Pregnant nurse fired for refusing flu shot

Nurses COVID

Published

"A pregnant nurse in Pennsylvania who refused to get a flu shot due to her fear of miscarrying was fired from her job with a health care company.

LANCASTER, Pa.-A pregnant woman who refused to get a flu shot due to her fear of miscarrying was fired from her job with a health care company.

Dreonna Breton worked as a registered nurse for Horizons Healthcare Services in central Pennsylvania. The company requires all personnel to get the influenza vaccine.

Breton contended the immunizations may not be safe enough for pregnant women. She suffered two miscarriages earlier this year, and doesn't want to risk a third."

http://news.msn.com/us/pregnant-nurse-fired-for-refusing-flu-shot

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/qa_vacpregnant.htm

The hospitals like anyone else has to follow state laws about religious objectors just like anyone else even if it goes against scientific theory.

Again post one peer-reviewed scientific article that states your opinions on flu vaccines are correct.

No one is forcing anyone to get vaccines, but as a part of your employment you either get the vaccine or find another job. It is that simple. It is unfortunate that you wouldn't even consider protecting your newborn's life by getting a pertussis vaccine while pregnant. https://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Obstetric_Practice/Update_on_Immunization_and_Pregnancy_Tetorifice_Diphtheria_and_Pertussis_Vaccination

It is funny that ACOG disagrees with you about vaccines during pregnancy, but hey what does ACOG know anyways...

Watch the video and listen closely..it wasn't a condition of her employment when she took the job.

We are not discussing any other vaccine other than the flu-shot...if you want to start another thread, feel free to do so.

However, since you brought it up, I work in the neonate/women's health arena, mostly high risk. I work around a ton of MFM's. Not a single one of them is recommending these vaccinations to these patients routinely. I have no idea of what regular OB's recommend because I don't work around, "normal" patients.

They recommend the flu shot, but they don't cram it down these women's throats especially if they have had repeated miscarriages and even then, they recommend a mask until they at least get past the first trimester. The reason: It's category B. These women are so hypersensitive about losing another baby, they won't get on a plane, take long trips, will even cut down on exercise and even refuse sex.

You cannot ignore the patient's health history.

So, please provide the efficacy of the annual influenza vaccines over the last decade and show how it is not been effective in the treatment for the prevention of influenza. Also, provide some proof that healthcare workers who receive the influenza vaccine are not also an effective treatment in reducing transmission of influenza throughout the hospital. I will be waiting any peer-reviewed scientific statements you can find to prove your beliefs that flu vaccine is not effective preventive measure against influenza.

The military is a great test subject for comparisons on all sorts of health matters. The US military members are required to be vaccinated against a variety of illnesses and yet they show no higher complication rates than what is reported in the overall general public. This is essentially an annual sample size of over million persons, and that doesn't even include military retirees and dependents.

As as a nurse we are taught two important ethical principles of beneficence and nonmalfinacence. In my honest educated opinion nurses that refuse to get their annual flu based on a personal beliefs that go against the scientific literature should not be allowed to practice nursing.

Once again, I never stated it wasn't effective, I stated it wasn't 100% effective because every strain is not in every vaccine every year. People get strains that isn't in the vaccine...that is right on the CDC website...go read it.

I would disagree with your comment about people in the military showing no greater signs of complication rates. Considering 45% of all veterans are filing for disability...that sounds like complications to me coming from somewhere. Sometimes the problems show up later.

Since you like articles..here you go...

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-almost-half-vets-seek-disability-160656481.html

And of course...this investigative report explains why the military claims that all the vaccines are safe and states that doesn't have any 'reports' of adverse effects...if enlisted members are threatened for reporting it or you have military physicians that refuses to acknowledge it, well, that kind of cuts that down now doesn't it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/military-vaccine-woes-mount/

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Are you familiar with pregnancy risk categories? I am wagering you do not. Considering you skipped right over that section and didn't even address it. Allow me to redirect you to the elephant in the room that you refuse to acknowledge.

