friend :)
I want people to wake up and understand how they are being manipulated and harmed by the current medical system.
Okay, but this thread is about working in the current medical system. So this isn't really relevant.
I work in a healthcare setting and the vax is not yet mandatory for nurses, but they sure try to make it sound like it is! A LOT of the staff there do not want the vax and decline it, which was a pleasant surprise, I was not expecting that at all. I do not agree that NOT getting a flu vax puts patients at risk. I think getting MRSA in a hospital setting, or getting a common cold from a staff member or another patient can put a patient at risk....there are plenty of transmittable illness that can be potentially transmitted...life is risky.
I want people to wake up and understand how they are being manipulated and harmed by the current medical system.
Okay, but this thread is about working in the current medical system. So this isn't really relevant.
Right, but you asked, so I answered.
This gave me an ironic chuckle. Healthcare is first and foremost about profit.
This is simply untrue. Less than 20 percent of hospitals are for-profit organizations. The rest are either government-funded, and operate at a loss, or are non-profit and therefore legally unable to make a profit.
This gave me an ironic chuckle. Healthcare is first and foremost about profit.
This is simply untrue. Less than 20 percent of hospitals are for-profit organizations. The rest are either government-funded, and operate at a loss, or are non-profit and therefore legally unable to make a profit.
"Not for profit" hospitals are only one small part of healthcare. Welcome to MDC.
This is simply untrue. Less than 20 percent of hospitals are for-profit organizations. The rest are either government-funded, and operate at a loss, or are non-profit and therefore legally unable to make a profit.
Hmmm. I'm pulling up much different data: http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml Welcome to MDC, by the way.
Health care is first and foremost about the needs of the patient. Requiring health care workers to either get the flu shot or to wear a mask is an effort taken to protect patients. It has nothing to do with "controlling your body" (and heck, all our employers "control our bodies" in a sense, of requiring us to bring our bodies to a certain place at a certain time and use them to perform certain tasks). In fact, you've been offered two different options for what to do with your body, either get the shot or wear a mask. Sexual harassment/assault is an irrelevant and poor analogy, because it carries no benefit--which is the point rnra was making. (Oh, and that analogy is downright offensive to boot.) Some may find the utility of the flu shot in the general population debatable, but patients in the hospital aren't the general population--they're sick and vulnerable, and a case of flu could be a big deal for many of them. If you don't want to take steps to protect them, you should get a job somewhere else.
I'd readily agree with you if the flu shot were a cut-and-dry intervention. It's common sense to do what protects your vulnerable patients. But this vaccine is such a scientific gray area that hospitals are NOT justified in forcing it unequivocally on their staff:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100216203146.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/
Follow Mothering