or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Is discrimination correct?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is discrimination correct? - Page 2

post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

I have no desire to search out and post about people's vaccine status,

 

Serenbat, you are deliberately misunderstanding me.  I stated that I have no plans or desire to publicize anyone's vax status and that's the truth.  But the idea of being sued for libel over telling the truth is so absurd that it's amusing.

 

Telling someone's "secret" isn't committing a crime.  It's being a crappy friend.  It's not illegal to be a crappy friend, nor should it be.


Edited by chickabiddy - 1/17/14 at 12:27pm
post #22 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

I have no desire to search out and post about people's vaccine status,

 

Serenbat, you are deliberately misunderstanding me.  I stated that I have no plans or desire to publicize anyone's vax status and that's the truth.  But the idea of being sued for libel over telling the truth is so absurd that it's amusing.

 

Telling someone's "secret" isn't committing a crime.  It's being a crappy friend.  It's not illegal to be a crappy friend, nor should it be.

 

 

 

I had used this quote---- I think others can read for themselves

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

If I didn't have a family and a couple of jobs and other things like that that take up my time and energy, I would find it highly amusing to be sued for libel if I simply shared something that someone else had chosen to make public on the Internet.

post #23 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

 

a lot of things in the US were discrimination (if you look back into history) and it only seems to be technically deemed discrimination once it becomes a law, does not mean discriminating against the status regarding vaccine status is not ? NO IMO it simply is not when you compare the exact same thing was once done to those with HIV, now being HIV+ means it is discrimination when applied to working with that person (hiring, etc) ---------so will vaccine status be the next?

 

 

Agreed. 

post #24 of 66

I thought this was a great list of questions an interviewer may ask:

 

http://www.mtu.edu/equity/pdfs/whatyoucanandcantasklongversion8-12-04.pdf

 

Under health, they had this:

 

Health/Physical Condition

 

May ask “Do you have any physical, mental or sensory handicaps which might affect work performance or which should be considered in job placement?”

 

May NOT ask •    “Do you have any handicaps?” or questions that

divulge handicaps which do not relate to the job. •    Any questions regarding having received worker’s

compensation.

 

 

It does not cover vaccination, but it does highlight to me that people do need to be careful in the questions they ask.  

post #25 of 66

There are people with compromised immune systems, they need to know the vaccination status of people around them. 

post #26 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex Home Birther View Post
 

There are people with compromised immune systems, they need to know the vaccination status of people around them. 

They can't, though.  

 

Unless you never leave the house you will not know the vaccine status of everyone around you.

post #27 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

They can't, though.  

 

Unless you never leave the house you will not know the vaccine status of everyone around you.

 

Sure, but you are a lot less likely to catch something walking past someone in a grocery store than you are through close intimate contact of a nurse or health care provider. 

 

A nurse puts IVs in, gives you medication, helps you move and walk around, helps bathe you, takes your blood pressure, changes your dressings, cleans your wounds etc.  Obviously you are a lot more likely to catch something from someone in that scenario than the grocery store one. 

 

Nurses make a deliberate *choice* to work in a field where they are going to have potentially close and intimate contact with people that are immunocompromised.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to take every precaution possible to prevent spreading illness.  No coming to work sick and agreeing to receive certain vaccines are part of that.   

 

Bottom line, comparing expecting people to not go to the grocery store or bank without being up to date on vaccines and expecting health care workers to be up to date on vaccines is not a valid or fair one. 

post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Sure, but you are a lot less likely to catch something walking past someone in a grocery store than you are through close intimate contact of a nurse or health care provider. 

 

 

No, you're more likely to catch something putting your hands on the handles of a shopping cart that , in the previous 12 hours, has been sneezed on by 10 people, coughed on by 7, and spit up or drooled on by 4 babies. Oh, and changing money or signing debit machines that have been coughed on , sneezed on, and touched by people who coughed/sneezed into their hands and scratched their itchy eyes and noses.

 

​And if you take public transportation, there are all the people who would love to stay home because they're sick, but they'll lose their jobs if they stay home, so they pop a decongestant/antihistimine, Advil/Tylenol and lots of coffee and go to work anyway, spreading germs wherever they are.

 

Above all, don't forget the people who think they're not contagious because they got flu shots and DTaP shots--but they're STILL CONTAGIOUS, in some cases, even without symptoms.

post #29 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

If you were immunocompromised you would probably be pretty diligent about hand washing.  If someone who is having a bone marrow transplant decided they want to go to walmart during flu season, well they are taking that risk themselves. I don't think many people in that situation would do that and  I don't think any doctor would ever advise it.  But people who are otherwise following the rules but are hospitalized can't control the fact that they are going to have to be exposed to nurses/doctors and those nurses and doctors should take every precaution possible to prevent spreading illnesses.  