A--means 100% safe. No documented association with any birth defect.

B--probably safe. This means that it carries a risk...a risk a mother of recurrent pregnancy losses wasn't willing to take a chance on.

If it was 100% safe it would be category A. Again, notice it is not.

I work in an area where women have moved heaven and earth to be able to conceive and carry a baby to term..and even when everything is done right, still don't make it. If you do not work in that area of nursing, then you are SERIOUSLY out of touch with how emotionally draining it is to keep getting pregnant, only to end up losing the baby. EVERYTHING MATTERS when it keeps happening.

FACT: We don't know what causes miscarriage 100% of the time. Therefore, you cannot sit there and say with 100% certainty that "this didn't cause your miscarriage" because anything is possible.

FACT: If you have two miscarriages, your chances of having a third are significantly increased.

FACT: No vaccine is 100% effective against ANY disease.

FACT: No flu vaccine contains every strain that is going around...that is what I meant by a false sense of security.

You didn't read my post. This happened in the early part of the flu season this year....in certain geographical areas, the strain that was going around wasn't in the vaccine. A vaccinated child near where I lived died of one. She had no other health issues, other than the strain didn't match the vaccine she got.

FACT: Unvaccinated visitors puts patient's at risk as well. It is not just employees.

FACT: If unvaccinated nurses would put patients at risk, this is equally true, even if nurses refuse due to religious reasons.

I think you need to pick up your grade-school skills and read what I posted. You are on such a pro-military, pro-vaccine high horse and blindly post articles, but you are not engaging in critical thinking...critical thinking is putting knowledge with the patient's individual medical history to come up with a solution. If it was just a matter of pure statistics, they wouldn't need nurses, they could train any monkey to just pull up a protocol.

I NEVER STATED that vaccines didn't reduce the risk....yet you posted that I didn't believe they did...don't make it up as you go along.

I ONLY stated that there was no literature on the safety of the flu vaccines in women WITH A HISTORY OF REPEATED MISCARRIAGE!!!!!....

You also didn't apparently research the women's situation very well...the flu vaccine was not mandatory when she took the job, it was a NEW POLICY that started last fall. To me, that legally changes the terms of her employment. The state recommendation also stated that if a flu shot was refused, a mask was acceptable...a policy that the hospital did not wish to offer her.

I am probably more aware of medication pregnancy risk categories than you are or most people especially after 5 semesters of graduate pharmacology and prescribing medications and doing anesthesia for pregnant/post-partum women on a regular basis.

The inactivated influenza vaccine, the one that is recommended during pregnancy, is a labeled as pregnancy risk category B.

I read your post(s), and I commented on what I thought was pertinent. I don't feel like writing a dissertation every time some ill informed person chooses to believe in conspiracy theories and deny all existing peer-reviewed scientific evidence on vaccines.

My critical thinking skills are on par with my formal educational level. I can put aside what I consider "common sense" read the literature thoroughly and make an informed decision while putting my personal biases aside. This is something you seem to be sorely lacking in.

I don't know where you found this was a new policy for the hospital where this lady worked at, but I could not find one news article that stated that.

http://depts.washington.edu/druginfo/Formulary/Pregnancy.pdf

Maternal safety of trivalent inactivated infl... [Obstet Gynecol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI


  2. "8.1 Pregnancy
  3. 270 Pregnancy Category B: A reproductive and developmental toxicity study has been performed
  4. 271 in female rats at a dose approximately 265 times the human dose (on a mg/kg basis) and
  5. 272 revealed no evidence of impaired female fertility or harm to the fetus due to AFLURIA. There
  6. 273 are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal
  7. 274 reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, AFLURIA should be given
  8. 275 to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed. "

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM263239.pdf

Specializes in Anesthesia.

Dr. Alan Peterson, director of community and environmental medicine at Lancaster General Health, said it is in the best interests of patients and employees for health-care workers to get vaccinated against the flu.

