Mandatory Flu Vaccines- How do you feel?

Nurses COVID

Published

Anyone else upset by the requirement to take flu vaccine or else... not even a mask option??? Only way out is a MD note stating "severe" allergy. Why is it we can't force our patients but our hospitals can force us.

I am pregnant and know I am high risk, but I took the vaccine in my last pregnancy and my son has an egg allergy. No proof linking, but no study not linking. I am so close to maternity leave and was going to wait until I delivered to be vaccinated. Do you know that they don't recommend the flu vaccine until a baby is 6 months but somehow it is safe for a near term "fetus"? Shouldn't we have the right to say no, just like out patients?

I love getting my free flu shot from work. It's the best.

0 Votes

Another good reason why there needs to be a NATIONAL nurses union.

There is a national nurses' union. In fact, there are two.

About NNU | National Nurses United

About Our Union | National Federation of Nurses

0 Votes
I can tell by your post that you don't know the difference between FILING and WINNING.

IIRC, redhead has a JD, so I'm betting she knows the difference.

I think redhead was saying the same thing you just said, that anyone could file a suit for that, leading to annoyance and fun for the person sued, but unlikely to win.

0 Votes
Specializes in Med/surg, Quality & Risk.
Honey, let me give you some education very quickly.

I could hire an attorney right now, to get a court order, track down your Allnurses.com screen name right back to your ISP which is like getting an address to your house and sue you just because I don't like this post.

I can FILE anything I want.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'LL WIN AND COLLECT A DIME.

Yes, I said "won"...go back and re-read my post. I can tell by your post that you don't know the difference between FILING and WINNING.

PS: You can only collect if you win and even that, is if you have something to take.

The vast majority of malpractice cases, just so you know, are taken ON CONTINGENCY by lawyers. You really think some sick guy has $250/hr to pay an attorney for a case that can take years to win? Uh, that would be a no.

That is because, most malpractice attorneys ONLY TAKE CASES THEY THINK THEY CAN WIN!!!!

An UNPROVABLE accusation such as getting the flu while you are a patient in a hospital while you are receiving visitors and tracing that back to a SINGLE NURSE, is not proveable by any stretch of the imagination, not even in the Twilight Zone.

Giving me education "very quickly?" No thank you, I spent 22 years since age 5 getting mine. What cereal box did you pull YOUR JD out of?

Thank you for proving my point, HONEY. Apparently you have no earthly idea what you said in the first place, since you spent PARAGRAPHS making my argument for me. Again, your ignorance on how lawyers work up cases tells me your experience with them is nil.

Oh, and thanks for the education on the fee structure of a malpractice case. I had no idea that most of them were taken on contingency!! :roflmao: Oh, and about how you can't collect anything if the person doesn't have anything to take? OMG I never knew that!!! (Um BTW we're talking about suing facilities here, I think they "have something to take," so not sure why that piece of info was put out there, unless you think you're actually demonstrating your knowledge of the court system with that one. :facepalm: )

0 Votes
Specializes in Med/surg, Quality & Risk.
IIRC, redhead has a JD, so I'm betting she knows the difference.

I think redhead was saying the same thing you just said, that anyone could file a suit for that, leading to annoyance and fun for the person sued, but unlikely to win.

Which is not what they said in the first place. They said "So no, lawsuit won't happen. Court requires proof." They did not specify they were referring to someone WINNING a lawsuit AT ALL. The "lawsuit" HAS HAPPENED and WILL HAPPEN, over and over again, without proof, and will always result in $$$ being spent, either defending, settling, or both. So yes, anything that allows someone to think they have the right to bring a suit is a real concern for facilities.

0 Votes
Honey, let me give you some education very quickly.

I could hire an attorney right now, to get a court order, track down your Allnurses.com screen name right back to your ISP which is like getting an address to your house and sue you just because I don't like this post.

I can FILE anything I want.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'LL WIN AND COLLECT A DIME.

Yes, I said "won"...go back and re-read my post. I can tell by your post that you don't know the difference between FILING and WINNING.

PS: You can only collect if you win and even that, is if you have something to take.

The vast majority of malpractice cases, just so you know, are taken ON CONTINGENCY by lawyers. You really think some sick guy has $250/hr to pay an attorney for a case that can take years to win? Uh, that would be a no.

That is because, most malpractice attorneys ONLY TAKE CASES THEY THINK THEY CAN WIN!!!!

An UNPROVABLE accusation such as getting the flu while you are a patient in a hospital while you are receiving visitors and tracing that back to a SINGLE NURSE, is not proveable by any stretch of the imagination, not even in the Twilight Zone.

Your pejorative remarks only make you look foolish.

Many (most?) lawsuits settle without actually going before a judge/trial. You can "win" without winning. The threat of an expensive and lengthy lawsuit is a strong incentive to settle.

There is another thread about Philipino nurses suing a hospital over discrimination. The hospital settled for $1M.

0 Votes
Specializes in Med/surg, Quality & Risk.

Many (most?) lawsuits settle without actually going before a judge/trial. You can "win" without winning. The threat of an expensive and lengthy lawsuit is a strong incentive to settle.

