Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Is discrimination correct? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
01-21-2014 09:29 AM
serenbat

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20140111/NEWS01/301100028/Woman-sues-over-hospital-flu-shot

01-19-2014 03:47 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

RE: the hep B shot.

 

There is a federal OSHA form to exempt and refuse the hep B shot.

 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10052

 

If you read the OSHA instructions, employees are still required to use sterile protocol and required to report any needle pricks and be observed and treated, whether or not they are vaccinated with the Hep B shot, so what does the shot protect against if so much protection and follow up is needed?

 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=2570#XIII

 

One cannot be discriminated against for their use of this form. It is in the OSHA law.  Yet, I am sure there are those who can and will make life miserable for those who do; I have seen it done.

 

There is no evidence that being unvaccinated makes a person a carrier of any disease they do not have.  How can you give a person a disease that you do not have or are not carrying? 

 

If you are vaccinated, how do you know you have any protection against the disease you are vaccinated against?  How many people bother to get titre counts?

 

However, there is plenty of evidence that live virus vaccines, MMR, Varicella, Yellow Fever, Flu, and the aP portion of the DTaP shot make the receiver of the vaccine a carrier, spreader, and sharer of the disease for as long as 2-40 days; it is called shedding viruses, except in the case of the aP. Doctors generally do not look for that cause, but it is easier to blame a non-vaxer for your disease. 

 

Because the pertussis vaccines, the wP, documented since the 1940s to be neurologically toxic and the aP being so ineffective, there is currently a new and improved pertussis vaccine in the works - a live bacterial vaccine that will go up the nose like the Flumist. I guarantee that will be a sharing experience for all involved.

 

http://cvi.asm.org/content/18/2/187.abstract

 

thanks for posting this - WOW and how many that want to know about their care providers vaccine status know they can exempt at least from this one?

01-18-2014 06:41 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

However, by 2013, 92.3% of physicians got their flu shots. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/healthcareworkers.htm

This figure comes form an internet survey.  There could be some selection bias.  

 

Another odd thing - the CDC on the front page says 92.3%, but if you follow the links to the survey results, it says 84%  

 

Gack!  Consistency, CDC.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/hcp-ips-nov2013.htm

 

 

 

Another goodie from the above page - reason why HCP got the flu vaccine:

 

 Only 5.6% due it primarily to protect patients.  It kind of puts a damper on the whole "vaccinate for the herd!"

01-18-2014 06:34 PM
kathymuggle

This article discusses influenza vaccinatio rates in the UK and Canada - both countries with fairly non-punitive vaccine policies (although - boo, hiss, BC!)

 

Both have substantially lower HCP flu vaccines rates than the USA.

 

It is interesting that when they are not forced (or whatever you want to call it) into vacination, doctors, who as a group know a lot about medicine, decline it in fairly large numbers.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/canada-vaccinations_b_4593168.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

 

"Officialdom's failure to convince its own health care workers to follow its vaccination policy spans much of the Western world. In the UK, only 46 per cent of health care workers -- slightly less for doctors (45 per cent) and nurses (41 per cent) -- are vaccinated for the flu, despite concerted government efforts…."

 

"" In Alberta, where unvaccinated nurses have been told they may be sent home without pay during flu outbreaks, the government has promised toconsider stronger medicine still if inoculation rates, currently at 40% to 50% for doctors, nurses and other health workers, don't improve."

01-18-2014 04:46 PM
applejuice

What about the other 7.7%?

 

Why was the rate so low before?  Were patients dropping dead from the doctors' lack of boosters?  Why did it take so long, 19 years, to get the flu shot rates up among healthcare workers and doctors?  If the flu shots work so well, why the hard sell?

 

What about the ob/gyns walking around pregnant women without their rubella boosters?  Was congential rubella syndrome suddenly a problem with ob/gyns not up-to-date with their MMR boosters?

 

The fact of the matter is that doctors and healthcare professionals see the damage, reactions, and side effects from the vaccines that they give and do not care to repeat the problem with their own health.

01-18-2014 04:38 PM
chickabiddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

 The American Medical Association's (AMA) Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine cite a 1994 study where approximately 1/3 of doctors were working without mandatory flu vaccines. Yet the same doctors will push every vaccine into your child without citing any of the side effects to look for.

