Has anyone left their employment due to mandatory vaccinations - page 3
I was wondering if any of my fellow nurses have left their place of employment because of mandated flu vaccination? If you have left, what and where did you go to work? I am very aware of the the... Read More
0Dec 21, '12 by nurseywifeymommy1We hv nurses at our facility that wear the mask for various reasons. They aren't branded or made to feel different. I'm grateful for the immunizations and as a person and a nurse I would not want to spread anything to ppl or patients. Maybe you should think of others and their needs- not yours.
1Dec 22, '12 by olddraggerWell now, being accused of not thinking of others needs over my own is kinda new for me. I must respond in this way.
If I could please make a suggestion? Please take time to educate yourself more on the droplet spread of communicable diseases before you pass judgement on me for saying that the wearing of a mask by a non direct care hcw that is physically located in an office 100's of feet away from patients does very very little in preventing the spreading of influenza.
Since I would be allowed to remove the mask in order to eat in a central dining area with many other DIRECT CARE hcw's , then I think that would provide a bigger % of chance to spread influenza!
I also would not be required to wear the mask once I step outside the facility. Now, our facility is huge and has several parking decks that employees utilize. I would be passing people coming into the hospital in the going and coming from my car. But I would not be required to wear a mask outside the actual hospital door. So these people would be exposed to my maskless face.
Honestly--what sense does this make?
If you don't want to spread anything to other people or patients, then you must lead a very stringent life. Kudos to you for that type of discipline. I know that has to be tremendously difficult.
1Dec 23, '12 by Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN Senior ModeratorQuote from nurseywifeymommy1Shouldn't we then, as the healthcare providers, have the same courtesy paid to us...that we are protected from disease from the general public. If it is an infringement of the public's right and they cannot be forced to wear a mask...... then why should I be forced to wear a public marking like a scarlet letter?We hv nurses at our facility that wear the mask for various reasons. They aren't branded or made to feel different. I'm grateful for the immunizations and as a person and a nurse I would not want to spread anything to ppl or patients. Maybe you should think of others and their needs- not yours.
3Dec 24, '12 by mariebailey, MSN, RNQuote from olddraggerEven though we do not see eye-to-eye on the vaccine debate, I feel that your situation was handled terribly. I am absolutely baffled that your hospital had you wear an N95 respirator; it makes absolutely no sense considering the N95 is meant to protect the wearer, not those around him/her. I seriously cannot believe your hospital has an ICP that does not know how to choose between a surgical mask and a NIOSH-approved one.I have left my position after staying until the deadline for the flu shot of 12/1.
My Dr's excuse was accepted and I would have been allowed to wear a N95 mask with a special ID badge. I choose to not be "branded" like that.
I had been at this facility for many many years and I knew that the stress of trying to wear a n95 type mask and doing my job of instructing/teaching/analysis would cause me to build resentments. I didn't want that to happen.
How many of you have tried to wear this type of mask for 8-10 hours straight? I tried. I quickly realized how this would affect my job performance and how others would react toward me. It was very stressful. Visitors--especially young/older ones-- and other staff members viewed me oddly. I had to constantly explain and many didn't understand. Some acted afraid of me.
The wearing of a mask all day in ALL areas ( no where near a patient) is punitive, plain and simple. The risks of transmitting Influenza to a patient from 100's of feet away is ridiculously low. There would probably a better chance of winning the lottery! JK-LOL.
The more I educate myself ( not all internet hype--lol) about the flu vaccinations, the more I understand how businesses and politics can manipulate things for their own selfless interest. I have lost a LOT of respect for the CDC in Atlanta.
To me this is a new low concerning regulating health care in the United States.
To others I will say this--be careful with vaccinations, they are not all risk free (just like all medications etc) as you may think.
On another topic, I have never seen a legitimate, well-established news publication linking the CDC financially to the pharmaceutical industry. I only see that on angry mom websites and no-name internet news sources. Finally, who has ever claimed that vaccines were risk-free? The CDC hasn't.
1Dec 24, '12 by olddraggerI respect that mariebailey and I understand. I feel you are an objective professional and welcome your discussion. There will always be different opinions and that sometimes can make us stronger. No one is right all the time--except my wife! JK--of course.
