Nurses Refusing to Administer COVID-19 Vaccinations!? | Nurses Week Contest

[SafetyNurse1968]

Month-Long Nurses Week Celebration Starts Today! Nurses Week Contest #4

Healthcare professionals have expressed vaccine hesitancy due to fear, mistrust, and misinformation. Although nurses are entitled to their opinion, should this influence them when it comes to administering vaccines? Should nurses be allowed to refuse to administer COVID vaccines? What do YOU think? The best Pro or Anti Vaccine read will win $100 Amazon Gift Card courtesy of allnurses Ebooks. Contest rules are found below.

More Nurses Week Contests

Vaccine Controversy

There’s a lot of controversy about the COVID-19 vaccines. I’ve seen articles about how it causes infertility, autoimmunity and even death. Almost 50% of my students have expressed vaccine hesitancy due to fear and misinformation. Some of them have told me they are immunocompromised, and one said that their religion forbids vaccination.  Most of them said, “I just want to wait and see if it’s safe.”

Are vaccinations safe?

There’s been a huge debate for years over whether vaccines cause health problems. When I was about to give birth back in 2009, I did my own research to be absolutely sure that vaccinating my newborn was the way to go. I found no evidence then that vaccination causes autism, and there’s even more evidence now that there is no link between autism and vaccines or any of their ingredients (like thimerosal, which was removed from all vaccines except multi-dose flu vaccines by 2001)¹

The flu shot gave me the flu…

You’ve probably heard someone say, “I got the flu vaccine once, and it gave me the flu – I’m never getting it again.” What they don’t realize is that 1) the flu vaccine cannot give you the flu and, 2) in these cases, the person had already been exposed to the flu when they got vaccinated. The development of the flu would have occurred regardless of the vaccination. Modern vaccines are constructed in such a way that they cannot cause the disease for which you are being vaccinated against.

What about the COVID-19 vaccines?

As I stated in the summary, there’s a lot of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines including that they cause infertility or autoimmunity.^2,3 In addition I have read that they contain a tracking chip and that the RNA from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines can modify your genes. There is no evidence that any of these assertions are true.⁴ Though there may be small, isolated cases of side effects occurring with vaccines, they do not outweigh the very real danger of becoming significantly ill from COVID-19. Right now, all the vaccines being used in the US (Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson) have 100% efficacy in preventing hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19. Millions of people have been safely vaccinated against COVID-19, and while the evidence is still out as to whether those of us who have been vaccinated can give it to others, we do know that it is working to prevent hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

mRNA technology such as that used in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines has been around for over a decade. You may recall from A&P or biology that mRNA is made in your body from DNA. The way it works in your body is: Segments of your DNA (called genes) code for mRNA (transcription) and then mRNA codes for proteins (translation). An mRNA vaccine enters your body and is translated into proteins that elicit an immune response. There’s no machinery or ability for your body to incorporate the mRNA into your genetic code. Once it’s translated, the mRNA just gets destroyed by catalytic enzymes.⁵

It’s also important to note that despite the vaccines being offered under emergency use authorization (EUA), “For this EUA, the FDA required significantly more data on safety and efficacy than usual,” said Janis Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer at the AAMC.⁵

No serious health problems were reported by the tens of thousands of people who received their vaccines during clinical trials. The most common side effects — fatigue, headaches, chills, and muscle pain — lasted about one day and most often occurred after the second dose. Since the vaccine rollout began in the U.K. and U.S., there have been sporadic reports of severe reactions in people with histories of significant allergic reactions to some foods and drugs.⁶

Our duty as nurses

The American Nurses Association supports that all nurses get vaccinated for COVID-19.⁷ The Code of Ethics for Nurses Provision 3 states, “The nurse promotes, advocates for and protects the rights, health and safety of patients.” Not getting a flu vaccine can result in increased risk of contracting flu for patients, co-workers and yourself. Despite this, nurses do refuse to take the flu vaccine – usually due to religious, medical or philosophical objections. Only 21 states have a law that requires healthcare workers to get flu vaccinations and even those laws require exemptions be allowed. Many employers mandate a flu shot, but also allow exemptions. About 1/3 of states require hospitals to offer employees flu shots and track their vaccination status. In many of these states, employees can decline a flu shot without an exemption.⁸

