Mandatory Vaccine Waiver in Nursing School/Clinicals

[firecracker_1]

Hey guys, I have a question for anyone else who is a fellow "non-vaccinator" or against mandatory vaccination. What did you do for nursing school, particularly clinical locations immunization requirements? After a lot of research, I've found that while many nurses can sign immunization waivers that are offered by some hospitals, etc., I haven't heard of a nursing student who has successfully avoided vaccination requirements associated with nursing school and clinical facilities.

I am well aware that vaccination is a very controversial subject in the medical field and many feel strongly on both sides of the issue. My intention is not to debate or discuss the merits of vaccinations, but to hear from other nurses and nursing students who challenged the vaccine requirements and how you went about it.

I look forward to hearing from you!

[elkpark]

That is why I stated that there are multiple legal ramifications involved; and according to legal counsel, hospital personnel, and nursing school advisors, the situation between clinical facilities and nursing students falls under the same category for several reasons.

I have read all the previous threads on anti-vaxxers and their position, and respectfully, not a lot of facts were discussed. In my experience, vaccine discussions are generally filled with feelings and unsubstantiated arguments from people who have not put in the time or the effort to actually research the topic objectively with an open mind. While I believe everyone has a right to their opinion and personal beliefs, I must point out that opinions and feelings are not facts, nor do they substitute for through research. The fact that many in the nursing community are not open to discuss and debate vaccines simply because the majority believes a certain way does not make it correct or factually based.

That being said, I would still like to start a thread to discuss and debate the subject with others who are willing to engage in a interactive and productive debate and discussion where evidence, research, and facts are objectively evaluated. I would hope that such a discussion would not be laborious or upsetting to anyone, but instead a stimulating and mature debate that requires those participating to think for themselves and look at all facts and evidence with an open mind.

When I have asked doctors, nurses, and others in the field of medicine for advice for anyone interested in a career in the medical field, I have been told countless times the importance of keeping an open mind. The quote of "You will never grow as a person if you only surround yourself with people who believe exactly like you and refuse to listen objectively to different views and beliefs. No one ever grows inside an echo box," sums up my point and is well said.

Well, good luck with all your efforts. I notice you keep mentioning "legal counsel;" I suggest you get your lawyer to force some hospital to accept you for clinicals and see how that works out for you, since you clearly think you know better than anyone here. Best wishes.

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

elkpark said:

Well, good luck with all your efforts. I notice you keep mentioning "legal counsel;" I suggest you get your lawyer to force some hospital to accept you for clinicals and see how that works out for you, since you clearly think you know better than anyone here. Best wishes.

She would have to force multiple hospitals most likely. I doubt many nursing schools use only one facility for the multiple clinical rotations involved in getting a nursing degree.

[firecracker_1]

Horseshoe said:

I find your statement above to be highly unlikely in view of the fact that ACTUAL research (not searching the web and reading blogs) has already been conducted on vaccines for MANY decades, by scientists all over the world, and has been easily accessible to you. The findings are clear: vaccines have saved millions of lives which were once lost to infectious disease. The number of vaccine injuries pales in comparison. The societal risks/benefits ratios are very clear if one actually studies real "research." The one exception might be the flu vaccine, which, depending on the year, from time to time fails to be very effective, though its safety is well established.

The idea that "ACTUAL" and "real research" on vaccines is reserved entirely for those who come to certain conclusions, are of a certain viewpoint, or directly involved in making the vaccines is ludicrous as it suggests that a person cannot be well informed and make a definitive and sound judgement on a topic unless they only study those of whom the majority follows, and/or come to a certain conclusion. You do not have to be a chemist, bioengineer, or trained vaccine specialist to thoroughly research the issue, as that reasoning is not logically sound.

Any through and sound research on any given topic requires evaluating *both* sides of the issue and every topic has two differing sides. The point is not to only research the findings of those who agree with you, but to honestly and objectively explore, examine, and educate oneself on both viewpoints, so that an unbiased and unprejudiced conclusion can be found.

Therefore, to suggest that actual and real research is limited to what the majority believe to be right is the bandwagon fallacy which assume something is true because other people (or the majority) believe it.

I agree with you that internet blogs and such like are not reliable sources of accurate information, but suggesting that someone educating themselves on a topic and coming to a different conclusion than you is only caused by misinformation and poorly done, inadequate research is faulty reasoning and a very slippery slope.

I am not against someone having the opposite view point and being pro vaccine. I have friends who are and I have read a ton of information in the form of books, articles, studies,and scientific and medical finds that are pro vaccine. I do, however, have a problem with people who refuse to have an open-minded and healthy debate on the topic and don't want to hear anything that differs from what they believe or deny any evidence that questions their belief.

