(So glad I stumbled across this website again after almost 6 years! I need to change my username because I am not an aspiring nurse anymore, I have been a nurse for almost 3 years! ?)
Anyway, I really do not want to take this new covid vaccine. I know I can’t be the only one who feels this way. Typically I am not an anti-vaxxer but something about this illness is making me think otherwise. For personal reasons I really do not want to take it when available at my hospital, but I’m afraid it will be mandatory. I am almost considering finding a new job if my hospital forces us all to take it. What a shame because I do like my job and wouldn’t know what else to turn to that isn’t nursing, because chances are most healthcare related places of employment will likely require all employees take it.
I want to use the excuse of it being against my religion but I already took the flu vaccine this year. I have nothing against the flu vaccine but didn’t necessarily want it, but my hospital practically FORCED everyone to take it unless they grant you an exemption. I’m afraid they’ll question me why I took the flu shot but cannot take the covid vaccine.
What do you guys think about this? Will you be taking the vaccine? I just want us to be able to make our own decisions about this. If patients can refuse medications, procedures, and treatments, why can’t healthcare workers do the same? I read in multiple articles it will not be required by the federal government but each state and employer can decide whether or not it will be mandatory.
And forget the $1500 “stimulus check” that may be offered if you take it. All the money in the world would not change my mind about taking the vaccine. I feel as though if you have to bribe people to take it, something is peculiar.
I don’t know why this is bothering me so much. It should be a choice in my opinion. But by telling a few friends about not wanting it I feel judged. I have worked with covid patients multiple times since I am one of the younger nurses who does not have any kids/am pregnant. I feel like week after week I was always chosen to go to the covid section. At first I was mad but now it doesn’t bother me. I am not afraid to be near covid patients. Luckily through all this time I haven’t caught it. I always tell people I’d rather catch it than get this vaccine. That’s how strongly I feel against taking the vaccine. All of my non-nursing who have had covid are covered and thriving. To me catching it isn’t the biggest deal but others have called me selfish because I could be spreading it to others. Why is it looked at as selfish for not wanting to inject something into MY body. #mybodymychoice
Am I thinking about this too much? What would you do?
I can also quote random catholic websites. They support their claims with research articles unlike the one you posted. To be fair, this website isn't random to me.
I scanned the last link about the Pfizer vaccine but there was too much there for me to dig out the part about fetal cell lines. On the other hand this Catholic link although endorsing the vaccines does at least admit to the use of fetal cell lines in their research. That would be enough for many of us to decline these vaccines. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/12/14/vaccine-covid-bishops-catholic-239502
I scanned the last link about the Pfizer vaccine but there was too much there for me to dig out the part about fetal cell lines. On the other hand this Catholic link although endorsing the vaccines does at least admit to the use of fetal cell lines in their research. That would be enough for many of us to decline these vaccines. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/12/14/vaccine-covid-bishops-catholic-239502
A blinded RCT study may not apply in this situation - we're not talking about yet another drug for psoriasis or hypertention - this is an emergency use. We will never have a blinded RCT because the vaccine is overwhelmingly effective and therefore the unvaccinated arm must be offered treatment. This happens with other drugs commonly being tested. I think many eyes besides the eyeballs at Pfizer have seen the data from the 42,000 test subjects and this cynic will be happy to get the vaccine. I take other chances every day when I leave my house.
I don't know if he should be sanctioned as I am not party to both sides of the argument. Of course he deserves to be heard. In the United States all perspectives should be able to be expressed without fear of sanction. The First Amendment isn't for popular, but for unpopular speech. The best way to counter weak, or counterfactual arguments is by debating them and exposing their shortcomings and by presenting alternative evidence to the contrary. Not by silencing those with whom you disagree.
I’m not American so I don’t have in depth knowledge about your Constitution. But I assume that the First Amendment doesn’t grant licensed healthcare professionals the freedom to advice their patients in a way that is not evidence-based or even contrary to EBM? Giving patients poor or harmful advice as a healthcare provider doesn’t sound like a free speech issue to me. I’m not speaking specifically about this doctor, but generally.
”Perspectives” when we’re talking about various medical interventions or treatments, sounds an awful lot like one person’s verifiable facts are no more worth than another person’s unproven or disproven opinions, and that they should be afforded equal consideration. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you though. If that’s the case, I apologize. I believe in evidence-based practice and as nurses (and physicians) I think we have an obligation to adhere to that standard.
I’m not American so I don’t have in depth knowledge about your Constitution. But I assume that the First Amendment doesn’t grant licensed healthcare professionals the freedom to advice their patients in a way that is not evidence-based or even contrary to EBM? Giving patients poor or harmful advice as a healthcare provider doesn’t sound like a free speech issue to me. I’m not speaking specifically about this doctor, but generally.