But what about the COVID-19 vaccines? Can those be required? The federal government says that COVID-19 vaccination can be required, but so far no healthcare organizations have taken this confrontational stance.^5,6

I believe we have a duty as nurses to get vaccinated against COVID-19 to protect our patients and coworkers and also to prevent mutations/variations in the vaccine. We all need to work together to eradicate COVID from the planet.

My Question: Can a nurse refuse to GIVE the vaccine?

In nursing school, I recall an ethical debate on whether or not a nurse could refuse to care for a patient having an abortion. We decided that nurses should have the right to refuse to take part in an abortion based on moral objection, though once the pregnancy is terminated, the nurse should no longer be able to refuse to give care. Does that translate to giving vaccinations? If a nurse is morally opposed to vaccinations, can they refuse to give them?

I googled “Can a nurse refuse to administer vaccines” and all I came up with was a list of articles about how many nurses are refusing to get the vaccine. It’s hard to find information on this topic. 

What do you think? Should a nurse be allowed to refuse to give vaccinations? Should the reason for that opposition play a role (religious, ethical, moral, philosophical)?

Contest Rules

1. Open to registered allnurses.com members only. (Free and quick to Register)
2. Participate in the Poll.
3. Answer 'Should a nurse be allowed to refuse to give vaccinations? Why?'
4. One winner will be announced.

This contest is sponsored by allnurses Ebooks.

Quality Nursing Ebooks. Anytime. Anywhere. Our ebooks are created by nurses, educators, students, and healthcare professionals. We have one goal - To help you succeed in your nursing career.

---

References

¹ Autism and vaccines
² Why the vaccinations do NOT cause infertility
³ Vaccine myths
⁴ The vaccine does not cause autoimmune disorders
⁵ Association of American Medical Colleges: What health care workers need to know
⁶ COVID-19 vaccine safety
⁷ ANA position statement on vaccines
⁸ Becker’s flu shot requirements

[JKL33]

11 hours ago, MaxAttack said:

Bruh. Where am I arguing this? Where do you pull this stuff from? 

I don't think explaining again is going to help.

Take care.

 

[JKL33]

On 5/12/2021 at 6:37 PM, MaxAttack said:

This is from a quick Google search. Worth a read.

http://www.nursinglaw.com/scope-of-nursing-practice.pdf

"The scope of practice of a registered nurse does not include the authority unilaterally to decline to follow a physician’s order."

This article is clearly in reference to a nurse who didn't follow an order and made no apparent effort to inform the prescriber of her concern.

Nurses most certainly can unilaterally decline to perform an order. I have done it myself as stated earlier. It was not for a silly reason but the point stands nonetheless. I'm not going to sign onto some line about how a nurse can never refuse to carry out an order. That is patently false--although there are other standards that need to be followed if there is a genuine concern or moral conflict.

Along with  ^ that is the idea that I believe there are relatively few nurses who 1) would be in the position of needing to administer covid vaccines **and** 2) who would refuse to do so. They are outliers. The patient is going to get the vaccine. They aren't not going to get the vaccine because some outlier doesn't want to give these vaccines.

So, while the chance to get up in arms about possible actions of nursing peers is thrilling and all, I guess overall I get way more excited about stuff like, "Should business people be allowed to refuse to staff nursing units properly?" or "Should business people be allowed to interfere in the work of professional nurses?"......that kind of thing.

??‍♀️

 

[MaxAttack, BSN, RN]

18 hours ago, JKL33 said:

Nurses most certainly can unilaterally decline to perform an order. I have done it myself as stated earlier. It was not for a silly reason but the point stands nonetheless. I'm not going to sign onto some line about how a nurse can never refuse to carry out an order. That is patently false--although there are other standards that need to be followed if there is a genuine concern or moral conflict...