 

 

However, by 2013, 92.3% of physicians got their flu shots. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/healthcareworkers.htm

01-18-2014 04:30 PM
applejuice

Exposure to illness is an occupational hazard for the medical community. Doctors are among the highest risk population groups.   Approximately 66% of pediatricians and obstetricians refused the MMR shot in one study. For shame.  Obstetricians who walk around pregnant women without being up to date with their rubella vaccine! Has anyone ever asked their ob/gyn if they are up to date with their MMR boosters? An equal percentage of doctors refused the Hepatitis B shot, mostly citing safety concerns because of rumors of animal DNA contamination in the shots.  The American Medical Association's (AMA) Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine cite a 1994 study where approximately 1/3 of doctors were working without mandatory flu vaccines. Yet the same doctors will push every vaccine into your child without citing any of the side effects to look for.

 

1) JAMA 1981 Feb 20;245(7):711-3 "Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees. Poor physician participation."

2) Mendelsohn, Dr. Robert, “The Drive to Immunize Adults,” Herald of Holistic Health Newsletter, Sept.-Oct. 1985.

3) Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, Dec. 1996. (AMA).

01-18-2014 04:22 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

If a person deems a vaccine too risky she is free to decline it.  She just has to look for a new job.  Making a choice unattractive is not the same thing as making a choice unavailable.  The choice is still there.

 

 

Sounds simple and logical--but it's not.

 

"Will you hire me?  I was fired for failure to comply with job requirements."  Yeah, that's going to go over really well.

 

My original questions stand unanswered:

 

What ARE all of the ramifications of such a mandate?

If the people choose to leave their jobs rather than to risk their health, what happens to the quality of care offered by the industry?  Remember, these people were chosen for the job because they were deemed to be the most highly-qualified.

If people choose--or agree to be coerced into--accepting the mandate and submitting to the invasive procedure, and then become ill, then what?  They lose their jobs anyway? If the invasive procedure--vaccination--is included in governmental liability protection, what recourse do they have?  Especially if they agreed to the procedure and signed the informed consent form (which may not clearly address the risks anyway)?

01-18-2014 04:17 PM
chickabiddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

In all (almost all?) professions the directive is to protect youself first.  Police, EMT, etc.  

 

If a person deems a vaccine too risky then who is anyone to say they should do it, particularly given the above?

 

If a person deems a vaccine too risky she is free to decline it.  She just has to look for a new job.  Making a choice unattractive is not the same thing as making a choice unavailable.  The choice is still there.

01-18-2014 04:08 PM
applejuice

This guy got his flu shot because he was told the shot was required.  OOPS!  Now he cannot work and his company denies it was required.  Workmen's Comp?  Do not count on it.

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/29/man-suing-bosses-over-complications-from-flu-shot/

01-18-2014 03:54 PM
applejuice

RE: the hep B shot.

 

There is a federal OSHA form to exempt and refuse the hep B shot.

 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10052

 

If you read the OSHA instructions, employees are still required to use sterile protocol and required to report any needle pricks and be observed and treated, whether or not they are vaccinated with the Hep B shot, so what does the shot protect against if so much protection and follow up is needed?

 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=2570#XIII

 

One cannot be discriminated against for their use of this form. It is in the OSHA law.  Yet, I am sure there are those who can and will make life miserable for those who do; I have seen it done.

 

There is no evidence that being unvaccinated makes a person a carrier of any disease they do not have.  How can you give a person a disease that you do not have or are not carrying? 

 

If you are vaccinated, how do you know you have any protection against the disease you are vaccinated against?  How many people bother to get titre counts?

 

However, there is plenty of evidence that live virus vaccines, MMR, Varicella, Yellow Fever, Flu, and the aP portion of the DTaP shot make the receiver of the vaccine a carrier, spreader, and sharer of the disease for as long as 2-40 days; it is called shedding viruses, except in the case of the aP. Doctors generally do not look for that cause, but it is easier to blame a non-vaxer for your disease. 

 

Because the pertussis vaccines, the wP, documented since the 1940s to be neurologically toxic and the aP being so ineffective, there is currently a new and improved pertussis vaccine in the works - a live bacterial vaccine that will go up the nose like the Flumist. I guarantee that will be a sharing experience for all involved.

 

http://cvi.asm.org/content/18/2/187.abstract

 
01-18-2014 03:51 PM
kathymuggle

In all (almost all?) professions the directive is to protect youself first.  Police, EMT, etc.  

 

If a person deems a vaccine too risky then who is anyone to say they should do it, particularly given the above?

01-18-2014 03:40 PM
chickabiddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

What if they had to agree to something with equally low but real risks, and unproven benefits, like...a tattoo?  Would that be legal, for a vital industry to mandate that their workers receive a tattoo, just because the tattoo industry claimed it had a positive effect on patients?

