We were discussing the Disneryland measles outbreak at work, and I was appalled to find some of my co-workers refuse to vaccinate their kids. They (grudgingly) receive the vaccines they need to remain employed, but doubt their safety/necessity for their kids.
I must say, I am absolutley stunned. How can one be a nurse and deny science?
As a nurse, you should darn well know what the scientific method entails and what phrases such as "evidence based" and "peer reviewed" mean.
I have to say, I have lost most of my respect for the nurses and mistrust their judgement; after all, if they deny science, on what premise are they basing their practices?
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
I have read the label on the vaccines. Why does it say safety and effectiveness have not been established in pregnant women then?
Uh, it doesn't.
I just looked (I'm at work - at an OB/Gyn office) at the labels for both the TDap and influenza vaccines, which are the only two vaccines that are routinely given to women in pregnancy. Neither of them say anything about pregnancy anywhere on the label.
So what do you tell a scared mother of one child that has had many health problems and another one on the way? Yes vaccinate yourself everything will be fine...that to me is false reassurance.
I think as a psych nurse that you should be able to confidently reassure that mother in a way that made her feel comfortable while still giving her all the factual information to make an informed decision.
I don't think it is reasonable to say well we just don't know yet if vaccines are safe, because there has only been a few thousand studies on the safety of vaccines and that just isn't enough.
I just looked (I'm at work - at an OB/Gyn office) at the labels for both the TDap and influenza vaccines, which are the only two vaccines that are routinely given to women in pregnancy. Neither of them say anything about pregnancy anywhere on the label.
Maybe not on the bottle itself but in the insert. See here....
"--USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS---------------------• Safety and effectiveness of AFLURIA have not been established inpregnant women or nursing mothers. (8.1, 8.3)• Antibody responses were lower in geriatric subjects than in youngersubjects. (8.5)• AFLURIA is not approved for use in children less than 5 years of agebecause of increased rates of fever and febrile seizures. One comparatorcontrolledtrial demonstrated higher rates of fever in recipients ofAFLURIA as compared to a trivalent inactivated influenza vacc"
I think as a psych nurse that you should be able to confidently reassure that mother in a way that made her feel comfortable while still giving her all the factual information to make an informed decision.
I don't think it is reasonable to say well we just don't know yet if vaccines are, because there has only been a few thousand studies on the safety of vaccines and that just isn't enough.
An informed decision is right. Or would it just be about how great vaccines are. How about letting her know that her child could die (but they say it's rare) or could become ill after the vaccine. Instead we tread lightly on those parts of education. We don't want to scare someone into not taking it but convince them that the risk is so low. But what if their child is the one.
"--USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS---------------------• Safety and effectiveness of AFLURIA have not been established inpregnant women or nursing mothers. (8.1, 8.3)• Antibody responses were lower in geriatric subjects than in youngersubjects. (8.5)• AFLURIA is not approved for use in children less than 5 years of agebecause of increased rates of fever and febrile seizures. One comparatorcontrolledtrial demonstrated higher rates of fever in recipients ofAFLURIA as compared to a trivalent inactivated influenza vacc"
WAIT! Didn't you just argue that you can't trust the government, or government funded studies??? But you can trust them for this, just not the "tainted" studies? Which one's are tainted again?
No, it's what is happening. You just can't see it or don't want to. If you take a look at history, you might better understand how governments tend to become corrupt. I wouldn't doubt it if we see another Hitler-like situation someday. Edward Snowden? Remember him? Yeah he busted out the gov for their surveillance program. I'm sure there is much more going on that we aren't even aware of. Conspiracy? Nope. It's just the truth. It's what is happening in the world. So why would I feel confident in gov funded studies?
I have 27 credit hours in undergraduate history. I think I know my history probably better than most people including yourself.
So everyone is corrupt unless they agree with your opinion, because no matter the country that the studies on vaccines have come from they have all consistently shown to have the same safety profiles as the original phase 3 studies if not better.
"Pharmaceutical companies are corrupt", "governments are corrupt", "individual researchers are corrupt", but someone that does not do research and cannot back up any of their claims against vaccines is somehow the next medical prophet. How exactly does that ideology co-exist with being nurse.
An informed decision is right. Or would it just be about how great vaccines are. How about letting her know that her child could die (but they say it's rare) or could become ill after the vaccine. Instead we tread lightly on those parts of education. We don't want to scare someone into not taking it but convince them that the risk is so low. But what if their child is the one.
Meanwhile, we are LEGALLY required to hand out printed information describing risks and benefits, along with how to report adverse events to every single patient we vaccinate.
And speaking of informed consent, I think our patients should be allowed informed consent about their nurse's vaccination status. After all, every consumer deserves to be given all information up front, right? I mean, it should be up to the person you put at risk to decide if they need to protect themselves from you or not, right? It's up to the people you expose to protect themselves, so surely you'd inform them up front???
"--USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS---------------------• Safety and effectiveness of AFLURIA have not been established inpregnant women or nursing mothers. (8.1, 8.3)• Antibody responses were lower in geriatric subjects than in youngersubjects. (8.5)• AFLURIA is not approved for use in children less than 5 years of agebecause of increased rates of fever and febrile seizures. One comparatorcontrolledtrial demonstrated higher rates of fever in recipients ofAFLURIA as compared to a trivalent inactivated influenza vacc"
We do not give that vaccine.
I can't believe I am wasting my lunch break on this. I just looked - nothing in the insert for the flu shot we give.
Nevertheless, it IS because of lawyers, and there ARE studies that look at safety in pregnancy.
WAIT! Didn't you just argue that you can't trust the government, or government funded studies??? But you can trust them for this, just not the "tainted" studies? Which one's are tainted again?
Safety probably wasn't tested. It says it wasn't "established."
klone, MSN, RN
14,857 Posts
Uh, it doesn't.
I just looked (I'm at work - at an OB/Gyn office) at the labels for both the TDap and influenza vaccines, which are the only two vaccines that are routinely given to women in pregnancy. Neither of them say anything about pregnancy anywhere on the label.