I see debates as both healthy and necessary to challenge the mind, explore new ideas and evidence, and for the growth of individuals and find it a shame that people often get irritated, upset, or emotional when faced with it.

[elkpark]

Horseshoe said:

She would have to force multiple hospitals most likely. I doubt many nursing schools use only one facility for the multiple clinical rotations involved in getting a nursing degree.

(Of course, but I really meant start with one hospital and see how that works out.)

[elkpark]

firecracker_1 said:

The idea that "ACTUAL" and "real research" on vaccines is reserved entirely for those who come to certain conclusions, are of a certain viewpoint, or directly involved in making the vaccines is ludicrous as it suggests that a person cannot be well informed and make a definitive and sound judgement on a topic unless they only study those of whom the majority follows, and/or come to a certain conclusion. You do not have to be a chemist, bioengineer, or trained vaccine specialist to thoroughly research the issue, as that reasoning is not logically sound.

Any through and sound research on any given topic requires evaluating *both* sides of the issue and every topic has two differing sides. The point is not to only research the findings of those who agree with you, but to honestly and objectively explore, examine, and educate oneself on both viewpoints, so that an unbiased and unprejudiced conclusion can be found.

Therefore, to suggest that actual and real research is limited to what the majority believe to be right is the bandwagon fallacy which assume something is true because other people (or the majority) believe it.

I agree with you that internet blogs and such like are not reliable sources of accurate information, but suggesting that someone educating themselves on a topic and coming to a different conclusion than you is only caused by misinformation and poorly done, inadequate research is faulty reasoning and a very slippery slope.

I am not against someone having the opposite view point and being pro vaccine. I have friends who are and I have read a ton of information in the form of books, articles, studies,and scientific and medical finds that are pro vaccine. I do, however, have a problem with people who refuse to have an open-minded and healthy debate on the topic and don't want to hear anything that differs from what they believe or deny any evidence that questions their belief.

I see debates as both healthy and necessary to challenge the mind, explore new ideas and evidence, and for the growth of individuals and find it a shame that people often get irritated, upset, or emotional when faced with it.

Yeah, we get a lot of this kind of argument here -- the idea that those of us who base our opinions on the actual, extant scientific research are somehow close-minded and just not open to examining other viewpoints.

I'm reminded of the climate-change deniers who insist that the science on climate change isn't settled because the vast majority of scientist and available evidence support the notion of man-made climate change negatively affecting the planet, but there are a few scientists (most of whom seem to be employed by the oil and gas industry or right-wing think tanks) who aren't convinced yet, so that means "the science isn't settled yet" and there is still a "debate" to be had.

It's not about "evidence that questions (our) beliefs," it's about the scientific rigor and validity of the available evidence. Do you care to share any of the legitimate, valid scientific evidence supporting the anti-vax position that you have found so compelling?

[Wuzzie]

firecracker_1 said:

That is why I stated that there are multiple legal ramifications involved; and according to legal counsel, hospital personnel, and nursing school advisors, the situation between clinical facilities and nursing students falls under the same category for several reasons.

I would be very interested in knowing the specific case-law your legal counsel is using to determine that being a student in a student clinical role falls under the same legal protection as being employed by a private facility and/or the "several reasons" you mentioned. The truth of the matter is, as a student, you are a guest at whatever facility your school is using for clinicals. They can boot you at any time for any reason and I've seen it happen. I would also like to reiterate what Horshoe said. No hospital would be stupid enough to blatantly "discriminate" against you for religious reasons but since the vast majority of states are "employment at will" states it would be extremely easy for them to refuse to hire you or ultimately fire you for refusal to follow their rules without fear of prosecution. Unless you are okay with suing your way into nursing school and each and every clinical site and into every job you ever have (and have oodles of money to do it) I think you might want to reconsider your career plans. Listen, all of us here are trying to help you understand that you are asking for more trouble than you can imagine by continuing on this path yet you stubbornly insist on digging your heels in as if we do not know what we are talking about. It would be folly for you to throw money away on an education when your belief system very likely will significantly limit your job opportunities.

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

firecracker_1 said:

The idea that "ACTUAL" and "real research" on vaccines is reserved entirely for those who come to certain conclusions, are of a certain viewpoint, or directly involved in making the vaccines is ludicrous as it suggests that a person cannot be well informed and make a definitive and sound judgement on a topic unless they only study those of whom the majority follows, and/or come to a certain conclusion. You do not have to be a chemist, bioengineer, or trained vaccine specialist to thoroughly research the issue, as that reasoning is not logically sound.

Any through and sound research on any given topic requires evaluating *both* sides of the issue and every topic has two differing sides. The point is not to only research the findings of those who agree with you, but to honestly and objectively explore, examine, and educate oneself on both viewpoints, so that an unbiased and unprejudiced conclusion can be found.