 

There is evidence (http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/resources/adult_immunization/flu_hcw.pdf) that flu vaccine leads to lower mortality.  I understand that there is also some evidence in the other direction.  Right now, for the purposes of answering *this question*, I do not wish to debate which evidence is stronger.  I will say that if there was biological plausibility (stole that phrase from another debate, thanks!) and supporting evidence that caduceus tattoos led to lower mortality rates in patients, then hospitals might be justified in requiring them.

 

To get back to the original topic of this thread, I dislike the idea that choices do not have consequences.  People are free to make lots of choices.  Sometimes those choices lead to consequences.  Choosing to be loudly and publicly anti-vax may lead to people questioning those choices.  (It could work the other way, too, I guess.)  Choosing not to get a required vaccine may result in being reassigned or fired if an employer requires that vaccine.  Yes, people have the right to choose to not vaccinate.  They do not have the right to have everybody approve of that choice.

 

Same goes for free speech.  I have the right to exercise my free speech and Facebook or Twitter about behind-the-scenes stuff at my job.  It's perfectly legal for me to do so.  I'd probably get fired.  It's also perfectly legal for my employer to fire me for exercising my legal right to free speech.  My right is absolute but it is not free of consequences.

01-18-2014 03:11 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

I do too.  I also think one of the cons can be losing a job if a vaccine is required.

 

People have the right to not vaccinate.  People do not have the right to keep a job if they won't fulfill the requirements.

 

Good point.

 

But does the health care industry have the right to mandate for their workers an invasive procedure that has not been scientifically proven to be safe and effective?

 

What ARE all of the ramifications of such a mandate?

If people choose to leave their jobs rather than to risk their health, what happens to the quality of care offered by the industry?

If people choose--or agree to be coerced into--accepting the mandate and submitting to the invasive procedure, and then become ill, then what?  They lose their jobs anyway? If the invasive procedure--vaccination--is included in governmental liability protection, what recourse do they have?  Especially if they agreed to the procedure and signed the informed consent form (which may not clearly address the risks anyway)?

 

What if they had to agree to something with equally low but real risks, and unproven benefits, like...a tattoo?  Would that be legal, for a vital industry to mandate that their workers receive a tattoo, just because the tattoo industry claimed it had a positive effect on patients?

01-18-2014 02:31 PM
chickabiddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
  I argue everyone has the right to weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.  

 

I do too.  I also think one of the cons can be losing a job if a vaccine is required.

 

People have the right to not vaccinate.  People do not have the right to keep a job if they won't fulfill the requirements.

01-18-2014 01:55 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Even if the flu vaccine were 100% effective, I don't think you can force people, including HCP's, to use it. 

 

While this discussion of flu vaccine effectiveness is interesting (although many of us have been down this garden path before) it is only relevant if one argues that a vaccine should be mandatory for whomever at a certain level of effectiveness.  I do not argue this.  I argue everyone has the right to weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.  

 :clap

01-18-2014 01:37 PM
kathymuggle

Even if the flu vaccine were 100% effective, I don't think you can force people, including HCP's, to use it. 

 

While this discussion of flu vaccine effectiveness is interesting (although many of us have been down this garden path before) it is only relevant if one argues that a vaccine should be mandatory for whomever at a certain level of effectiveness.  I do not argue this.  I argue everyone has the right to weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.  

01-18-2014 01:25 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

The Cochrane Review is VERY CLEAR that flu shots have, at best, a modest effect:  under the very best of circumstances (an exact match to viral strains, plus ONLY looking at 40-65-year-old HEALTHY adults), 33 people need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of flu symptoms.  Not one death, ONE CASE.

 

 

slightly OT but I will tell of a person I know has been "trying" to do a yearly blood drive - finding people that are not on medications has been a nightmare! The 40+ group is where it starts, she told me out of every 10 people she asks, she finds maybe 3 if she is lucky that are not on meds, but out of them maybe 1 is will to donate, most FEAR needles! She has been doing this going on 4 years, a "good turn out" is 25+ people! This is an all day event, she must have 25 committed or they won't even come out from the blood bank to do the drive. 

01-18-2014 01:19 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post
 

Neonates, for instance, can't get vaccinated against flu while people over 65 are in a demographic very likely to get the vaccine annually, as well as the pneumonia vaccine, especially in a long term care facility. You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?  

Are you lumping in 65+ in retirement facilities as the same those 65+ in acute care facilities?

 

In the nursing homes in my area, the people I know that work at them and the one I frequent most often to to visit someone I know, these places are not for those who don't want to live on their own or need a little assistance, they are for those with chronic health issues, auto-immune disorders and especially those with cancer - all of which comprise a large population of those who are not candidates for the flu or the pneumonia vaccine. Most place now have in-house hospice centers as well, so there are terminal patients as well.