”Perspectives” when we’re talking about various medical interventions or treatments, sounds an awful lot like one person’s verifiable facts are no more worth than another person’s unproven or disproven opinions, and that they should be afforded equal consideration. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you though. If that’s the case, I apologize. I believe in evidence-based practice and as nurses (and physicians) I think we have an obligation to adhere to that standard.
In the US, the first amendment protects individuals from governments persecution for speech. It does not, should not, and never has protected individuals from sanctioning by licensing bodies when their speech and/or professional conduct violates the ethics of their profession and guidelines of said profession's licensing body.
The argument that the doctor in question 'deserves to be heard' is ludicrous, even within the context of America's legal and even cultural respect for free speech rights. Just because you have a right to speak doesn't mean you 'deserve' an audience. Likewise, professional governing bodies have a clear, pressing, and justifiable interest in sanctioning speech or actions that violate the ethics of their professions.
In the US, the first amendment protects individuals from governments persecution for speech. It does not, should not, and never has protected individuals from sanctioning by licensing bodies when their speech and/or professional conduct violates the ethics of their profession and guidelines of said profession's licensing body.
I kind of figured that was the case ? It’s the same as in my country and I reckon in most democracies where freedom of speech is protected by law. It’s protection against the government, but it’s not carte blanche to say anything you want to, to anyone in all and every context imaginable. Giving harmful medical advice as a licensed professional is not covered. Telling your neighbor that you intend to murder him in two minutes time, equally not covered. Violating ToS on a forum you joined, not covered. That doesn’t stop me from seeing some people bring up the First Amendment when a post of theirs gets moderated. I always find that a tad amusing. Join a forum, agree to ToS and then invoke the Constitution.. But I digress ?
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
I am pro life. I believe I've learned to be more practical in my decisions and less rigid than when I was younger.
Are There Remains of Aborted Babies Used in Vaccines?
... The MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines originate from babies aborted in 1961. Their cells were regenerated by Merck and other corporations, and are used in the Varivax and Meruvax II vaccines. These cell lines are technically “immortal,” because technicians can sustain them in a laboratory indefinitely under the proper conditions. This means that the researchers who developed these relatively new vaccines bear no responsibility whatsoever for the original abortions carried out half a world away and half a century ago.
This is in contrast to some current‑day researchers who experiment on the remains of preborn children. They cooperate so closely with abortion mills in order to receive the tissue they need that they are frequently in the abortuary at the time the abortions are being performed so they can package and preserve the organs immediately...
... In June 2005, the Pontifical Academy for Life published a document entitled Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses, which answers most questions that Catholics might have about the morality of using vaccines that are derived from the cell lines of aborted preborn children....
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses
PONTIFICIA ACADEMIA PRO VITA Vatican City, June 9 2005
... Dr. Edward J. Furton, a leading Catholic bioethicist, writes: "It seems impossible for an individual to cooperate with an action that is now completed and exists in the past. Clearly, use of a vaccine in the present does not cause the one who is immunized to share in the immoral intention or action of those who carried out the abortion in the past. Neither does such use provide some circumstance essential to the commission of that past act. Thus, use of these vaccines would seem permissible."
Dr. Furton said that Catholics, by using these vaccines, are not approving of the original abortions in any way. He wrote that it would be a “high standard indeed if we were to require all benefits that we receive in the present to be completely free of every immorality of the past.” He also pointed out that these vaccines certainly will not encourage any more abortions since the cell lines from the original abortions are continuing to grow and duplicate and that therefore “there is little incentive to begin new human cell lines.” He also wrote that we may refuse these vaccinations ourselves, but we have a duty to protect the lives and health of our children and must get them vaccinated if no other alternative is available...
My employer has asked (I am a new home health RN) if I wanted to take vaccine but I have declined as I am not comfortable taking it at this time. It is not mandated but maybe it will be at some point since the agency I am under is part of a large healthcare system. Time will tell
It’s going to be along few months. Someone mentioned not researching vaccines. I have for 9 months. Maybe that’s my problem I know too much. Now I know the exact companies that manufactured vaccine I’ll spend additional time educating myself.
At least once or twice a week I have a fellow nurse get upset I don’t currently want the vaccine.
I am told I am a nurse I need to do it for patients.
I have been told I have to or life will never go back to normal.
I have to bc people are dieing from covid.
I am still doing more education Currently and this weekend.
myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN
1,453 Posts
I scanned the last link about the Pfizer vaccine but there was too much there for me to dig out the part about fetal cell lines. On the other hand this Catholic link although endorsing the vaccines does at least admit to the use of fetal cell lines in their research. That would be enough for many of us to decline these vaccines. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/12/14/vaccine-covid-bishops-catholic-239502