jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (36 posts)

Flu Shots, Human Rights Vs. Corporate Rights

  1. kittythedreamer profile image95
    kittythedreamerposted 3 years ago

    So how about these nurses who have gotten fired because they refused the mandatory flu shots? The hospital that these nurses worked at for years in Indiana began requiring flu shots this year, and eight or nine of them refused...and they were all fired. Understandable that the hospital wants to protect its patients, but what about protecting its employees basic human rights? Thoughts?

    1. Dale Hyde profile image88
      Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In such a work environment you have people with weak immune systems that are more likely to suffer dire consequences from contracting the flu.  As a health-care professional, I feel that you should have to  take the shot to protect the patients.  You have to look at the health of the patients first in this instance.

    2. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why did most nurses accept it? Inoculation, vaccination, contraceptives are designed to protect us from contact with the world. Nurses are designed to treat patients as doctors are designed to conquer disease.
      If I was a nurse with a family, I would want the dose to protect my family from my work. And if I could not work within that system I would divorce myself from it. I think that the Dali Lama was right -- do no harm. The nurses should look elsewhere for work.

    3. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have to go with the others here.

      Nurses have rights, certainly, but so do patients and the hospital.  When a patient contracts the flu from a nurse and dies from it, what happens to the hospital?  Does the hospital have no rights to protect itself as well as the patient?

    4. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
      A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It was a mistake if it happened at all. By law, you can not force an employee to take a flu shot.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Really?  But you can force them to wear protective gear?  And you can force them to take safety classes designed to protect others in the area?

        You can't lay them off if they refuse to protect their patients, though - not much difference between that and forcing the shot.

    5. Jillian Barclay profile image83
      Jillian Barclayposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I am a health care professional and am in favor of flu shots for medical personnel. I won't risk the lives of patients. I get my flu shot every year and am also required to have a TB test.

  2. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago

    The flu shot only protects against a certain strain, not guaranteed to be the current strain of flu that may be present in hospitals, or on whomever may visit a patient. 

    I refuse to get the flu shot and would most likely risk my job if it was required.  My refusal has nothing to do with religion, I simply don't believe I should be mandated to take a shot that I don't want or need.  If I'm sick, I don't go to work.

    And please.. don't be so naive as to to believe this is about protecting the health of patients.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When are most strains of the flue contagious?  Before, during or after the symptoms become bad enough to stay home?

    2. ChristinS profile image94
      ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I completely agree.  A dose of tamiflu should one contract the flu quickly rids you of it also I might add.  I have never and will never take a flu shot.  Consequently I have had the flu only once in my life.  My mother, a nurse, started having to take flu shots 3 years ago.  Prior to she was never sick and now she gets it every year shot or not.  The shots are a joke and people too easily buy into it and the Pharmaceuticals profit.  It's all for profit.  Scare the people and they'll buy anything.

  3. Paul Kemp profile image89
    Paul Kempposted 3 years ago

    Where's the proof that flu shots prevent the flu? I was leaned on by the management of a Honda dealership years ago to get a flu shot, so I did. I hadn't had the flu for the previous 6 or 7 years, but I got the flu after having the shot. Had a very sore arm for months, too. Never again! I agree with rebekahELLE above. They only "protect " us against last season's strain of virus. They make a big scare to sell vaccines and then it turns out to have been no big deal. Big Pharma is the biggest scam, but if we're dumb enough to fall for it, it will continue.

    1. phoenix2327 profile image83
      phoenix2327posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with Paul.  In the military we have no choice but to get flu shots.  I got the flu more times while in the military than I did as a civilian when I didn't get flu shots.  I lost as many work days with the shot  as I did without it.  So how did that benefit anyone?  I mentioned this to my manager/sergeant and his reply was that the shot does give you the flu.  That's how you keep from getting it.  I abandoned the conversation and to this day I wonder if he even heard what he had said.

      1. sparkster profile image91
        sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        According to some of the work I've read by people who I consider to be highly credible, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that such vaccinations even work.  It is alleged that they infect the fluid they are injecting you with, with a small amount/trace of the virus they are vaccinating you against, then drain it away and filter it out until no trace whatsoever is left behind in the fluid, the idea being that your immune system may build up a defense against such a virus.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If that information is from your credible source, you might want to put some thought into finding another source, one that actually understands how vaccinations work.

          What you are describing is a shot of saline water, and no that isn't going to protect against anything.