This influenza protection issue HAS been handled poorly by most acute care facilities in this area. John Hopkins has a good approach I feel. Look up how they are addressing this.Hopefully others will learn from them.
Even though I have resigned, I hopefully can present to the hospitals leadership a constructive suggestion to pattern their policy after John Hopkins.
Meanwhile, my personnel physician ( and someone that I helped through Medical School here) has agreed to give me the FluMist even though I am pass the recommended age. He had to do a little research before he could offer that option.
Once more, just to clarify, I am not anti-vaccination. I am anti mandatory vaccination using a vaccination that is not truly effective. Yes, it can be of help, but in a very limited way.
Here is some info on the connections at CDC and Pharmacological companies:
"Currently the CDC oversees vaccine research, safety and promotion, a situation that has been drawing more and more public criticism in recent years. The CDC compiles the list of vaccines that doctors are to give all children in the US, based on the recommendations of an advisory panel, and in many states kids can not attend day care or public schools unless they have received the CDC-endorsed vaccines.
A recommendation by the CDC guarantees a huge market for a vaccine and enables the drug company to use the government as a marketing device for its product. The annual global market for vaccines is expected to be over $10 billion this year.
On July 21, 2003, United Press International published a report based on a four-month investigation that found a pattern of problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC, as well as a web of close ties between the agency's advisory panel and the pharmaceutical industry.
By investigating members of an advisory panel of outside experts that make vaccine recommendations, UPI found that members of the panel received money from vaccine makers through relationships that included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; money to monitor vaccine testing; and funding for academic departments.
In fact, according to UPI, the CDC itself is in the vaccine business. Under a 1980 law, UPI found the CDC had 28 licensing agreements with drug companies and one university for vaccines or vaccine-related products and eight ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.
For instance, the CDC and SmithKline Beecham worked together on the Lyme-disease vaccine. A 1992 CDC activity report, obtained by UPI, says the agency had an agreement "with SmithKline Beecham that currently funds three positions at (the CDC) for the purpose of providing information of use in developing advanced test methods and vaccine candidates."
In June 2001, the General Accounting Office delivered a report on the issue to Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn), that noted that CDC employees "are listed on two Lyme-disease related patents" including "a 1993 joint patent between CDC and SmithKline Beecham Corporation." The report also said that six of 12 consultants working for the CDC on Lyme vaccines "reported at least one interest related to a vaccine firm."
According to CDC meeting transcripts where the committee weighed its recommendation, 3 had conflicts of interest with SmithKlineBeecham. The LYMERIX lyme-disease vaccine was approved by the CDC on February 18, 1999, and by October of 2000, more than 1.4 million people had received the vaccine.
But 18 months later, according to UPI, in February 2002, SmithKline Beecham pulled the vaccine off the market claiming that sales of LYMERIX were insufficient to justify the continued investment. However, according to UPI, the company also faced hundreds of lawsuits by people who said they suffered side effects from the vaccines.
The government's database at the time, listed possible side effects from LYMERIX as 640 emergency room visits, 34 life-threatening reactions, 77 hospitalizations, 198 disabilities and six deaths after people took the shots since the CDC endorsed it, according to UPI.
UPI also found other cases where vaccines endorsed by the panel were pulled off the market after a number of people suffered devastating side effects, and some died.
Congressman Dan Burton, (R-Ind), had already been investigating the advisory panel for several years, and told UPI that the conflicts of interest were a major problem. "This presents a real paradox," he said, "when the CDC routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on influential advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines, as well as policy matters."
"All the while these same scientists," Representative Burton said, "have financial ties, academic affiliations, and other vested interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight."
An August 2001 report on the investigation by Rep Burton's House Government Reform Committee, stated that "four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."
Critic say the conflicts of interest of Dr Paul Offit while sitting on the advisory panel could not be more blatant. He was part of the team that mandated the use of the RotaVirus vaccine, even though he received a $350,000 grant from Merck to develop the vaccine, shared the patent, and was paid to go around the country teaching doctors that vaccines were safe, according to the Wall Street Journal.