 

And I do not even understand this sentence -  You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?  

 

You say the 65+ are more likely to be vaccinated - I IRL find this not at all true, yet somehow that status of the 65+ has the workers having a protective effectheadscratch.gif I really don't know what you might mean here.

01-18-2014 01:05 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post
 

Neonates, for instance, can't get vaccinated against flu while people over 65 are in a demographic very likely to get the vaccine annually, as well as the pneumonia vaccine, especially in a long term care facility. You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?  


But the Cochrane Review has also concluded that flu shots are ineffective on people over 65!  So it doesn't matter if they get the flu shot annually, if it doesn't work, anyway.

 

Neonates can't get vaccinated for the flu--but infants and toddlers under the age of 2 can't be given FluMist (which is actually somewhat effective), and the flu SHOT is (again, according to the Cochrane Review) ineffective for infants and toddlers.

 

The Cochrane Review is VERY CLEAR that flu shots have, at best, a modest effect:  under the very best of circumstances (an exact match to viral strains, plus ONLY looking at 40-65-year-old HEALTHY adults), 33 people need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of flu symptoms.  Not one death, ONE CASE.

 

Under average conditions (not an exact strain match, but still only considering HEALTHY adults), 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of flu symptoms.

 

Since when has it EVER been ethically acceptable to recommend an invasive procedure that has caused autoimmune disorders, paralytic disorders, and death, when only 1/100 have a mild benefit?

01-18-2014 12:09 PM
Katie8681

Neonates, for instance, can't get vaccinated against flu while people over 65 are in a demographic very likely to get the vaccine annually, as well as the pneumonia vaccine, especially in a long term care facility. You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?  

01-18-2014 11:36 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post


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.

I disagree as well. Same as what Kathy said, It is not as if the method of transmission changes from demographic to demographic. 

It's the same disease too.

 

Do you have anything to back up your claims? A study done in the areas you stated that show the opposite is true?

 

We are constantly being told the demography with the 65+ are at the same risk as those in the under 5 crowd and HCW are HCW in both types of medical facilities.

 

ETA- with the  Cochrane Review there was ability to view this is a longer setting with those patients and gather more data vs short term visits in the setting you mentioned

01-18-2014 11:30 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Wisconsin has a bill before legislature that will  prohibit employers from discriminating against those who refuse a seasonal flu shot.

 

I don't know what has come of it - but I expect it will be squashed.  Who knows though?  Will the tides change?

 

http://www.tlnt.com/2013/11/26/wisconsin-bill-would-prohibit-discrimination-for-refusing-flu-vaccine/

I think as with other social issues it takes one state to step up and this really is a much larger issue, not simply vaccines (it is a start) but this gets to the heart of civil liberties and health care choices and many see this as a small step in a much MUCH larger tipping point. Many that DO support vaccines no not support the mandated part and that is why I do have hope for it passing.

01-18-2014 11:22 AM
kathymuggle

Wisconsin has a bill before legislature that will  prohibit employers from discriminating against those who refuse a seasonal flu shot.

 

I don't know what has come of it - but I expect it will be squashed.  Who knows though?  Will the tides change?

 

http://www.tlnt.com/2013/11/26/wisconsin-bill-would-prohibit-discrimination-for-refusing-flu-vaccine/

01-18-2014 11:15 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post
 

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-

Nice article.  I liked this part :

 

"Union and non-union hospitals should consider the potential for discrimination claims based on a flu vaccination policy that requires any group of employees to get a flu shot or face adverse consequences (such as discharge) if they fail to do so for any reason.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would likely find such a policy to be unlawful.  The EEOC has taken the position in its “Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” guidance that

“[a]n employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine. This would be a reasonable accommodation barring undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). Similarly, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (“more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).” 

www.eeoc.gov/facts/pandemic_flu.html - 48k - 2009-10-21"

01-18-2014 11:06 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post


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.

I disagree.

You get the flu by inhaling droplet of moisture from  someone who has the flu.

 

If the healthcare workers do not have the flu, they cannot spread the flu…and yet vaccination does not seem to be decreasing the rate at which those in long term care facilies get the flu.  

 

It is not as if the method of transmission changes from demographic to demographic. 

01-18-2014 10:04 AM
Katie8681
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.
01-18-2014 09:39 AM
IdentityCrisisMama
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. 

01-18-2014 08:49 AM
Taximom5

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??

01-18-2014 08:43 AM
IdentityCrisisMama

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-

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off