          1. sparkster profile image91
            sparksterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly!  This is why they claim such vaccines are ineffective.  I won't state who it is but they are a massively reputable and highly credible UK celebrity.  This information was stated in their book, although I've never really delved into this specific area too much.  The celebrity has already proven themselves to be highly credible (although very controversial) through some of their experiments and claims, although they're main field of study is psychology-related.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know - seems like any celebrity that claims a particular company is providing sterile salt water and calling it a vaccine would quickly find themselves on the losing end of a huge lawsuit.

      2. Paul Kemp profile image89
        Paul Kempposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In reply to Phoenix: Thanks, Phoenix, for the confirmation of what I and others here have suspected. I also look at the long term effects of repeated doses of vaccines and other medicines and I notice that those who have the "best health care" -- such a career government employees, doctors, and nurses -- are dying younger than the average person of similar health habits.
        With product recalls being common and medical mistakes being a leading cause of mortality and harm, all it takes is one bad batch of vaccine and you have martyred yourself for "the greater good".  No thanks. If flu shots aren't proven to predictably prevent the flu, then what's the point?  I choose to keep my immune system at peak performance with healthy nutrition and lifestyle. My motto is "Health, not Health Care".

        I believe in being a good citizen, but -- in my view -- your immune system is your responsibility. This argument that I must subject myself to a procedure I see no value in, for the "theoretical" good of someone who's immune system has become weakened, smells to me a lot like fascism.
        It's a great sales pitch for Big Pharma, but I'm not buying it and I hate to see others being bullied into it.
        Check out YouTube for Russell Blaylock, MD's views on the neurological dangers of vaccines.

        1. psycheskinner profile image83
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You status as a disease vector is the hospital's responsibility, the are legally liable for anyone you kill as a result.

          So if you don't want to be immunized, or don't want wash your hands or you want to keep exotic pets that carry TB, or anything like that, don't work for a hospital. 

          I have mandated vaccines just to work with lab animals, and I think hospital patients are at least as important as rats and monkeys.

  4. LauraD093 profile image85
    LauraD093posted 3 years ago

    This whole situation is a hard pill to swallow (pun intended.) As a former health care professional it was required and I complied but those who have worked within the system know it is more insurance risk then truly concern for patient welfare that facilities require it. That being said I did when caring for my mother get the yearly shot (her immune system was very easily compromised)  I was unwilling to take even the slightest risk when it came to a loved one. It is an issue that cuts both ways employers do have the right to impose certain mandates and you are told of them upon being hired (i.e. random drug testing being screened for TB etc.) It is then a contract between employee and employer If you are concerned about personal and religious rights it would be best to know all work place restrictions prior to you taking a position. What has confused me is that employees fired did comply in the past - why the sudden change?

    1. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My job was once on the line over this issue.  My employer even had someone come to each location to administer the shots, (and this was back when you could only get them from a doctors office, not pharmacys and grocery stores).  When I and one other employee refused, it was made clear if we caught the flu there would be reprecussions, although that was not quantified.  Fortunately, although an epedimic of sorts did break out shortly thereafter, with nearly everyone in the company getting the flu at the same time...two employees avoided it.  Avoiding the sick employees so as not to contract it from them was the hard part.  My boss never brought it up or discussed how wrong he was, but looks were exchanged.  We both know what the conversation would have been and he never really forgave me for that. 

      We also have a daughter with a very compromised immune system.  We allowed a flu shot twice.  Once she got very sick.  We have refused ever since, and always get the look from the nurses and doctors like we are nuts and putting her at risk, but she has never had the flu since (it has been at least 15 years).

  5. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago

    There is not a lot of scientific evidence that the vaccine is effective. There are plenty of articles and reports written about this topic.  I suggest more people become informed and educated about the vaccine before blindly walking into a clinic or corner drugstore and having questionable substances shot into your bloodstream.  Inhaling it is even worse if one has an aversion to needles.  Do we know the long term effects these vaccines have on our bodies? (no)  Can you list the ingredients of the current vaccine?

    Influenza shots are a multibillion dollar global business.

    For whatever reasons we have, it should be an individuals choice whether to succumb to yearly vaccines.
    Reassessing Flu Shots as the Season Draws Near, an article from the NYT with links to reports.

  6. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    People who work with vulnerable populations must be vaccinated. If it was your loved one who died when the nurse gave her influenza you would probably understand why.