 

And just simply staying home when you're sick isn't enough.  Many many illnesses are contagious before there are any symptoms present. 

 

Can anyone here in all honesty say they would feel no anger towards an unvaccinated nurse/doctor that spread measles to their NICU preemie infant who then ended up getting encephalitis from it? Because that nurse had never received the vaccine and didn't feel like getting it?  Somehow I seriously doubt it. 

post #30 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex Home Birther View Post
 

There are people with compromised immune systems, they need to know the vaccination status of people around them. 

why yes, freshly vaccinated people should be avoid if you have such things as cancer

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

Can anyone here in all honesty say they would feel no anger towards an unvaccinated nurse/doctor that spread measles to their NICU preemie infant who then ended up getting encephalitis from it? Because that nurse had never received the vaccine and didn't feel like getting it?  Somehow I seriously doubt it. 

 Really you think every nurse is vaccinated for measles? you think none are exempt?

 

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/pdfs/70-0241.pdf

http://www.seemayasmin.com/pdf's/Pertussis%20Outbreak.pdf

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm

have cancer, pregnant, HIV/ AIDS, reaction to neomycin, etc

 

we do have to remember there are nearly two whole generations that have been HIV+ from birth, they grow up, and some do work in the health field - are you trying to say their aren't any?

 

Only during flu season do hospitable impose some restrictions on visitors, many hospitable have shared patient rooms, we are not screening visitors nor are we saying how long they can stay visiting. 

 

 

what about a worship service,     you can move but really you can not control who sits by you - communion anyone? 

what about a school class,          you have no right to know the vaccine status of others in your class       

what about having your hair done,  direct contact, very little control on others also being there and close by, not to mention sanitary condition issues

what about waiting in an ER,       you sit, and often wait by who ever and you don't know what they have if anything

what about dinner out,                you don't know who is sitting next to you, who just got up, who is in the kitchen, etc

what about a bus ride…………… anything goes!

 

all of which bring you in close contact if not direct contact with others, all of which last about 45 minutes, your average contact with a medical person is far less than that 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/health/policy/02consumer.html

By comparison, the average doctor’s visit today is around 19 minutes, according to theNational Center for Health Statistics.

post #31 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

 

Can anyone here in all honesty say they would feel no anger towards an unvaccinated nurse/doctor that spread measles to their NICU preemie infant who then ended up getting encephalitis from it? Because that nurse had never received the vaccine and didn't feel like getting it?  Somehow I seriously doubt it. 

I don't think I would be angry at the nurse for not vaccinating.  I don't expect people to vaccinate - nurses included.

 

I do expect people and particulalry nurses/doctors to not go to work sick.

 

If she knowingly went to work sick, I would be mad.  I would be mad at her for going to work sick as the responsibility for staying home when sick is  ultimately hers and I would be mad at the hospital if they had prohibitive sick leave policies.  

 

PS:  I suspect very few people who avoid vaccines avoid them because they "do not feel like getting one."  Nurses, who face a lot of pressure to vaccinate, in particular. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 1/17/14 at 6:21pm
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I don't think I would be angry at the nurse for not vaccinating.  I don't expect people to vaccinate - nurses included.

 

I do expect people and particulalry nurses/doctors to not go to work sick.

 

If she knowingly went to work sick, I would be mad.  I would be mad at her for going to work sick as the responsibility for staying home when sick is  ultimately hers and I would be mad at the hospital if they had prohibitive sick leave policies.  

 

PS:  I suspect very few people who avoid vaccines avoid them because they "do not feel like getting one."  Nurses, who face a lot of pressure to vaccinate, in particular. 

Its not that simple, diseases don't work on an on/off switch. You can spread diseases before symptoms show up at all. 

 

Why would you not be angry at a nurse that caused a preventable death?

post #33 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

My understanding is that the issue is not about making public something someone posted on the internet.  It's about posting someone ELSE'S personal health information on the internet without their permission.

 

Really, children who are not "up-to-date" on the mandated vaccines are treated pretty much the way people who were HIV-positive, decades ago.  And when you think about it, when was the last time parents of an infant required everyone who came near that infant to be tested for AIDS?

 

And before it was AIDS, people in the US were afraid of people of different races and religions.

 

Seems like there is always an excuse for attempting to institute a caste system.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Agreed. 

No, not agreed. Not vaccinating is a deliberate decision made by a person. Comparing that to HIV status or race is simply not an apt comparison. You can't decide not to have HIV anymore or be considered a different race because it would be easier. You can decide to get vaccinated after not being vaccinated for any length of time. 

post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex Home Birther View Post
 

Its not that simple, diseases don't work on an on/off switch. You can spread diseases before symptoms show up at all. 