"It is both an ethical and a moral issue," he said. "The fact that a health care worker could potentially be spreading an organism, to healthy people or to unhealthy people is just not conscionable."

And, he said, pregnant women are at greater risk of getting the flu, and anyone who gets the flu is at risk of illness or death.

On masks, he said, they are not 100 percent effective, with germs being able to escape from their tops, bottoms or sides. He acknowledged that masks do provide some protection and are permitted on a case-by-case basis for LGH employees exempted from the flu-shot requirement.

Dr. Kurt Barnhart, chairman of the Pennsylvania section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and an OB-GYN at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, said his organization recommends that pregnant women get a flu vaccine, as long as it does not contain a live virus. Vaccinations containing a live virus are rare these days, he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees with Barnhart and his organization.

"Flu is more likely to cause severe illness in pregnant women than in women who are not pregnant," according to the CDC's website.

"Changes in the immune system, heart and lungs during pregnancy make pregnant women more prone to severe illness from flu, which can lead to hospitalization or even death.

"A pregnant woman with the flu also has a greater chance of serious problems for her unborn baby, including premature labor and delivery."

While certain that all women, including pregnant women, are better off with a flu vaccine, Barnhart was not as sure regarding the protection a mask might provide.

"I don't think we know," he said, "but I suspect a mask is not as good as a vaccine. That's why we recommend the vaccine."

Elizabethtown nurse fired for refusing flu shot says she had to protect unborn child - LancasterOnline: News

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Watch the video and listen closely..it wasn't a condition of her employment when she took the job.

We are not discussing any other vaccine other than the flu-shot...if you want to start another thread, feel free to do so.

However, since you brought it up, I work in the neonate/women's health arena, mostly high risk. I work around a ton of MFM's. Not a single one of them is recommending these vaccinations to these patients routinely. I have no idea of what regular OB's recommend because I don't work around, "normal" patients.

They recommend the flu shot, but they don't cram it down these women's throats especially if they have had repeated miscarriages and even then, they recommend a mask until they at least get past the first trimester. The reason: It's category B. These women are so hypersensitive about losing another baby, they won't get on a plane, take long trips, will even cut down on exercise and even refuse sex.

You cannot ignore the patient's health history.

Yes, it is pregnancy category B like most medications that are approved for pregnancy, because it is nearly impossible to get an A rating d/t lack of IRB approvals for doing RCTs on pregnant women.

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Once again, I never stated it wasn't effective, I stated it wasn't 100% effective because every strain is not in every vaccine every year. People get strains that isn't in the vaccine...that is right on the CDC website...go read it.

I would disagree with your comment about people in the military showing no greater signs of complication rates. Considering 45% of all veterans are filing for disability...that sounds like complications to me coming from somewhere. Sometimes the problems show up later.

Since you like articles..here you go...

AP IMPACT: Almost half of new vets seek disability

And of course...this investigative report explains why the military claims that all the vaccines are safe and states that doesn't have any 'reports' of adverse effects...if enlisted members are threatened for reporting it or you have military physicians that refuses to acknowledge it, well, that kind of cuts that down now doesn't it?

Military Vaccine Woes Mount - CBS News

You gotta love all those peer-reviewed scientific articles.

The last article is utter BS, and I know that for a fact. All of those adverse reactions are probably reported more by the military than any other hospital in the U.S. My coworker had an adverse reaction to the small pox vaccine and it wasn't covered up. It was treated, reported, and placed in his military record for later VA benefits as was needed for when he leaves the military just as thousands of other military members have had done.

There is no debate here just your rabbling on and on. You have yet to provide any scientific evidence of any sort. You are still suggesting that vaccines are unsafe, and still provide no proof that vaccines might have some conspiracy theory behind them.

Right dose, right route, etc. is a silly comment. I would counter by saying what person is not susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases, and what health care professionals is not able to spread these vaccine preventable diseases to patients?.

Vaccines should be mandated because of the proven health risks vaccine-preventable diseases are to every person throughout the world.