  7. stclairjack profile image78
    stclairjackposted 3 years ago

    i work in long term care, flue shots are offered to staff in our facility and encouraged,.. they are offered to residents in our facility and enchouraged,.... they are NOT mandatory.

    requiring that you gown up, and wash your hands is not EVEN the same thing as asking that you be forced to inject a forign un-determined substance into your body based on the premis that it may or may not protect you from last years flu strain, even though the virus will have mutated so many times in 12 months as to be totaly unrecognizable.

    first i might sugest we all google the term vaccine.

    second, google the side effects,..... if you have LUPUS, RA or any of the auto-imune dissorders, this is an absolute NO-NO,.... you will be in missery from the side effects.... imagine asking an already super charged disfunctional imune sytem to chase a ghost....

    thirdly,... i can testify personaly to the stories of watching staffers line up to get thier FREE flu shot,... while i refused it,.... to watch nearly ALL of them fall pray to this years strain in the next 3 months, vaccine or not.... while myself and my nuclear RA imune system kept chugging along,... covering their shifts.

    if youve never worked in health care, please dont presume to know what it is like.

  8. 60
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    Nobody should be required to put something into their body.

  9. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    No  vulnerable patient should be required to interact with a disease carrier.  Whether it is on their hands or in their nostrils doesn't matter.  From the patient's point of view it's the same thing.

    If they don't want to protect the patient, they should be in another line of work. I sure wouldn't admit my granny to a vaccination-optional hospital any more than a hand washing optional or sterile surgery optional one. The flu would be one of the things most likely to kill her during her stay.

    1. 60
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The patient is already vulnerable simply by being in the hospital. Will you also require visitors to accept the flu shot?

  10. stclairjack profile image78
    stclairjackposted 3 years ago

    "disease carrier"..????... all humans are dissease carriers,... one swab of properly washed hands ran through an incubator and observed under magnification would astound those who have no training in the field..... even if those freshly washed hands had a flue shot.

    no offense intended,... which is prety much a warning shot, i'm probably about to offend you, ;-) ... but for those of you who preach sanctimoniously about the rights of patients and responsabilities of nurses/healthcare providers,.... have you ever worked in health care?.... i mean beyond "i visited my granny in the hospital once"...... then...... "i visited her in the nursing home once before she died"????

    i dont realy wana be banned for sarcasim or playing too rough (though i havent been banned yet and it kinda makes me feel like i havent tried hard enough)... but for all the crowing about this thread,.... it apears to me to be very easily two sided,..... those who work in healthcare and understand the actual working nature of a vaccine and the clinical environment prety much fall into the "optional" crowd...

    while those who possibly havent been exposed to the medical field beyond childhood imunizations and seeing granny before she died, seem to fall into the "you have to shoot this un identified substance into your body despite what ever side effects it may cause YOU becuse it gives ME a false sense of security"

    just callin it like i see it

    1. Dale Hyde profile image88
      Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have worked in the health care area in the past.  I can tell by your lack of spelling and proper use of the English language that you do not have such experience.

      Patients will come first and should come first.  You have the right to leave your place of employment should you disagree with the policies that are in place.

      As someone else mentioned, the ones who refused this year had taken the shots in the past.  Go figure.  Someone trying to make a statement and it backfired on them, and they can not handle the fact that they made a mistake so they involve the media.

      People just need to grow up and be responsible for their actions, even ones that turn out to be mistakes and stop trying to blame it on others and whine and snivel.

      1. stclairjack profile image78
        stclairjackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        owche.. wuz dat supozd 2 hert? ..... lol.... seriously..... I’ve always had the spelling skills of an epileptic monkey,... thanks for noticing,... sorry i didn’t spell check adequately for ya,.... but rather than attack my stance you gigged my spelling skills?(or lack there of)... that’s fine, but I’m still not taking a flu shot, i had ONE in the past, i will never do that again, it had me utterly miserable for two weeks, might as well missed work for 3 days with the squirts and pukes as been laid up with body wide aches and pains,... and unless you have an auto immune disorder and are willing subjecting yourself to this adverse reaction to the flu shot because you care about your clients/patients soo very much,.... well..... yea.

        p.s.  attacking my presumed lack of command of the English language,… nobody thought mark twain could write either, if your opinion of my word-smithing mattered beyond my response here, it might have hurt the one tiny feeling I had for that.