Therefore, to suggest that actual and real research is limited to what the majority believe to be right is the bandwagon fallacy which assume something is true because other people (or the majority) believe it.

I agree with you that internet blogs and such like are not reliable sources of accurate information, but suggesting that someone educating themselves on a topic and coming to a different conclusion than you is only caused by misinformation and poorly done, inadequate research is faulty reasoning and a very slippery slope.

I am not against someone having the opposite view point and being pro vaccine. I have friends who are and I have read a ton of information in the form of books, articles, studies,and scientific and medical finds that are pro vaccine. I do, however, have a problem with people who refuse to have an open-minded and healthy debate on the topic and don't want to hear anything that differs from what they believe or deny any evidence that questions their belief.

I see debates as both healthy and necessary to challenge the mind, explore new ideas and evidence, and for the growth of individuals and find it a shame that people often get irritated, upset, or emotional when faced with it.

When I use the term "actual research" I am specifically referring to the actual peer reviewed scientific studies, not an individual's exploration of articles or other literature, someone's personal beliefs, or opinions.

[lmgst30]

I just wanted to say to the OP that you are being refreshingly receptive to the responses. So many posters would be crying, "Why do you all hate me/have to be snarky/eat your young?!?" after the 2nd or 3rd response.

[guest940422]

just another MMR - but when we ran titers against the Mumps hadn't taken so the school accepted me because I made a good faith effort to be vaccinated.

As promised no vaccine politics

Hppy

So this happens to me A LOT I finally got a good titer by literally getting my titers drawn two days after I got the vaccine... at my next job my titer was low again for MMR. I looked into the CDC literature and if you've had 2 MMR vaccines at least 28 days apart they have to consider you immune by vaccination. I used these records to get out of a 6th MMR vaccine this year (i'm a travel nurse they run titers a lot) I wish I could be immune, but If I can't I'd rather not get a bee sting every 3 months that won't help me anyway (This is why I need everyone else to be vaccinated, I have to rely on herd immunity for Rubella)

[firecracker_1]

elkpark said:

Yeah, we get a lot of this kind of argument here -- the idea that those of us who base our opinions on the actual, extant scientific research are somehow close-minded and just not open to examining other viewpoints.

With all due respect, simply stating that you have heard an argument before does not cause said argument to have less legitimacy or diminished validity. Until unified facts are presented that prove an argument right or wrong, merely brushing it aside as "last year's news" if you will, doesn't weaken the substance or soundness of the argument.

As for the "actual scientific research," I already covered that in my previous post, so I won't belabor the point.

elkpark said:

I'm reminded of the climate-change deniers who insist that the science on climate change isn't settled because the vast majority of scientist and available evidence support the notion of man-made climate change negatively affecting the planet, but there are a few scientists (most of whom seem to be employed by the oil and gas industry or right-wing think tanks) who aren't convinced yet, so that means "the science isn't settled yet" and there is still a "debate" to be had.

In keeping with your train of thought, it is very informative and interesting what one discovers when the funding of vaccine studies is examined and who the people are who financially back the scientists who test for immunization safety, effectiveness, and necessity. I know that is another can of worms, but I'll just suffice it to say, I found it very enlightening.

elkpark said:

It's not about "evidence that questions (our) beliefs," it's about the scientific rigor and validity of the available evidence. Do you care to share any of the legitimate, valid scientific evidence supporting the anti-vax position that you have found so compelling?

If I may, I disagree: If scientific rigor and validity are measured by the level to which it agrees with the majority vote in any occupational field or career, the persons involved are not preforming objective research, but a bias "mock trial," where they are only interested in what furthers their agenda and proves their point. In fact, scores of people who are against vaccinations are often accused of this very point--that select and rare instances of debilitating or fatal side effects are paraded as norms, only reading material from anti-vaccine authors or doctors, or only looking at the inadequacies of immunizations and not the seemingly overwhelming positive contributions to our society. I say all of that to say this: anyone can accuse someone of inaccurate or invalid evidence; but simply saying that, because of a majority view or incompatibility with a set of beliefs, doesn't mean that is actually the case, nor does it prove the other side incorrect. The whole purpose of debate is to provoke critical thinking, investigation into new ideas, and to dispute differing viewpoints--not to prove the accuracy of a viewpoint that cannot be wrong in the eyes of those who believe it.

Wuzzie said:

Unless you are okay with suing your way into nursing school and each and every clinical site and into every job you ever have (and have oodles of money to do it) I think you might want to reconsider your career plans. Listen, all of us here are trying to help you understand that you are asking for more trouble than you can imagine by continuing on this path yet you stubbornly insist on digging your heels in as if we do not know what we are talking about. It would be folly for you to throw money away on an education when your belief system very likely will significantly limit your job opportunities.

