|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Nurse fired for not getting flu shot
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
An American nurse was fired for not receiving an employer mandated flu shot.
The very last paragraph fairly sums up my opinion on this.
quote:
"I think if the health care worker has some problem with religious faith then perhaps during flu season, they shouldn't do that job," Raskin said, suggesting that the worker do something administrative instead during flu season. "It's not fair to the patient. The people who are most at risk are in the hospital."
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It's been routine for years that you have to have hepatitis B vaccinations for nursing work - often having to get a blood test for antibody status to show it has worked and nobody ever seems to make a fuss about that. Not sure why it is, or should be, any different for the flu vaccine.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I found this bit of the article especially fascinating:
quote:
But still, Alan Phillips, who represented several nurses at the hospital, says his clients had the right to refuse their flu shots under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination of employees. Religion is legally broad under the First Amendment, so it could include any strongly held belief, he said, adding that the belief flu shots are bad should suffice.
"If your personal beliefs are religious in nature, then they are a protected belief," Phillips said.
I've sometimes argued the exact reverse: that labelling a belief as 'religious' doesn't get you out of, say, wearing seatbelts.
My mind fairly boggles at the suggestion that 'religious' is merely a synonym of 'strongly held', and yet I'm not immediately sure of a more satisfactory definition of it.
Do I have a religious belief that Nickelback write bad music? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 05. January 2013, 07:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I found this bit of the article especially fascinating:
quote:
But still, Alan Phillips, who represented several nurses at the hospital, says his clients had the right to refuse their flu shots under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination of employees. Religion is legally broad under the First Amendment, so it could include any strongly held belief, he said, adding that the belief flu shots are bad should suffice.
"If your personal beliefs are religious in nature, then they are a protected belief," Phillips said.
I've sometimes argued the exact reverse: that labelling a belief as 'religious' doesn't get you out of, say, wearing seatbelts.
My mind fairly boggles at the suggestion that 'religious' is merely a synonym of 'strongly held', and yet I'm not immediately sure of a more satisfactory definition of it.
Do I have a religious belief that Nickelback write bad music?
Surely better to have a really broad definition of religious than one determined by courts of law: here
Whilst not having read the Court transcripts I cannot say with any certainty on the exact ruling that has been passed down, but to determine in a Court of Law that Sunday/Church attendance is not a necessary requirement of Christian faith because some Christians decide not to keep it seems a little strange to me... I could come up with a list of examples of how this could apply to any and all religions in really bizarre ways, but I don't think ther eis any need as we can all do so ourselves.
As for the OP - nurses put people's lives in danger if they continue to work with ill people without having taken the necessary medical precautions, if nurses cannot abide by their responsibilities then...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My mind fairly boggles at the suggestion that 'religious' is merely a synonym of 'strongly held', and yet I'm not immediately sure of a more satisfactory definition of it. Do I have a religious belief that Nickelback write bad music?
Religion focuses on transcendental realities, even where mundane and "arbitrary" practices are concerned. One does not eat pork, say, not because one (necessarily) does not like pork and/or believes that it is unhealthy, but for the greater glory of God and/or the disciplining of oneself in the service of God. Mundane and "arbitrary" but religious practices are ordered to the transcendental realities, have them as their final cause, as the reason why they exist.
So if you believe that Nickelback's music is an offence to God, then that would be a religious belief. If you merely consider it an offence to your ears, then not.
While society promotes freedom of religion, this is not absolute. For example, shooting Nickelback dead because one believes that his music is an offence to God may be a religious act, but not one that would be supported by freedom of religion (or rather, freedom of religion here interferes with other fundamental rights, and our societies have generally decided to give the other right precedence in these circumstances).
Was it justified to fire these nurses? What the one nurse herself said suggests to me precisely that her not taking flu shots was not a religious act. "To take something religiously" is a manner of speaking referring to the strict discipline that religion can induce, but it does not by and in itself indicate that one "takes something because of religion". And the nurse then goes on to complain that now people tell here that she "believes" in this, whereas if she did this for religious reasons, then she should embrace this. Finally, the reason she gives is "this is my body. I have a right to refuse the flu vaccine," which is true, but not a religious reason (for it makes no reference to transcendent realities, unless her body is her god). She has that right, sure, but then her employers have the right to fire her over it.
So I do not think that religion was involved at least for the nurse interviewed anyhow, that's just typical lawyer bullshit (find any possible loophole to push your client's agenda no matter how inappropriate).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
Is it not usually the case that an attempt to use religious belief as a reason to not comply with some policy/law usually shifts the burden of proof to showing that it's a genuine religious belief that is also held to be a part of that religion by other adherents?