The last estimate I saw was over 95 (yes NINETY-FIVE!!!!) percent. Med mal is quite a bit lower I know, but still way more often than not. I'd take those odds and so do most lawyers who call themselves med mal attorneys!

0 Votes
Specializes in Trauma, ER, ICU, CCU, PACU, GI, Cardiology, OR.

And the Beat Goes On...dance.gifdance.gifdance.gif

0 Votes
IIRC, redhead has a JD, so I'm betting she knows the difference.

I think redhead was saying the same thing you just said, that anyone could file a suit for that, leading to annoyance and fun for the person sued, but unlikely to win.

Alleged JD. I take everything with a grain of salt on the internet.

I also asked her to post a case (of a lawsuit won because a family claimed the nurse gave the patient the flu that wasn't vaccinated)...so far, she hasn't posted one. Again, MY POINT, has been proven. If she has a JD, it clearly explains why she doesn't work in law because those jobs sort of require a basic understanding of the concepts.

That is the first thing a corporate attorney is going to look at...has a case EVER been won on that basis? If the answer is no...trust me, they won't pay. Filed or not. This is called "case law".

What amazes me is that she doesn't seem to know that just because a case is filed, a facility will only pay if they think they won't win or a chance, they will lose.

I'm surprised a group of educated healthcare professionals that have posted to this recently cannot figure out that you cannot prove that a SINGLE unvaccinated nurse gave a patient the flu if the patient has visitors and even then. It's completely laughable.

0 Votes
Your pejorative remarks only make you look foolish.

Many (most?) lawsuits settle without actually going before a judge/trial. You can "win" without winning. The threat of an expensive and lengthy lawsuit is a strong incentive to settle.

There is another thread about Philipino nurses suing a hospital over discrimination. The hospital settled for $1M.

Hospitals will always pay if:

1) The family is asking for a nominal amount of money...according to our corporate attorney, the most common request from filed lawsuits is for the family to simply, not pay their bill.

2) The facility believes they have a CHANCE of losing.

3) The facility believes they are SURE they will lose.

4) The family has substantial resources to continue a case to make it more expensive than settling (key).

They will not pay:

1) Cases that are baseless...where the family cannot possibly prove their accusations because the proof does not exist.

2) Well-documented cases where the ducks line up like soldiers.

Discrimination is a different animal. Anytime you involve someone in a protected class, I can tell you now there is ALWAYS chance a facility will lose.

Back around to the original point, if a patient receives visitors, plus being attended to by nurses and other staff workers, and one nurse wasn't vaccinated against the flu, if the patient gets sick, you cannot prove that the patient got the flu from the non-vaccinated nurse and NO OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCE. One almost cannot even list all the variables of how the infection could occur.

0 Votes
Specializes in Med/surg, Quality & Risk.
Alleged JD. I take everything with a grain of salt on the internet.

I also asked her to post a case (of a lawsuit won because a family claimed the nurse gave the patient the flu that wasn't vaccinated)...so far, she hasn't posted one. Again, MY POINT, has been proven. If she has a JD, it clearly explains why she doesn't work in law because those jobs sort of require a basic understanding of the concepts.

Actually you didn't ask me to do that, but it doesn't surprise me that you have no idea who you are replying to half the time.

That is the first thing a corporate attorney is going to look at...has a case EVER been won on that basis? If the answer is no...trust me, they won't pay. Filed or not. This is called "case law".

It IS? Thanks for the education!

What amazes me is that she doesn't seem to know that just because a case is filed, a facility will only pay if they think they won't win or a chance, they will lose.

What amazes me is that you don't seem to know that there is ALWAYS a chance they will lose, and just how often they pay something even when there is a very small chance they will lose. What also amazes me is that you don't seem to understand the staggering costs of litigating any suit, no matter how small, and seem to have no concept of how that weighs into the chances that a med mal attorney will take a crappy case.

I'm surprised a group of educated healthcare professionals that have posted to this recently cannot figure out that you cannot prove that a SINGLE unvaccinated nurse gave a patient the flu if the patient has visitors and even then. It's completely laughable.

It's completely laughable that you don't realize that NO ONE EVER SAID THAT.

I think this whole subject might just be over your head. Sorry we are embarrassing you.

0 Votes

Lets get back on topic ---

The other day I was in a health care facility. I saw three big burly guys in uniforms chase down and tackle a petite young nurse. She struggled to get away, but two of them held her down while the third reached into his pocket and pulled out a vial and syringe. He quickly and deftly administered a mandatory flu vaccination. They let her up and she was free to resume her nursely duties.

Did this really happen? No, of course not. But by the content of some of the posts in this thread you would think it was an everyday occurrence.

No HCW is "forced" to take a flu shot in our society. You are only "forced" to make a decision about whether or not you will comply with your employer's flu shot requirements or risk losing your job.

If there is anyone reading this thread who was tackled and vaccinated against their will, please let us know. In fact, read several of the posts above about legal issues--you may have a winnable lawsuit on your hands. :laugh:

0 Votes
+ Add a Comment