Should the H1N1 Vaccine be mandatory for Healthcare Professionals? - page 14
This is a hot topic, so I thought I'd ask all your opinion of allnurses.com community. According a survey linked below, 87% of the public think we should? What do you as a healthcare provider think? Please take a second and... Read More
- 0Nov 3, '09 by GinapixiQuote from Purple_Scrubsyes I do! since i had an adverse reaction a few years ago!So, you refuse your yearly TB test too?
As we all know allergies develop over time, being exposed to the allergen over and again; who is to say who will react to what after being exposed to it on a regular basis?
what happened to freedom of choice?
- 1Nov 3, '09 by GinapixiQuote from goopsywe all have to draw the line some where at some point.... or just follow the leader blindly... that is not me, ergo i am not in the militaryUmmm..OK. You're logic doesn't make sense. What about all those other vaccinations that you're required to have????????????
- 0Nov 4, '09 by ShortStackRNI'm another one who doesn't believe in unneccessary vaccinations. I have NEVER had a flu shot and I've never had the flu. That is until this year...I had H1N1 before the vaccine became available...wasn't very bad at all...just a fever and bad headache..no where NEAR the seasonal flu. I will not be having vaccines and I refuse for someone to tell me that I HAVE to go get a voluntary shot like the flu vaccine.
- 3Nov 4, '09 by lamazeteacherQuote from quetepyepatients do have that right, but we hcps do not, by virtue of our standing for health! if you refused to be tb tested (if you're a neg. reactor), you're not hired, since it's required prehiring; and if you are employed, your employer has the right to fire you if you refuse any yearly tb test requirement. hepb is the only vaccine that can be refused, and the hospital has those who refuse it, sign that they have been informed of the consequences of not being protected against it, should a needlestick/sharps incident occur. then you can't sue them if you get it through occupational exposure. :di say no. why should it be?
now, just for the record, i did get the h1n1 vaccine because i'm immunocompromised to the point of where getting h1n1 would probably be worse than any vaccine effects. but - i did not do it because i was required, and i would never think anyone else should be required to do so either.
so if the result of your immunity from h1n1, due to your being vaccinated, means that others will not get it from you; whereas if you had become infected with it, if you hadn't been vaccinated, exposure to you while incubating it and coughing after getting sick with it, could kill others, that wouldn't have persuaded you to have the vaccine?
of course there is the uninformed expression of generic vaccine incorrect, unfounded info that you hear on the news all the time of autism, parents not vaccinating their kids, etc. - no one knows what to do about that. i do. those kids who aren't vaccinated, stay home. do we really think there is going to be a unanimous consensus on this?? only when experience proves that vaccination is safe, and having h1n1 can have lethal effects.
not to mention - like many of you have reminded us - they "assembled" this reliably produced vaccine as fast as they could, by years of experience with the process used for seasonal vaccine that is the same for h1n1 vaccine tested it even faster, computers helped gather the stats, as wasn't possible years ago and really have no evidence of the long-term effects of the ingredients. other than the killed h1n1 virus, they are the same as seasonal flu vaccine and yearly the virus used changes just as h1n1 is different.
but back to the requirement issue...
so healthcare professionals don't get the vaccine and either a) do not get h1n1 at all, unlikelyor b) get h1n1, take some time off (is that what the hospitals, etc. are trying to prevent?),sure, they hate to have rested staff or c) get h1n1 and leave the facility short of regular staff who know where everything is and the routine there "die" - worst case scenario. unlikely.very jaded view, for one so young and new in the profession. have heart - things change more when we become part of that process
that's pretty much it, so what's the big deal? as long as a healthcare professional is not at work while infected with h1n1, what does it matter? there is that pesky 2-3 day period before s/s become evident, when hcp's are as communicable as they are when the symptoms are most present......
it's our individual decisions to make. not if you are a health professional role modeling appropriate health motivated behavior, and represent your employer to the public if they are going to require anything, i say require time off if a hcp gets h1n1 just so the patients are protected.that's what has been recommended.
if they're making this vaccine required, then we ourselves are becoming the patients, not unless you do get sick. patients by definition are ill! and since when did patients lose their right to decline consent for anything?
- 1Nov 4, '09 by WoodenpugFrom the many "chest thumping - I aint gonna be made ta do nutin" posts, I think we can see that a mandatory vaccination policy, is probably not an effective strategy.
The CDC also seems to feel that mandatory vaccination policys would not be effective.
"To improve adherence, vaccination should be offered to healthcare personnel free of charge and during working hours. Vaccination campaigns with incentives such as lotteries with prizes should be considered. Healthcare facilities should require personnel who refuse vaccination to complete a declination form."
CDC H1N1 Flu | Interim Guidance on Infection Control Measures for 2009 H1N1 Influenza in Healthcare Settings, Including Protection of Healthcare Personnel. (n.d.). . Retrieved November 4, 2009, from http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/ill-hcp.htm.
- 0Nov 4, '09 by PfiestyI have not yet found the time to compare the differences (if any) of the current H1N1 vaccine with the 1977 H1N1 vaccines. If it has not changed, I am extremely concerned about the safety. GB is more serious than it was in 1977 because of the increased potential of MDR infections as complications from hospitalizations for GB. I hope there is significant changes so that the potential of GB and other complications is much smaller now. The rates of complications in 1977 is not only unacceptable to me, it caused the termination of the vaccine's use in '77.
Can anyone on this board help me research this?
Thank you, trusted colleagues!
- 0Nov 4, '09 by WoodenpugQuote from PfiestyThe pandemic to which you are refering is also known as "the pandemic that never was." That is the reason the gb rates were uacceptably high. In a nutshell, you are more likely to develope gb from H1n1 infection than from the vaccination. Given time I'll write a more complete answer, but like you I'm a little busy now. You can get a jump on me by focusing your research on the etiology of Guillain-Barré.I have not yet found the time to compare the differences (if any) of the current H1N1 vaccine with the 1977 H1N1 vaccines. If it has not changed, I am extremely concerned about the safety. GB is more serious than it was in 1977 because of the increased potential of MDR infections as complications from hospitalizations for GB. I hope there is significant changes so that the potential of GB and other complications is much smaller now. The rates of complications in 1977 is not only unacceptable to me, it caused the termination of the vaccine's use in '77.
Can anyone on this board help me research this?
Thank you, trusted colleagues!
- 0Nov 4, '09 by PfiestyWoodenpug,
I am aware of the etiology of GB. It was the vaccine recipients that got the GB in '77, not the infected. While most GB is a result of an autoimmune response after infection, auto-immune responses result after an immune response, whether by dead (vaccine) or live pathogens. Certain associated substances, like vaccine preservatives can encourage the response in susceptible individuals. So, my question was, since there was an unacceptable rate of GB associated directly with the vaccine in '77, what is the difference in this year's vaccine compared to the last one?
- 0Nov 4, '09 by indigo girlQuote from PfiestyIf I am understanding your question correctly, you want to compare the 2009 swine vaccine with the 1976 swine vaccine. Is that correct?Certain associated substances, like vaccine preservatives can encourage the response in susceptible individuals. So, my question was, since there was an unacceptable rate of GB associated directly with the vaccine in '77, what is the difference in this year's vaccine compared to the last one?
Why would you want to do that?
They are two different vaccines targeting two completely different viruses.
Why not compare the annual seasonal flu vaccines given over the last 30 some years to the 2009 swine flu vaccine?
I am not seeing the point of comparing the 1976 swine vax to the 2009 swine vax.