You can't just say the words "religious belief" every time you need to do something you don't want to do and expect it to have the effect of Harry Potter casting a spell. That is an insult to people who do face genuine religious discrimination, it cheapens the pain they go through and leads to people taking the issue less seriously.
I'm with the hospital on this one, the requirement for medical staff to keep up on their immunisations is there for a bloody good reason and is hardly a new thing. To allow a person to keep working in a hospital environment despite them refusing to do the right thing by the patients, other staff and themselves is plain wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The very last paragraph fairly sums up my opinion on this.
quote:
"I think if the health care worker has some problem with religious faith then perhaps during flu season, they shouldn't do that job," Raskin said, suggesting that the worker do something administrative instead during flu season. "It's not fair to the patient. The people who are most at risk are in the hospital."
In a hospital environment the flu season goes 365 days a year. Hospital staff are always in close proximity to people who have low defences because they are already sick, it's simply not worth taking a punt when you can be contagious for a number of days before symptoms may start to show.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do I have a religious belief that Nickelback write bad music?
I couldn't care less if they write bad music, what they choose to do in a consenting relationship* behind closed doors is not my problem. Playing said music in public though, that's another issue completely ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
* as bandmates, minds out of the gutter please.
[ 05. January 2013, 10:39: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
The way I read the linked article, there was no suggestion that the nurses refused the vaccine because of religious beliefs. When the nurse says she refused the vaccine "religiously", I understood the colloquial meaning - much as one might say one goes to the gym "religiously".
On the other hand, is it right to compel someone to undergo a medical procedure - which is what a vaccination is - against their will? Even when that person is behaving foolishly by refusing it? And would it count as compulsion if the employer were to say "If you don't have this vaccination, you'll be fired"?
And if it is okay for an employer to compel a medical procedure, where would we draw the line? Compulsory flu vaccination? Compulsory HIV testing? Compulsory genetic screening? Compulsory performance-enhancing drugs?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I hope the person who finally judges this doesn't actually believe that "any strongly held belief," is the broad definition of religion. She's not a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion. This woman, dressed in "mourning," for her last day at work (fired being the broad definition of dead, I guess) seems like she's enjoying the attention. What bothers me most about her is that she thinks vaccinations cause disease and she's working in the medical field. Spare us all.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
1 Peter 4:15
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What bothers me most about her is that she thinks vaccinations cause disease and she's working in the medical field. Spare us all.
Yeah that's what bothers me the most, too. There are some batshit nurses out there when it comes to evidence-based medicine, unfortunately (albeit the vast majority are not like this, of course). Firing her was a tough decision to make, but the right one. Medical staff putting patients' lives at risk because of idiotic misinformed opinions is not acceptable.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The way I read the linked article, there was no suggestion that the nurses refused the vaccine because of religious beliefs. When the nurse says she refused the vaccine "religiously", I understood the colloquial meaning - much as one might say one goes to the gym "religiously".
I thought the same at first, but the article does say she actually filed a religious objection of some kind.
Although I certainly agree with others that "I think flu shots are bad" is not a religious objection.
EDIT: Also will have to ponder what I think of a vaccination being a 'medical procedure'. I suppose it is, strictly speaking, but that remark in your post gave me a brief suprise.
[ 05. January 2013, 11:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Presumably, giving shots like this to patients is an integral part of her job as a nurse. It is an odd religion, indeed, that believes that what she does every day to others for a living is somehow a horrible thing to have done to herself. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
1 Peter 4:15
75 Gerald 13:256
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Searching on that leads to multiple theological references including John 6:13
1 Peter 4:15 (NIV) If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It's been routine for years that you have to have hepatitis B vaccinations for nursing work - often having to get a blood test for antibody status to show it has worked and nobody ever seems to make a fuss about that. Not sure why it is, or should be, any different for the flu vaccine.
Re: the hep B. This is not the case according to DoH guidance - although I suppose individual health organisations may differ. If you are doing certain types of work, then you have to show that you are hepatitis B-negative on appointment and either immune naturally or through vaccination or negative on an ongoing basis. For the vast majority of nursing posts this is not the case as they are not putting patients at risk, although it is advisable that they be vaccinated for their own health. Link to guidance
Flu is different, as it is transmissable via the respiratory route and therefore anyone coming into contact with vulnerable patients while they are infectious is putting them at risk.
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What bothers me most about her is that she thinks vaccinations cause disease and she's working in the medical field. Spare us all.