This was never about universally following or not following orders. Honestly it sounds like you're struggling too hard to play devil's advocate at the expense of a cohesive argument. 

Considering you skipped the crux of this debate (that I've posted twice and once in bold just for you) to argue yet another point, I'm calling it quits. This is more like a Youtube comments section than discussion. It was fun while it lasted. I got some good laughs and a good refresher on logical fallacies. Thanks. ? 

[Surfin USA]

 

On 5/13/2021 at 10:32 AM, MaxAttack said:

If a 25 y/o stopped breathing from minor injuries then they might not have been as healthy as you thought. ? I don't know California law. There's a standardized form in my state that is legally binding. Just like you don't HAVE to drive sober, you don't HAVE to follow this paperwork. I wouldn't recommend either.

Yes there are exemptions for religious and moral beliefs for certain procedures. IMO - especially since the leaders of many major religions have addressed this specifically - using this excuse at this point is more a mental health issue than a moral one.

Again with the ad hominems about people with DNRs needing an additional mental health exam. Knock it tf off. Enough, already. 

And yes, in California, you do have to abide, or pass the patient on to someone who will. You have no right to resuscitate a DNR. 

[Surfin USA]

23 minutes ago, MaxAttack said:

This was never about universally following or not following orders. Honestly it sounds like you're struggling too hard to play devil's advocate at the expense of a cohesive argument. 

Then why did you post a link to an article that claims such? Oh, wait. You just didn't read your own article. 

...at the expense of a cohesive argument..  

Indeed!

[Surfin USA]

"At times, yes a nurse has a duty to refuse to give the vaccine. For instance, if a person is medically considered "old-old" I.e. over 85, *and* frail, I.e. exceptionally vulnerable to anything, then sometimes any new vaccine, or new drug of any sort, regardless of the overall recommendations, may indeed be dangerous for that person. "

Oh my gosh!  These comments really triggered me big-time!  Who are you to suggest a nurse can refuse to give a vaccine to "a person who is medically considered 'old-old' I.e. over 85 *and* frail*. I personally know many "old-old" and "frail" people who are enjoying life, enjoying grandkids, enjoying laughter and friendships.  As a youger person, getting in your car and driving to work may "indeed be dangerous" but should I take your keys away from you?

I am not suggesting we make medical decisions *for* other people. But there are indeed times when a persons eligibility is contraindicated by their health status. 

And yes. DO take their keys. As a bartender, if a patron asks you to overserve them, you have the right to not serve them, or to ask for their keys and insist on them having a taxi called. There are indeed very civil ways of guiding a person home safely, and in some states, its partly the bartenders JOB to ensure this. 

" I would think some of these cases would be no brainers here:

The person is currently fighting Covid-19."

They wouldnt get a shot. 

Exactly. Just because they ask for one, doesnt mean they are an ideal candidate. 

"The person has a broken bone and has cancer."

The vaccine's temporary and generally harmless effects on a typical immune system could indeed kill them.  Still their decision.

Actually, the 'Are you over a certain age? Great. Come on and sign up, line up' method is reliant on nurses to inform and educate patients on their individual risk factors. You cant assume everyone that walked in for a vaccine, is even capable of making decisions for themselves, much less that they are aware of the serious contraindications they might be facing. When I did massage, we couldnt even massage a person with cancer who also had a broken bone, without a doctor saying it was okay. In this case, its a matter of being prior to FDA approval, so anyone CAN go ahead and take the vaccine, and if they die they die. Theres no chance at Pfizer being sued. But having cancer and a broken bone, YOU can be sued for not telling the patient the serious risks they are taking. Yes. You still have to use due diligence and common sense. 

"The person has or may have a staph infection on their skin, in the area where the injection would take place. Opening the skin around the infected area, could potentially lead to a widespread infection, I would imagine. "

I can't imagine any nurse injecting anything into a site with a staph infection.  Another arm is usually available.  If not, ask your supervisor - can I use the thigh or buttock for this vaccine? 