UPI discovered that Merck also had bought and distributed copies of a book written by Dr Offit titled, "What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines," to physicians with a Dear Doctor letter that stated:"Merck Vaccine Division is pleased to present you with a copy of the recent publication, 'What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines.'"
"The authors designed the book," Merck's letter told doctors, "to answer questions parents have about vaccines and to dispel misinformation about vaccines that sometimes appears in the public media."
The book had a list price of $14.95, and Dr Offit told UPI that he did not know how many copies Merck had purchased.
In 2001, Congressman Burton's investigation also found conflicts of interest with the then chairman of the advisory panel, Dr John Modlin, a Professor at Dartmouth Medical School, who owned $26,000 worth of Merck stock.
In a phone interview in 2003, Dr Modlin told UPI that he had sold the Merck stock, but that he had recently agreed to chair a committee to oversee Merck vaccine clinical trials.
"Meeting transcripts over the past decade," UPI says, "showed that at some meetings, half of the members present had potential conflicts with vaccine manufacturers."
For instance, at a June 2002 meeting, four of the 11 members on the panel acknowledged conflicts with Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Aventis Pasteur, and Bayer. Two of the four conducted research or vaccine trials and one member was a co-holder of a patent.
The agency is currently facing a major credibility crisis over the issue of whether vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, are responsible for the epidemic of neurological disorders ranging from ADHD to autism in children all across the country.
The CDC is being accused of research manipulation and cover-ups of vaccine maker culpability by an ever increasing number of activist groups and is also facing tough questions from some of the powerful members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats alike.
The CDC continues to claim that there is no evidence to support a connection between the epidemic and thimerosal, which they say is no longer used in most pediatric vaccines.
It is however, included in the flu vaccine currently recommended for all pregnant women and children more than 6 months old.
Earlier this year, a group of lawmakers initiated a new investigation of the matter and basically directed the CDC to butt out. On February 22, 2006, they stated in a letter: "If the federal government is going to have a study whose results will be broadly accepted, such a study cannot be led by the CDC," in a letter to Dr David Schwartz, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The letter was signed by Senators, Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich), and members of the House Representatives including, Dr Dave Weldon, (R-Fla) Chris Smith, (R-NJ), Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY), Dan Burton, (R-Ind), Joseph Crowley, (D-NY), and Maurice Hinchey, (D-NY).
The Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is part of the National Institutes of Health, and was asked to convene a panel to decide how to analyze the CDC database to determine whether autism rates have dropped since thimerosal was removed from most vaccines.
The controversy picked up traction in April, "National Autism Month," when world renowned heavy metal experts, researchers, and physicians traveled to Washington and rallied on Capital Hill moving the debate beyond just the parents of autistic children.
This spring, a full-page ad appeared in USA Today, the most widely-circulated newspaper in the US, and accused the CDC of "causing an epidemic of autism" by recommending that kids receive a series of vaccinations that contained thimerosal at least as late as 2001.
The ad quoted one of the most recent and famous advocates to join the cause, environmental lawyer, Robert F Kennedy Jr, as saying: "It's time for the CDC to come clean with the American public."
The ad was funded by a coalition of advocacy groups led by Generation Rescue, and directed readers to the web site, www.PutChildren First.org, to view internal CDC documents, many of which were obtained under the FOIA, that includes transcripts of meetings and e-mails that the groups contend support their allegations of a CDC cover-up.
Congressman Weldon has a theory about why the CDC continues the charade of denying the link between vaccines and autism. "If it is eventually determined that an entire generation of kids was essentially poisoned," he says, "a class-action suit against the federal government could be on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars, and so there's very good reason for them to try to cover this up."
And Dr Weldon's prediction is proving true. Vaccine injury lawsuits are being filed and won against the vaccine makers and the government. Implemented in 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, established a mandatory, federally administered no-fault claims process for individuals who allege that they were harmed by the administration of childhood vaccines.
The vaccine compensation fund was created to supposedly ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, and to stabilize vaccine costs. A small fee charged on each vaccines funds the program. According to statistics on the vaccine compensation web site, in fiscal year 2006, a total of $38.2 million has been paid out in cases involving 47 awards.