While I do appreciate your advice and concern, I would disagree with your conclusion that because I am choosing to follow through with my belief regarding mandatory vaccination in healthcare workplaces, that somehow, that commitment means that I am stubborn and unwilling to take the more experienced advice of others. I fully appreciate and take into consideration the advice of others, especially those who have more experience than I do and realize I still have a lot to learn in the medical field and nursing profession. I do understand that challenging mandatory immunization opens a huge can of worms in terms of what people think, the effect on a career in medicine, and the way educators and peers may form opinions-but I am prepared and okay with whatever consequences it brings.

Horseshoe said:

When I use the term "actual research" I am specifically referring to the actual peer reviewed scientific studies, not an individual's exploration of articles or other literature, someone's personal beliefs, or opinions.

I absolutely agree that personal beliefs, feelings, bias, and opinions should not be deciding factors in research. However, there are important things to consider when evaluating evidence and scientific studies; because the huge majority of the medical community has a decidedly strong stance on the issue, most, if not the entirety of "peer reviews" come from individuals who share the same belief regarding the issue. So just because something isn't "peer reviewed" by the medical leading majority, doesn't mean it is invalid. I trust the clear reasoning and logic behind that is apparent (that it is taken for granted that on either side of an argument, those who hold the same position can agree amongst themselves (even if they are a majority), and that does not mean the opposing viewpoint is illegitimate or incorrect), as that can be applied to many arguments and not just vaccines.

lmgst30 said:

I just wanted to say to the OP that you are being refreshingly receptive to the responses. So many posters would be crying, "Why do you all hate me/have to be snarky/eat your young?!?" after the 2nd or 3rd response.

Thank you, that was very kind! I've gotta say though, I really do enjoy a good, healthy debate! 😊 I dearly love sarcasm, so nothing really ruffles my feathers, rofl

[guest940422]

firecracker_1 said:

I might start another thread to have a discussion on the politics of vaccines, because I'd be interested in hearing the research that others have done and discussing both sides.

If you already have access to your school's library just look up peer reviewed articles from medical/nursing journals published in the last 5 years. There is a mountain of research, literary reviews, retrospective studies, randomized studies, and so on from everything concerning why people refuse vaccines, epidemiological studies tracing outbreak pockets, vaccination rates to support herd immunity, statistics on side effects and comorbidities, published data on lot recalls,... seriously it goes on forever. That thread would probably crash the site, and for every person who has evidence based and peer reviewed data on the subject 50 people have personal stories and strong opinions they want to throw in. And your audience is thousands of highly educated healthcare individuals who (for the most part) consider immunizations the biggest public health breakthrough in medical history.

[elkpark]

firecracker_1 said:

If I may, I disagree: If scientific rigor and validity are measured by the level to which it agrees with the majority vote in any occupational field or career, the persons involved are not preforming objective research, but a bias "mock trial," where they are only interested in what furthers their agenda and proves their point.

That's not how scientific rigor and validity are measured.

firecracker_1 said:

I absolutely agree that personal beliefs, feelings, bias, and opinions should not be deciding factors in research. However, there are important things to consider when evaluating evidence and scientific studies; because the huge majority of the medical community has a decidedly strong stance on the issue, most, if not the entirety of "peer reviews" come from individuals who share the same belief regarding the issue. So just because something isn't "peer reviewed" by the medical leading majority, doesn't mean it is invalid. I trust the clear reasoning and logic behind that is apparent (that it is taken for granted that on either side of an argument, those who hold the same position can agree amongst themselves (even if they are a majority), and that does not mean the opposing viewpoint is illegitimate or incorrect), as that can be applied to many arguments and not just vaccines.

You apparently misunderstand the concept of "peer review." The point of peer review isn't whether or not the reviewers agree with or approve of the findings of a study; the point of review is whether the construction and methodology of the study are robust and defensible, and meet the current agreed upon standards. It also involves a basic objectivity and skepticism about findings, contrary to your apparent assumption that scientists are just believing whatever they're told or the majority consensus, and looking for flaws in the study, mistakes or oversights or biases of the authors, that might invalidate the results. In areas of science or healthcare in which there is a majority consensus, it exists because that's what the evidence has shown consistently over time. But the consensus could change quickly if research starts to produce evidence that challenges the existing knowledge. That's how science works. And, for better or worse, within the system we've got, research findings not being peer reviewed does mean they are invalid. One study proves nothing; research results need to be reproducible in order to be taken seriously and build a body of evidence, and that means publication in peer-reviewed journals and other research teams reproducing the study and seeing what results they get. That's the scientific method. Have you studied science or research at all?