Apparently someone with MRSA is a great candidate for the vaccine. I was just throwing some stuff out there, on the premise that a person (as many as 25% of health care pros) can be colonized with S. Aureas and be MRSA negative, and not yet have a wound for that infection to actually cause signs of infection in. If someone is aware they are colonized with S. Aureas, they may be advised to finish their antibiotic before getting vaccinated, to avoid a new wound site and, with that, potentially losing tissue. But yes ultimately this would be their choice, for now, since this is basically a free for all vaccination attempt, and nobody is considering the rule of doing no harm, for some odd reason.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852458/#:~:text=Colonization with MRSA has been,higher prevalence of MRSA colonization.

"Just some kinda basic reasons (maybe none of these are an exact science LOL, but more an exercise in good judgment of doing NO harm) to refuse to give the vaccine on a case by case basis. 

I also don't know why someone would work for a doctor or hospital that generally employs western medicinal remedies vs holistic ones, if their beliefs contradicted those tenets, but for people who became nurses and also are opposed to certain types of treatments, I think that those nurses should not be forced to have to give someone treatments that go against their beliefs. I just cant imagine these nurses keeping their positions long term, if thats the case. Personally, I don't respect people in health care that refuse to utilize scientifically proven safe methods of improving the quality of a living *and breathing* persons life, but technically they have the right to believe what they want and to practice their beliefs. 

Thank goodness I don't work in HR, I guess. LOL "

IMO, you are trying to make ethical and moral decisions for patients and family members that you don't have the right or authority to make.  If someone was "in a vegetative state" or otherwise and family wanted a vaccine it still isn't up to ME to determine they should not receive it.  I would confer with and/or defer those decisions to my social workers, physicians, managers. Ethical issue.

I'm almost 72 and continue working in a clinic for senior citizens.  Am I next on the list to be frefused certain types of healthcare because I'm "old-old"?  We have a large group of volunteers that handle our reception desk, assist with b/p clinics, handle our equipment lending room...the oldest is almost 81, all are over 70, many retired RN's.  Active, vibrant, dynamic seniors!  

And yes anyone should have the right to ask for the vaccine, if they want one, yes indeed. But the issue I have is that this is a come and get it scenario, where patients are not being thoroughly vetted before being issued the shot, and that in some very rare cases, the shot was contraindicated. In fitter younger patients, having a fever and a little diarrhea, common side effects of the vaccine, probably won't kill you. In people who can die from their immune response, please don't give them the vaccine. Just say "No I think there is a good chance these common side effects could kill you." Norway doctors are now needing to have their older and more frail patients be more thoroughly vetted before getting the vaccine. For some, the side effects are a life and death "choice."Obviously if its a HEY come on free for all.. walk in or make an appt..  deal.. its unlikely to kill people who walk in for the shot. But nurses and doctors DO need to consider a persons genuine frailty and inform them that getting the shot might well kill them. 

Generally the nurses say next to NOTHING. There is almost zilch where it comes to patient education on this vaccine, aside from a few of the many side effects. Diarrhea and vomiting were never mentioned as side effects at my little parking lot vaccination site. 

[Surfin USA]

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n149#:~:text=Doctors in Norway have been,shortly after receiving the vaccine.

[Surfin USA]

And you know, really, I do think this is the real crux of the issue FOR nurses who refuse to administer the vaccine as of right now. Although its currently a great tool for eradicating or slowing the spread of covid-19 and there appears to be few cases where a person can die from having the shot, the issue some nurses are having about giving it, to anyone, or to a particular population, is entirely about the GLOBAL lack of knowledge on long term effects. 

As someone else said, in the case of administering these vaccines, someone else can do it. It's not like those outliers that refuse to give it to anyone or even a certain population, are going to have a profound effect on the widespread global administration of the vaccine. 

Should they be allowed to refuse to administer it? Yes. Should it be a unilateral decision for a particular patient? No. 

