Ethical Arguments Against Mandatory Vaccination

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Tweety said:

Good point and I didn't get that sick when I've had the flu over the years I've been vaccinated, and I've only had the flu a few times.   All good points in continuing with being vaccinated for the flu.  Although throughout my 30's and 40's I was unvaccinated and never got the flu.  I think I went from age 18 to 55 without it.  I caved to intense pressure from my employer to get the vaccine and have been getting it about ten years now.  Anyway, I'm sure you understand that even the vaccinated can spread the flu to vulnerable patients, hopefully in the days leading up to me being sick that wasn't me.

At the end of the day my doctor says get it, my employer says get it, I'm not getting any younger, and I've had zero issues with getting it so I'm sure I'll get it again next year.  

I do understand that vaccinated can get and spread the flu, but statistically a vaccinated person is less likely to spread the flu for various reasons(viral load, decrease chance of contracting the flu etc.). Also, you don't have to feel ill/know you have the flu to be an asymptomatic carrier especially when you are younger. 

I'm retired USAF. The flu vaccine was the least of my worries from the vaccines I received...LOL

https://www.CDC.gov/flu/about/disease/spread.htm

 

 

 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

Tweety said:

When I think about "vaccine injury" I think of a couple of things.  One is that literally billions of vaccines around the world have been given and sadly vaccine injury is a thing but I wonder what is the percentage out of those billions?  

I also think about things like "Vancomycin injury" and have seen a case of renal injury, but have given literally thousands of doses to many patients over 30 years.  Would we not give someone with MRSA osteomyelitis Vancomycin at risk of losing a limb treatment because of "vancomycin injury"?  Also "chemotherapy injury" in cancer patients. On and on there is injury with just about every medicine or food someone puts into their body, somewhere around the world.  In some cases risks outweigh benefits and sometimes there is no way to predict who will be injured.

On the other hand after getting the flu this year (a mild case I might add) I've almost decided that vaccine isn't worth it to me, although I've safely taken it for about a decade now.  

But I guess the question is of mandatory vaccination and does that somehow violate our freedom of self-determination even if it's detrimental to ourselves, our children and society in general.  There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to that one.

 

No one's self determination is being negated when employers decide they want only vaccinated employees.  They can go to work anywhere else but they can't work HERE.  Long ago I had the H3N2 flu (over 100,000 people died in the US).  Of course it wasn't going to kill a young, healthy kid like me but I surely wished I were dead.  If turpin hydrate weren't still legal then, I don't think I would have survived:)  A 54% chance of reduction sounds pretty good to me.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

subee said:

No one's self determination is being negated when employers decide they want only vaccinated employees.  They can go to work anywhere else but they can't work HERE.  Long ago I had the H3N2 flu (over 100,000 people died in the US).  Of course it wasn't going to kill a young, healthy kid like me but I surely wished I were dead.  If turpin hydrate weren't still legal then, I don't think I would have survived:)  A 54% chance of reduction sounds pretty good to me.

My vaccinated sister got real sick with H1N1.  Everyone has an anecdotal like the grandmother that smoked a pack a day and lived to 100 and the non-smoker that died of lung cancer.  

54% does not sound good to me, in 2023 but it's better than nothing especially if you're prone to illness and as was pointed out it may lessen severity of illness.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

subee said:

 If turpin hydrate weren't still legal then, I don't think I would have survived:)  A 54% chance of reduction sounds pretty good to me.

With a prescription, local compounding pharmacy should be able to create it: How Can You Find Terpin Hydrate Cough Medicine?

 

[MaxAttack, BSN, RN]

Tweety said:

But it's not really a good analogy when this year's flu vaccine according to the CDC was only 54% effective in my age bracket.  Some years it's been lower than that as low as 10% in one article I've read.  But the article stated 10 to 60% is better than zero.   Since I don't get that horribly sick it would something to consider.   Of course I'd rather not get sick at all so 54% odds I suppose are good for the 54% that didn't get the flu.  Were I a sickly person with comorbidities then I would think differently.    Compare that to 92% effectiveness of the Covid vaccine.  

I love your comparison with antibiotic risk vs benefit because when you put it in that light it's such a ludicrous argument. I'm imagining a family member refusing antibiotics for their mother in septic shock because they read about Stevens-Johnson. Sure it's a risk but balanced against the immediate almost definitive mortality risk without antibiotics it's kind of silly.

But regarding the flu shot it's my understanding it not only protects yourself (even if not completely) but also the vulnerable populations we work with who can't necessarily protect themselves. 

[Nurse Beth, MSN]

nursej22 said:

I think the science is settled on MMR vaccine. I cannot find documentation of your outbreak cases. Exactly how many cases were there? Because measles is so highly contagious, 1 case is considered an outbreak. And even though the vaccine is 95-99% effective, breakthrough cases are possible. 

 

Here is some info on the Ohio measles outbreak

[Nurse Beth, MSN]

Hannahbanana said:

 
I did not research all the citations for ethics for this critique. However, if they are as inaccurate and distored as the "unknown science" presented, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

 

Thank you for this excellent review.