Yeah that's what bothers me the most, too. There are some batshit nurses out there when it comes to evidence-based medicine, unfortunately (albeit the vast majority are not like this, of course). Firing her was a tough decision to make, but the right one. Medical staff putting patients' lives at risk because of idiotic misinformed opinions is not acceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Presumably, giving shots like this to patients is an integral part of her job as a nurse. It is an odd religion, indeed, that believes that what she does every day to others for a living is somehow a horrible thing to have done to herself. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
This is something that has been noted in Australia as particularly applying to older nurses. Nursing used to be about performing menial tasks to assist the doctors who had the real medical knowledge, with the training almost exclusively practical 'on-the-job' training which put them in the category of skilled labour rather than medical professionals. Rather than giving nurses even a limited amount of proper medical education, they were indoctrinated to see doctors almost as mysterious wizards. As long as the nurses did their tasks properly and didn't intrude on the medical world, it didn't matter what quacky ideas they picked up about how things worked.
Nowadays, things have evolved to the point where nurses are proper medical professionals who have to complete a proper university degree with a mix of evidence-based science and the practical training. That's good, but unfortunately there are still a fair few of the old-school nurses in the system, and there is an entrenched hierarchy within hospital environments which depends almost exclusively on seniority, so the older nurses still have a lot of influence on things.
My grandmother was an old-school nurse, and she gets right into the crazy stuff. She had back issues for quite some time and wasted many years going to quacks like chiropractors and trying miracle cures which "worked" for a few days. If she had paid attention to mum telling her to stop seeing these quacks who would take her money and run, she could have skipped straight to seeing proper doctors and had the surgery done to fix things up years earlier.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I was trying to work out how a 1st Amendment argument was going to hold water until I worked through the links to find that the hospital in question is the Indiana University Hospital. That means what the hospital does is state action.
That being said, the strongly held belief that a flu vaccine says a whole lot about someone who is a healthcare professional. While doctors do communicate with patients and family in a hospital, their visits tend to be short because they have a lot of other things to do. Nurses tend to do a significant amount of interaction with patients and family.
If this nurse thinks a flu vaccine is a bad thing, who knows what other silly ideas she has and what half cocked theories she is passing out as medical truth to her patients and families?
It seems to me that the hospital has an obligation to fire her because of her beliefs.
A quick look at case law shows one case, Shelton v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of New Jersey, 223 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) where the analysis was reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs. Apply that to this case and there is no reasonable accommodation to be made. If she works in the hospital her fellow workers will be exposed to her even if she is in some non patient care position. To me, the rights of patients to live through their hospitalization trumps even legitimate religious belief.
And no, this is not a legitimate religious belief.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Seems to me that anyone who has contact with patients should be vaccinated as appropriate or change jobs. Not to do so sounds to me like a very selfish attitude.
(And the sooner someone invents a vaccination against the NoroVirus, the better!)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
In USA pretty much any employer can require you to do pretty much anything legal or you lose your job -- whether accept a vaccination your own research says contains poisons like mercury, or wear red shoes. You do what the employer demands or you don't do the job. No red shoes? Fired.
The issue is NOT whether vaccinations are good or bad idea, I have a lot of sympathy with those who want to avoid sticking a lot of foreign chemicals in their bodies but if that's a job requirement she'll be better off working instead with health professionals who use natural instead of unnatural approaches to healing. You know, the "quacks" (as some of you call them) who have cured me of a number of things the doctors told me I have to live with and take expensive drugs forever to "maintain."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
If you're going to work in health care, you lose the right to make certain medical choices, i.e. whether to have vaccinations, TB testing, etc. I worked as an auditor in a hospital and even though I didn't have contact with patients, the fact that I worked in the hospital itself meant I had to take the TB tests and certain vaccinations along with the health care professionals who did have patient contact. It is all in the interest of the patients who come to the facility for treatment, many of whom have compromised immune systems as a result of their particular health issue. If you can't put the patient first, you need to find another line of work.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Seems to me that anyone who has contact with patients should be vaccinated as appropriate or change jobs. Not to do so sounds to me like a very selfish attitude.
(And the sooner someone invents a vaccination against the NoroVirus, the better!)
Amen. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
People often seem to have such a casual attitude toward influenza. What might be a week or two of unhappy symptoms for a healthy nurse could be mortal danger to a person with a compromised immune system. Damn right it's selfish.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Three questions:-
1. What is the religious objection to 'flu vaccines?
2. If there a medical objection? If so, what is it?
3. Does the employer pay for the injections, or does it expect its staff to comply with them out of their own money?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Three questions:-
1. What is the religious objection to 'flu vaccines? ETA: Would Scientology have objections as they also object to some medicines.