They should simply be able to pass those responsibilities to offer vaccines to the GP to another nurse, and in individual cases, they should be encouraging the more sickly patients who may not know that they are at risk of being killed by the vaccine, to understand this risk, without sugar coating the side effects. 

Because DOING THAT IS *** and you damn well know it. 

[MaxAttack, BSN, RN]

4 hours ago, Surfin USA said:

Again with the ad hominems about people with DNRs needing an additional mental health exam. Knock it tf off. Enough, already. 

Relax. I was talking about people who use the religious/moral excuse to not vaccinate or be vaccinated, not about DNR's. I could have been more clear.

Quote

Then why did you post a link to an article that claims such? Oh, wait. You just didn't read your own article. 

...at the expense of a cohesive argument..  

Indeed!

 

Jesus you people are too much ?

I'm not rehashing the entire thing I've been through with your friend JKL. The article lends a little legal credence to my argument that a nurse cannot unilaterally make a risk vs benefit medical decision - which has really solely been my entire argument. That article was really not about universally following orders and and should not be interpreted as such. Even if you took it that way, the point stands that a nurse cannot simply refuse an order without further action or notification (ie "unilaterally"). Standard of care is that if a medication is held it has to be addressed promptly - at least where I practice. More than a week of holding lovenox without provider input is pretty noteworthy imo. We could start a whole topic about the legal implications of that article but that's not really what this thread is about and this is how I keep getting dragged into irrelevant rabbit holes.

I'm sure we could argue this for days. Honestly at this point it seems everyone has their set view and I'm not foreseeing much progress. Let's call a lost cause what it is. 

[Surfin USA]

39 minutes ago, MaxAttack said:

Relax. I was talking about people who use the religious/moral excuse to not vaccinate or be vaccinated, not about DNR's. I could have been more clear.

 

Jesus you people are too much ?

I'm not rehashing the entire thing I've been through with your friend JKL. The article lends a little legal credence to my argument that a nurse cannot unilaterally make a risk vs benefit medical decision - which has really solely been my entire argument. That article was really not about universally following orders and and should not be interpreted as such. Even if you took it that way, the point stands that a nurse cannot simply refuse an order without further action or notification (ie "unilaterally"). Standard of care is that if a medication is held it has to be addressed promptly - at least where I practice. More than a week of holding lovenox without provider input is pretty noteworthy imo. We could start a whole topic about the legal implications of that article but that's not really what this thread is about and this is how I keep getting dragged into irrelevant rabbit holes.

I'm sure we could argue this for days. Honestly at this point it seems everyone has their set view and I'm not foreseeing much progress. Let's call a lost cause what it is. 

Right and I do think we all agree on that. Care itself cannot be withheld. 

But I also think that the OP was not really asking if care should be withheld. Just whether nurses can refuse to administer it. It's a little bit of a vague question, especially since weeks later nobody remembers what the meat of the OP really was, with all these red herrings getting tossed in. I think its safe to say we all mostly agree that a nurse can indeed say "Hey IDK if I want that particular job of giving covid shots. Would you assign me another role please?" I mean. Come on. LOL it would be absurd to fire someone for that. 

But a nurse obviously cant make medical decisions for others and arbitrarily decide to cut someone out of their own care plan. 

We all agree on that. 

Its all good, Max.

[JKL33]

15 hours ago, MaxAttack said:

Considering you skipped the crux of this debate (that I've posted twice and once in bold just for you) to argue yet another point, I'm calling it quits. This is more like a Youtube comments section than discussion. It was fun while it lasted. I got some good laughs and a good refresher on logical fallacies. Thanks. ? 

Ditto. Sounds like the major difference here is that I don't waste time getting enraged at peers over unlikely things.

Take care.

[MaxAttack, BSN, RN]

2 hours ago, JKL33 said:

Ditto. Sounds like the major difference here is that I don't waste time getting enraged at peers over unlikely things.

Take care.

Lmao I can't with you! ? Who's "enraged"? And come on! It doesn't even really make sense as literally the entire thread was based on an unlikely event.

Ahh OK really I'm done ? How about one more crack at that final jab?