In what is reported to be one of the largest settlements ever, in July 2006, a quadriplegic boy was awarded $43.1 million. The case alleged that now 7-year-old, Mario Rodriguez, became a quadriplegic after receiving a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine on January. 25, 2000.
Under the guidelines of the vaccine compensation fund program, the lawsuit was filed against the Department of Health and Human Services. Kansas City attorney, Leland Dempsey, who represented the child, told the Kansas City Star: "One unusual aspect of the case is that Mario is expected to have a normal lifespan, and therefore will require more years of care that will cost more money."
"He will need round-the-clock care, including extensive medical intervention, throughout his life," Mr Dempsey said.
Many other vaccine related lawsuits have been filed against drug makers. For instance, Eli Lilly, the company that invented thimerosal back in the 1930s, informed its shareholders in its 2005 Annual Report filed with the SEC on April 1, 2006: "We have been named as a defendant in approximately 340 actions in the U.S., involving approximately 1,020 claimants, brought in various state courts and federal district courts on behalf of children with autism or other neurological disorders."
Lilly also stated, we believe that "the majority of the cases should not be prosecuted in the courts in which they have been brought because the underlying claims are subject to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986."
Under the Act, claims must first be brought before the US Court of Claims for an award determination under the guidelines established by the Act. However, as Lilly points out in its filing, "Claimants who are unsatisfied with their awards under the Act may reject the award and seek traditional judicial remedies.""
And there is much more information available.
0Dec 24, '12 by Laidback AlQuote from olddraggerSeat belts are not 100% effective either. You must also be against mandatory seat belt regulations. So how often do you not "buckle up" to flaunt authority?. . . Once more, just to clarify, I am not anti-vaccination. I am anti mandatory vaccination using a vaccination that is not truly effective. . . . .
1Dec 24, '12 by mariebailey, MSN, RNolddragger, You're in opposition to something near & dear to my public health nursing heart, so I will counter you despite having a hard time keeping up with multiple, intermingling arguments on topics across the vaccine board that I find difficult to follow in a single post. The conspiracy theories creating the foundation of the anti-vaccine movement today put people at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases, so I can't just nod & grin at a comment that can by read and taken seriously be anyone with access to the internet.
-USA Today, the only major media publication you mentioned, did exactly the opposite of what you claimed. See "Report Linking Vaccine to Autism an Elaborate Fraud", an article published by the USA Today 1/6/11. Report linking vaccine to autism 'an elaborate fraud' - USATODAY.com
-I had to look up UPI, & nothing I read gave me incentive to consider it a legitimate publication.
-Thimerosal in multidose vials prevents vaccine contamination; it is not in a form or potency capable of causing adverse health effects, according to study after study after study. Interesting stat: "Exclusively breastfed infants ingest 15x more mercury in breast milk than is contained in the influenza vaccine." http://www.chop.edu/export/download/...ngredients.pdf
-You left out a primary reason for the legislation that led to the The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund:to create a no-fault, accessible, efficient means for those injured by vaccines to be compensated. No-fault means, among other things, the vaccine recipient need not prove the vaccine to be the cause of the injury to be awarded compensation. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html
-The Congressional hearing you speak of was basically a historical re-enactment of Jenny McCarthy's war brought on by ill-informed legislators:http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensa...ation-hearing/
-The only link I think you put in your reply was a link to a website created by parents whose children had autism. I would want answers too, and I do not blame them for looking for any explanation possible. Again, the autism-vaccine link myth has failed to withstand study after study after study.
-Olddragger, have you ever viewed "The Vaccine War" documentary by PBS? Great documentary of both sides of the debate: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/
1Dec 25, '12 by psu_213, BSN, RNQuote from Laidback AlSome people's objection to the flu shot that they don't want to put "that into their body." A seat belt is not injected into the body...so, apples and oranges.Seat belts are not 100% effective either. You must also be against mandatory seat belt regulations. So how often do you not "buckle up" to flaunt authority?