      2. ChristinS profile image94
        ChristinSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        attacking someone's grammar and spelling skills is not the way to win a debate.  I agree with St. Clair.  No one has the right to tell you to put a foreign substance into your body.  This is particularly true in the case of Flu shots because they have NOT be proven to stop the flu.  I have known many who have contracted the flu after getting the shot.  My mother has been a nurse for almost 40 years now.  3 years ago they mandated the flu shot, and against her better judgment she complied.  The first time in her life she got the flu? after shot one.  The second time she became ill with flu-like symptoms? after shot 3, so please spare us with the whole "Flu saves patients".  So does a shot of Tamiflu after one has contracted the flu.  That is much easier and more effective, but it doesn't make as much money as it does to fear monger hordes of people into taking a shot they do not need that is loaded with junk that is not good for you.   It is not about patient safety, it is about insurance premiums and prophets for big Pharma period.

        1. Dale Hyde profile image88
          Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My research has shown me that you can not get the flu from the flu shots.  Conspiracy theories will always be there.  For those who claim to have gotten the flu soon after getting the flu shot, keep in mind that once contracted, there is a two week incubation period before yo show symptoms of the flu.... Do some research, don't take my word for it or the word of those who see something sinister in everything that is going on in the world around them.

          http://shs.osu.edu/blog/medical-mythbus … lu-vaccine

          Flu Myth #3: The flu vaccine can give you the flu.

          This is the flu myth most likely to drive experts bonkers. “There is simply no way that the flu vaccine can give you the flu,” says Hay. “It’s impossible.”

          Why? For one, injected flu vaccines only contain dead virus, and a dead virus is, well, dead: it can’t infect you. There is one type of live virus flu vaccine, the nasal vaccine, FluMist. But in this case, the virus is specially engineered to remove the parts of the virus that make people sick.

          Despite the scientific impossibility of getting the flu from the flu vaccines, this widespread flu myth won’t die. Experts suspect two reasons for its persistence.  One, people mistake the side effects of the vaccine for flu. While side effects to the vaccine these days tend to be a sore arm, in the past, side effects often felt like mild symptoms of the flu. Two, flu season coincides with a time of year when bugs causing colds and other respiratory illnesses are in the air.  Many people get the vaccine and then, within a few days, get sick with an unrelated cold virus. However, they blame the innocent flu vaccine, rather than their co-worker with a runny nose and cough.

          http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/featu … -flu-myths

          http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09 … u-flu-shot

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            All very interesting, and would perhaps be compelling were it not for so many years of first hand experience and observation refuting it in a very personal way.  As in my previous post I ended up being part of the "control group" for a very large "experiment", created by a former employer and to me the results of that were conclusive.  Coincidences simply don't come that big.  Even if it was a fluke due to a bad batch, that still only serves to make my point.  Also, being the parent of a very involved child with multiple disabilities and working with the medical and scientific communities for over 20 years, I know to take both what they say and recommend with more than a grain of salt.  My child would not be here still if we blindly followed the advice of the medical community.  Our own diligence and study has kept them from making fatal mistakes, primarily because of the tunnel vision of specialists on a child with such multifaceted and interrelated issues.  We keep the big picture in mind and have avoided many difficulties by doing so.

  11. donotfear profile image90
    donotfearposted 3 years ago

    It's cause the nurses probably all know that the flu shot contains mercury....they are useless and just a way for Big Pharma to make a buck and get us dependent on them.   

    Call me radical....I don't care, it's the truth.

  12. tussin profile image61
    tussinposted 3 years ago

    They chose to work in the medical profession, and one of the requirements of that profession is getting vaccinations that are optional for the rest of the population. It's not violating their human rights because no one is forcing them to work in this field.  If they don't like it, they need to organize.

  13. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I don't see making it a condition of employment "forcing" them to do it.

    I see requiring a nurse to be vaccinated as no different from requiring a pilot to be sober or a monkey keeper to be TB-free.  It is required to safely do the job.

    1. stclairjack profile image78
      stclairjackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      if you knew when you were hired that this was a requirement,... then yes,.. i agree with you, they knew up front that they would be required to take the flu shot in order to work there,....... but,..... if you've worked in the health care field for 25 years,... and at the same facility for 10,.... and suddenly they REQUIRE you to do this when it was optional before,.... if they REQUIRE you to take it even though you have a past history of bad reactions,.... tell me whos wrong then?

      at this point i dont want to even argue the value of the flue shot, or its effectivenes vs sugar pills,... the point is that it sudenly becomes a requirement when it wasnt before......

      what do you do for a living? do you work with the public?.... should every bank teller be required to get the flu shot?..... every walmart worker?..... everybody period?..... because it give the general population a false sense of safety?