 

 

 

 

I looked up the flu.  It turns out you are contagious with the flu for 1 day before symptoms show up.

 

I am well aware people can be contagious before symptoms show up.  How contagious and for how long is another issue and disease specific.

 

That people can get diseases and spread them before symptoms show up is not enough to insist everyone vaccinate.  I don't tell people what to do with their own bodies and I acknowledge actions have risks and benefits and everyone ( or their parents) can decide for themselves.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 1/18/14 at 6:14am
post #35 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex Home Birther View Post
 

 

No, not agreed. Not vaccinating is a deliberate decision made by a person. Comparing that to HIV status or race is simply not an apt comparison. You can't decide not to have HIV anymore or be considered a different race because it would be easier. You can decide to get vaccinated after not being vaccinated for any length of time. 

You can reduce the risk you get HIV though.  At least some cases of HIV could have been prevented if people took certain precautions, but they didn't. 

 

In any event, the point is somewhat moot - discrimination is not based on whether or not ones inclusion in a group is voluntary.  Religion is a good example of a voluntary group you should not be discriminated against because you are part of one. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 1/18/14 at 6:50am
post #36 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex Home Birther View Post
 

 

No, not agreed. Not vaccinating is a deliberate decision made by a person. Comparing that to HIV status or race is simply not an apt comparison. You can't decide not to have HIV anymore or be considered a different race because it would be easier. You can decide to get vaccinated after not being vaccinated for any length of time. 

You do understand preventable in regards to vaccine is a misnomer?

Vaccines are not 100% and we are now learning more about being an asymptomatic carrier. Science once thought antibiotics were the cure all, they were handed out like candy, we know now differently. Super Bugs! What if it turns out that asymptomatic carriers are the ones causing most of the outbreaks? Evidence is certainly pointing in that direction. Over vaccination like we found with over use/abuse of antibiotics may be what we find down the road. 

 

 

IMO- Just because you can currently (in some cases) can ask about vaccine status, but not the disease status, of some heath/medical personal does not mean your risk(s) out side of the medical community is not where the greater thread lies. Some seem to feel that they have some sort of "control" if they know the vaccine status and place so much on that, when reality the threats we face are in what we can not know - false security wrapped up in the misguide believe you can control others (impose mandates, etc) for your desired outcome. Lost in the world of preventable meaning absolute to the disregard of all factors.

 

more reading - http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

 

What about all those who can not vaccinate for medical reasons, they to are doing so deliberately? Immune compromised individuals are mostly unvaccinated themselves.

This idea that only those who choose not to vaccinate for non-medical reasons are the only ones that can spread certain diseases and that those who can not vaccinate for medical reasons can not be spreaders appears to be the understanding of some. The assumption that unvaccinated children or adults are just walking bio labs ready to spew at any moment. :eyesroll

 

Kathy really said it best - Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

In any event, the point is somewhat moot - discrimination is not based on whether or not ones inclusion in a group is voluntary.  Religion is a good example of a voluntary group you should not be discriminated against because you are part of one. 

 

you can be really stupid and cause an accident that is totally your fault and become paralyzed, you become disabled, you can not be discriminated against by law - your actions were what caused you to be disabled-voluntary

post #37 of 66

This may be too basic for those of you who have read a lot on the subject but I found this article helpful: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/resources/publications/2013/Firing-Employees-Who-Don-t-Get-Flu-Shots-What-Risks-Do-Hospitals-Face-

post #38 of 66

Interesting article, IdentityCrisisMama!

But it concludes by talking about balancing the hospital's interest in protecting patients from flu exposure; the Cochrane Review has concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers actually protects patients from influenza or resulting complications from influenza.


What kind of balance is that??

post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Interesting article, IdentityCrisisMama!

But it concludes by talking about balancing the hospital's interest in protecting patients from flu exposure; the Cochrane Review has concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers actually protects patients from influenza or resulting complications from influenza.


What kind of balance is that??

True!  Though I think it's written by a lawyer. 

post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Interesting article, IdentityCrisisMama!


But it concludes by talking about balancing the hospital's interest in protecting patients from flu exposure; the Cochrane Review has concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers actually protects patients from influenza or resulting complications from influenza.


What kind of balance is that??

The Cochrane review you're referring to is very specifically on the effect of vaccinating HCWs working in long term care facilities with residents >/= 65 yrs old. It makes no sense to extrapolate that to HCWs working in settings like NICUs, peds units, maternity units, emergency rooms.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Is discrimination correct?