However, I never really got the "I don't want it in my body" argument. One of our "standard" assessment questions in the ER is to ask if they go the flu shot this season (we only ask during flu season). Some patients will say to me "no way, I always refuse. I don't want some stranger shooting something into my body like that." Funny, most never seem to put up a fight when I come in with IM or IV dilaudid, even if they don't need it.
0Dec 26, '12 by olddraggerI hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!
MarieBailey--thank you for that reference. I really can't speak to the vaccination/autism subject, it is complicated! I do agree that there does seem to be a lot of fear mongers out there.
I thought my reference was to the ties of the CDC to the pharmacological industry and the inherent conflicts of interests that brings?
Public Health Nursing does wonderful work. Thank God they are there.
Again I am not anti vaccination. I am agaisnt mandatory Influenza Vaccination or loose your job. And, please do not go to the "I can wear a mask at all times" option. To me that is not a realistic option at all. The way John Hopkins handled it is good. They stated that if you are within 6 feet (or in the room) with a patient then you must mask. That would be ok and logical.
For new posters etc , I cannot receive the flu shot because I have documented extreme reactions to vaccinations.
I do believe that this society has been sold a "bill of goods" concerning the effectiveness of the influenza vaccinations on the whole population. I also believe that the influenza vaccination has a definite use in high risk populations. Unfortunately the ones that are the highest risk are the ones that have the least response to it--the elderly
The seat belt analogy is an interesting one, but as stated you dont loose your job/career if you fail to use one.
ACUTE CARE FACILITIES WOULD HAVE NEVER MANDATED FLU SHOTS FOR THEIR HCW'S IF CMS HAD NOT PLACED REIMBURSEMENT (MEDICARE) AT RISK BECAUSE THEIR WORKERS WERE NOT VACCINATED. This is were it all is coming from nurses. It's not about all of a sudden acute care hospitals are interested in preventing Influenza!
I dont think there has ever been a documented case in which a hcw gave a patient influenza? Does anyone have any information concerning that?
0Dec 26, '12 by imjustme123Quote from Laidback AlI actually know someone who refuses to buckle up because he is not hurting anyone but himself if he does not buckle up and crashes. He says it is stupid to make a law against it for that reason. I buckle up myself, but I see his point. People should have freedom of choice especially when it is not hurting another. In the vaccine debate, there is no clear risk vs benefit for vaccine recipient vs others etc. Someone may argue that, but it is very debatable. It depends on who you ask. At any rate, freedom of choice matters when things are not so very clear.Seat belts are not 100% effective either. You must also be against mandatory seat belt regulations. So how often do you not "buckle up" to flaunt authority?
1Dec 26, '12 by Laidback AlQuote from imjustme123So what happens when you have influenza and you infect a comprised patient? From all of the negative comments posted about vaccinations here you would think that the only individual in danger is the nurse. Who speaks for the patients?. . . People should have freedom of choice especially when it is not hurting another. . . .
0Dec 27, '12 by olddraggerIf proper infection control procedures are done for influenza then the chance of infecting a patient is very very very small.
For example--how do we deal with MRSA? Isn't MRSA present in a lot of us? Don't we do the best we can to protect our patients from that without any vaccination or hcw treatment?
Now proper infection control procedures does include staying home when you are ill, washing hands ( which we really cant do as we should), using a face mask when needed, isolating infected patients, proper nurse patient ratio, proper room cleaning, masking the infected patient, restricting visitors and so forth. You know--many of the things that are not done as they should be.
One of the issues with influenza vaccinations and human behavior is that once a person receives a "vaccination" they think they are protected. Once a person thinks they cannot catch the disease then they can become more lax concerning the disease.
I will give you a personnel example-- an elderly friend called and wanted to visit us over the w/e. My wife had a cough and some minor sinus drainage for the past few days and just wasn't feeling well. I suggested that they may want to postpone their visit for a little while. They told me " Oh, don't worry I have had the flu shot last month". I tried to explain to them that the flu shot didn't guarantee protection, but, they just couldn't understand and came anyway. They thought they were protected but really they weren't.
It's good to have a vaccination available, but we need to be realistic about how effective it is.