2. If there a medical objection? If so, what is it?
3. Does the employer pay for the injections, or does it expect its staff to comply with them out of their own money?
1. The only religion I know of that might object to vaccination would be Christian Science.
2. There are people who are allergic to the flu vaccine.
3. In all of the medical facilities I worked in, the employer paid for the required vaccinations and health screenings such as TB tests.
[ 05. January 2013, 16:05: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've sometimes argued the exact reverse: that labelling a belief as 'religious' doesn't get you out of, say, wearing seatbelts.
Here in the UK it does get you out of wearing crash helmets on motorbikes though (Sikhs).
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Three questions:-
1. What is the religious objection to 'flu vaccines?
A strongly held belief they are not good. Based upon being a ninny.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
So, I work in a hospital.
I got my flu vaccine.
I know some coworkers who didn't.
From December 19th through whenever the CDC declares 'flu season over, they have to wear a mask the entire time they're in the hospital.
As I understand it (being on flu team at my hospital and linked in to a posting board across the nation where we all discuss the issues we have around managing flu and such), this is common practice. Shot or mask, it's your choice.
So my question is- WHAT BACKWATER HOSPITAL DOES THIS NURSE WORK AT?!
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've sometimes argued the exact reverse: that labelling a belief as 'religious' doesn't get you out of, say, wearing seatbelts.
Here in the UK it does get you out of wearing crash helmets on motorbikes though (Sikhs).
Not wearing a crash helmet doesn't kill other people. Makes the cleanup after a tad bit less appealing, though.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
So, I work in a hospital.
I got my flu vaccine.
I know some coworkers who didn't.
From December 19th through whenever the CDC declares 'flu season over, they have to wear a mask the entire time they're in the hospital.
As I understand it (being on flu team at my hospital and linked in to a posting board across the nation where we all discuss the issues we have around managing flu and such), this is common practice. Shot or mask, it's your choice.
So my question is- WHAT BACKWATER HOSPITAL DOES THIS NURSE WORK AT?!
Are masks very effective against viruses? Viruses are tiny critters.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
So, I work in a hospital.
I got my flu vaccine.
I know some coworkers who didn't.
From December 19th through whenever the CDC declares 'flu season over, they have to wear a mask the entire time they're in the hospital.
As I understand it (being on flu team at my hospital and linked in to a posting board across the nation where we all discuss the issues we have around managing flu and such), this is common practice. Shot or mask, it's your choice.
So my question is- WHAT BACKWATER HOSPITAL DOES THIS NURSE WORK AT?!
Are masks very effective against viruses? Viruses are tiny critters.
Tiny critters which would die very rapidly (at least the enveloped ones, like the flu virus) if suspended individually in dry air. Infection is usually via droplets generated by coughing or sneezing which are large enough to be caught on the outside of masks. Where viruses may be aerosolised (i.e. into very tiny floating particles) by a medical procedure, special masks are recommended, which essentially have very tiny holes.
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Thanks for the replies. I see that they are useful against the spread of influenza. My guess is that they might not be quite as effective at protecting against catching it oneself- gaps and all that. But better than nothing. But possibly not better than an effective flu shot.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, they are fairly effective protection for the wearer as well. The mucus membranes are extremely effective conduits for infection. The nose and mouth particularity so as your inhalations can bring airborne particulates more directly to mucus membranes.
ETA: Flu shot still more effective. Flu shot and mask, better still.
[ 05. January 2013, 23:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The question comes down to the rights of an individual vs the rights of the community. If a person enters the hospital with a compromised immune system and contracts flu from a nurse, then the rights of the nurse is secondary. I am sure the courts will rule in favor of the hospital.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
I am in favor of the hospital's stand. I work in nursing as well and I am also a post kidney transplant patient. I get the flu vaccine every year and now that flu season is here, I also wear a mask at work "religiously." I do this to protect myself, but also to protect the patients that I care for. We care for many immuno-suppressed people: persons with AIDS, persons receiving chemo therapy, other post-post transplant patients, as well as those with many other immuno-suppressed condtions. Nurses, like Wiccans, are supposed to do no harm and passing along the flu to a immuno-suppressed patient is not just doing harm, but could also be deadly for that person. As far as I'm concerned, the only ones that should be exempt from this rule are those who have legitimate medical conditions that contraindicates receiving a vaccination and then those persons should be assigned to areas where they will have no physical contact with patients. But I do admit, I am kind of a hard ass about this. I don't want to die.