Vaccine Preventable Deaths and the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, 2006--2015 Here is the list of estimates of mortality of vaccine preventable diseases.

Also, if you want to counter the "awful" data from CDC on influenza mortality then you need to provide some peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

Good to know my proffering an opinion on a subject is considered by you to be rabbling. I fail to see why I need to provide any scientific evidence for what I have already commented on as there is little in the way of claims contained therein, simply criticisms and concerns. That you are incapable or unwilling to allay those and instead choose to shift the goalposts with accusations like I am "suggesting vaccines are unsafe" and that there is "some conspiracy theory" is laughable. You have said yourself that nothing is 100% safe, vaccines included. I agree with that. I also know that vaccines, especially in the past, could be made safer, but were not in the interest of cost-saving. You know that too, but will invariably request proof, which I will not provide.

Susceptibility, and subsequent acquired immunity to naturally acquired diseases, is not the same as those that bypass the body's natural immune process. Sometimes vaccines do a better job of that, many times they don't. If you believe, scientifically, that the injection of a pathogen, attenuated or otherwise, along with other adjuvants = being exposed to and acquiring that disease, then we can just end the conversation, because that's just obtuse.

The CDC data, by their report, isn't solely based on influenza mortality, you know that. I'll not jump through hoops to prove you wrong.

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.

The vaccine has a pregnancy risk category, interestingly enough, of B...if it was 100% safe, it would have a risk category of A.

There are only about half a dozen drugs in existence that have a category A, and most of them are vitamins/mineral supplements. It's next to impossible to get a pharmaceutical a pregnancy A category.

Nothing is 100% safe, ever. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Good to know my proffering an opinion on a subject is considered by you to be rabbling. I fail to see why I need to provide any scientific evidence for what I have already commented on as there is little in the way of claims contained therein, simply criticisms and concerns. That you are incapable or unwilling to allay those and instead choose to shift the goalposts with accusations like I am "suggesting vaccines are unsafe" and that there is "some conspiracy theory" is laughable. You have said yourself that nothing is 100% safe, vaccines included. I agree with that. I also know that vaccines, especially in the past, could be made safer, but were not in the interest of cost-saving. You know that too, but will invariably request proof, which I will not provide.

Susceptibility, and subsequent acquired immunity to naturally acquired diseases, is not the same as those that bypass the body's natural immune process. Sometimes vaccines do a better job of that, many times they don't. If you believe, scientifically, that the injection of a pathogen, attenuated or otherwise, along with other adjuvants = being exposed to and acquiring that disease, then we can just end the conversation, because that's just obtuse.

The CDC data, by their report, isn't solely based on influenza mortality, you know that. I'll not jump through hoops to prove you wrong.

It is rambling because you constantly fail to provide any substance to your posts i.e. peer reviewed scientific evidence. That is equivalent of saying, "hey just take my word for it".

Vaccines in the past were different and no they weren't just unsafe for cost effectiveness. They are always exceptions, but in general the reasons vaccines are much safer now is that they contain very specific proteins to impart immunity onto the vaccinated subject. This wasn't always true, and still isn't true for the small pox vaccines that has thousands of different proteins. It is also the reason that a large portion of people have reactions to the small pox vaccine. Different Types of Vaccines â€" History of Vaccines

Your trying to compare vaccines to naturally acquired immunity is plain ignorance at best. The whole purpose of a vaccine is to prevent the body from developing a "natural" immunity, because it is dangerous often debilitating and can be deadly for people to acquire these vaccine preventable diseases. Do you even know the mortality rates prior to vaccine preventable diseases? Vaccines: Vac-Gen/What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations

The CDC clearly spells out why it is hard to know the exact number of influenza deaths in U.S., and they also point out that people often die of influenza related complications such as pneumonia. That in no way imparts a lack of vaccine ineffectiveness or a reason not to get an annual influenza vaccine. CDC - Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States: CDC Study Confirms Variability of Flu | Seasonal Influenza (Flu)

+ Add a Comment