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

Nurse Beth said:

Thank you for this excellent review.

You -- and everybody else-- are quite welcome.

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

From the March 30 issue of Stroke: 

Stroke After SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine: A Nationwide Registry Study.

Håkon Ihle-Hansen, Håkon Bøås, German Tapia, Guri Hagberg, Hege Ihle-Hansen, Jacob BerildSee All

BACKGROUND: Whether the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines may cause a transient increased stroke risk is uncertain.

METHODS: In a registry-based cohort of all adult residents at December 27, 2020, in Norway, we linked individual-level data on COVID-19 vaccination, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospital admissions, cause of death, health care worker status, and nursing home resident status extracted from the Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 in Norway. The cohort was followed for incident intracerebral bleeding, ischemic stroke, and subarachnoid hemorrhage within the first 28 days after the first/second or third dose of mRNA vaccination until January 24, 2022. Stroke risk after vaccination relative to time not exposed to vaccination was assessed by Cox proportional hazard ratio, adjusted for age, sex, risk groups, health care personnel, and nursing home resident.

RESULTS: The cohort included 4 139 888 people, 49.8% women, and 6.7% were ≥80 years of age. During the first 28 days after an mRNA vaccine, 2104 people experienced a stroke (82% ischemic stroke, 13% intracerebral hemorrhage, and 5% subarachnoid hemorrhage). Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) after the first/second and after the third mRNA vaccine doses were 0.92 (0.85-1.00) and 0.89 (0.73-1.08) for ischemic stroke, 0.81 (0.67-0.98) and 1.05 (0.64-1.71) for intracerebral hemorrhage, and 0.64 (0.46-0.87) and 1.12 (0.57-2.19) for subarachnoid hemorrhage, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: We did not find increased risk of stroke during the first 28 days after an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. 
……………….

But I'm still betting that some people will read the header and assume that means that the vaccines caused stroke. 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

Hannahbanana said:

From the March 30 issue of Stroke: 

Stroke After SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine: A Nationwide Registry Study.

Håkon Ihle-Hansen, Håkon Bøås, German Tapia, Guri Hagberg, Hege Ihle-Hansen, Jacob BerildSee All

BACKGROUND: Whether the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines may cause a transient increased stroke risk is uncertain.

METHODS: In a registry-based cohort of all adult residents at December 27, 2020, in Norway, we linked individual-level data on COVID-19 vaccination, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospital admissions, cause of death, health care worker status, and nursing home resident status extracted from the Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 in Norway. The cohort was followed for incident intracerebral bleeding, ischemic stroke, and subarachnoid hemorrhage within the first 28 days after the first/second or third dose of mRNA vaccination until January 24, 2022. Stroke risk after vaccination relative to time not exposed to vaccination was assessed by Cox proportional hazard ratio, adjusted for age, sex, risk groups, health care personnel, and nursing home resident.

RESULTS: The cohort included 4 139 888 people, 49.8% women, and 6.7% were ≥80 years of age. During the first 28 days after an mRNA vaccine, 2104 people experienced a stroke (82% ischemic stroke, 13% intracerebral hemorrhage, and 5% subarachnoid hemorrhage). Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) after the first/second and after the third mRNA vaccine doses were 0.92 (0.85-1.00) and 0.89 (0.73-1.08) for ischemic stroke, 0.81 (0.67-0.98) and 1.05 (0.64-1.71) for intracerebral hemorrhage, and 0.64 (0.46-0.87) and 1.12 (0.57-2.19) for subarachnoid hemorrhage, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: We did not find increased risk of stroke during the first 28 days after an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. 
……………….

But I'm still betting that some people will read the header and assume that means that the vaccines caused stroke. 

You can bet on it safely.  Perhaps editors need to be more cautious about their headlines, knowing that this will be posted on JQ Public's facebook page.

[MD married to RN]

I tried to read every post. None seemed to address the for profit nature of pharmaceutical companies. For a long time, consensus was that 'doctors undertreat pain,' especially in disenfranchised populations. Studies were done that proved this claim. I, like many providers, was required to complete pain management education or risk my license. I knew it was suspect but complied. Now with the benefit of the retrospect-o-scope, we all know it was a lie. Purdue pharma and others manipulated us all to treat pain better and created the opiate epidemic, all for profit. We need to at least consider that the mRNA vaccine producer have profit as a primary driver. 

[toomuchbaloney]

MD married to RN said:

I tried to read every post. None seemed to address the for profit nature of pharmaceutical companies. For a long time, consensus was that 'doctors undertreat pain,' especially in disenfranchised populations. Studies were done that proved this claim. I, like many providers, was required to complete pain management education or risk my license. I knew it was suspect but complied. Now with the benefit of the retrospect-o-scope, we all know it was a lie. Purdue pharma and others manipulated us all to treat pain better and created the opiate epidemic, all for profit. We need to at least consider that the mRNA vaccine producer have profit as a primary driver. 

All pharmaceutical companies have profit as a primary driver.  So do medical device companies and other health businesses.  The vaccines weren't promoted by public health experts with the intent of enriching the companies.