[ 06. January 2013, 02:26: Message edited by: teddybear ]
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Given that each year's flu shot is a guess at what strains are going to be circulating, and the even some of the people who get the shot come down with flu, I hope flu defense in hospitals is not only the shot as if it's a perfect defense! It's not. Add the masks!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I work in a hospital and it is part of my condition of employment that I am fully vaccinated, practice good hand hygiene and do not come to work if suffering from any illness. This is done to protect the patients, other staff and me. It would be grossly negligent and selfish of me to disregard these expectations and I endorse the decision of the hospital to sack the nurse who failed to comply.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The question comes down to the rights of an individual vs the rights of the community. If a person enters the hospital with a compromised immune system and contracts flu from a nurse, then the rights of the nurse is secondary. I am sure the courts will rule in favor of the hospital.
An individual has rights, but this individual is also an employed professional with obligations to her employer and the clients she serves.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
A problem with masks is that they are incredibly uncomfortable to wear for prolonged periods if they are properly fitted (which needs to be a tight fit to the face if they are really going to prevent droplet spread).
Much of the testing is on very short-term use in controlled conditions. In real life they are probably less well used.
Also the longer they are worn, the more likely the fit is to become loose, the more likely the wearer is to relax their use, and the more the material gets clogged with droplets and particles, and so air flow starts to bypass the mask.
Hence there are reasons to prefer vaccination as a preventative measure over masks.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
That makes sense.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Also, a big problem about masks is that they actually interfere with patient care. There is something to say about seeing a smile--or an expression of concern--from the health care provider.
Yes, you need to practice different levels of hygiene when it comes to contagious diseases, but there is a balancing act between what you are giving up vs what you potentially gain.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
One of our local hospital chains had a big ad in this morning's paper promising that all of their employees coming into contact with patients would either be vaccinated or, if exempted, would wear masks. They did not explain the exemptions -- this was just to assure prospective patients.
However, unless every patient coming into the hospital is vaccinated, there are going to be lots of flu bugs flying around. The Emergency Room is always a very dangerous place for people with immune concerns.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
Has there also been a publicity campaign urging people with flu-like symptoms to see their GP instead of clogging up Accident & Emergency at the hospital? This is very important in my opinion, for making sure that people with other genuine emergency needs don't need to fear long waiting times and coming away with more problems than they started with.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Seems to me that anyone who has contact with patients should be vaccinated as appropriate or change jobs. Not to do so sounds to me like a very selfish attitude
Amen.
People often seem to have such a casual attitude toward influenza. What might be a week or two of unhappy symptoms for a healthy nurse could be mortal danger to a person with a compromised immune system. Damn right it's selfish.
I live in an area where there are very low vaccination rates. We have had babies, who cannot be vaccinated before 6mo, die of whooping cough because many of the populace do not want to understand that this is a community health measure and should not be a matter of individual
choice.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Religion focuses on transcendental realities, even where mundane and "arbitrary" practices are concerned. One does not eat pork, say, not because one (necessarily) does not like pork and/or believes that it is unhealthy, but for the greater glory of God and/or the disciplining of oneself in the service of God. Mundane and "arbitrary" but religious practices are ordered to the transcendental realities, have them as their final cause, as the reason why they exist.
<snip>
Was it justified to fire these nurses? What the one nurse herself said suggests to me precisely that her not taking flu shots was not a religious act. "To take something religiously" is a manner of speaking referring to the strict discipline that religion can induce, but it does not by and in itself indicate that one "takes something because of religion". And the nurse then goes on to complain that now people tell here that she "believes" in this, whereas if she did this for religious reasons, then she should embrace this. Finally, the reason she gives is "this is my body. I have a right to refuse the flu vaccine," which is true, but not a religious reason (for it makes no reference to transcendent realities, unless her body is her god).
Or some kind of wackiness about her body being "in God's image".
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), the U.S. does not have a Department of Inquisition which determines the theological acceptability of your beliefs or whether they're "transcendental" enough. In short, the U.S. court system will usually take your word for it if you say something is a command from whatever God you claim to follow. In practice a religious conviction that arises suddenly and is at odds with recent behavior (e.g. several of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the Obamacare contraception mandate were revealed to already be providing contraceptive coverage to their employees through their health insurance) is often viewed as evidence against sincerity, but this has a more Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" application.
A good recent example of this in U.S. law is Bob Jones University v. United States, where the issue at hand was whether BJ University (they're somewhat humorless about being called that) could qualify for a tax exemption as a non-profit educational institution despite a religiously-derived policy of racial segregation. One may argue that racial segregation isn't really compatibly with Christianity, but this wasn't an argument the U.S. government was willing to advance. There's no law in the U.S. authorizing the federal government to dictate to believers what they really believe or what they should believe. And rightly so. Both parties agreed that, whatever else one could say about racial segregation, the administration of BJU sincerely believe it to be a crucial part of their religious doctrine.
[ 07. January 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
