Pregnant nurse fired for refusing flu shot

[wtbcrna]

"A pregnant nurse in Pennsylvania who refused to get a flu shot due to her fear of miscarrying was fired from her job with a health care company.

LANCASTER, Pa.-A pregnant woman who refused to get a flu shot due to her fear of miscarrying was fired from her job with a health care company.

Dreonna Breton worked as a registered nurse for Horizons Healthcare Services in central Pennsylvania. The company requires all personnel to get the influenza vaccine.

Breton contended the immunizations may not be safe enough for pregnant women. She suffered two miscarriages earlier this year, and doesn't want to risk a third."

http://news.msn.com/us/pregnant-nurse-fired-for-refusing-flu-shot

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/qa_vacpregnant.htm

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

The hospital was just being nasty. She's been compliant with getting flu shots year after year. They could have at least let her wear a mask.

There are people who are exempt fur religious reasons and they still get to work. I know they are protected by the law, but they are walking around working just fine without a flu shot wearing their masks.

I think it's because she was pregnant they gave her the boot. The flu shot was just an excuse.

She was notified and given her options either take the flu vaccine per hospital policy that she was well aware or resign. She decided without any medical recommendation, medical exemption and/or religious exemption to go against the hospital policy. She decided to effectively resign her position by voluntarily not following hospital policy, so how is that being "nasty" on the part of the hospital? It is the hospitals job to protect the patients first not advocate conspiracy theories.

[besaangel, ASN, BSN, MSN, CNA, RN, APRN, NP]

She got two notes from different medical providers a CNM and a physician trying to get medical release from getting the flu shot and neither one stated any reason to not get the flu shot.

She had apparently gotten the flu shot without objections all her other years of employment and presumably without reaction, so again there wasn't any reason for her not to get the flu shot other than her personal objection.

Thats inconclusive. Her two notes were not satisfactory to the Hospital, which I am not negating. What I have an issue is that she could be that one anomaly that has a reaction. We do not know. Her doc stated that he was apprehensive about her taking the shot because it might cause un-due stress and anxiety (which could lead to worse outcomes for the baby). It obviously didnt fit the rule of an actual allergy so it wasnt acceptable- not my call.

Also, we do not know when the mandatory took effect. The article states that she took it year one at Lancaster General and that was it, which could have suggested it was only recommended back then and not mandatory so she might have/had not taken it again for some reason. She ought to have had a plan B since this flu vac became mandatory; prego or not because as the article states, Horizon is now requiring flu shots to remain employed. Also, she just started working at Horizon in April so there really was no "before" as she was at Lancaster Gen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528129/Pregnant-nurse-29-FIRED-refuses-flu-shot-protect-unborn-child.html

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/mandatory_flu_vaccination_shot.html

[besaangel, ASN, BSN, MSN, CNA, RN, APRN, NP]

Not all facilities allow a mask as an option, unless there is an approved reason someone can't get the vaccine. I'm guessing since she was terminated, pregnancy was not an approved reason not to get the vaccine, and many actually strongly recommend pregnant women get the flu vaccine (just not the nasal version with live vaccine) because the flu can have a much more detrimental effect than the vaccine.

Yeah I know but her facility did.

[pookyp, LPN]

She was notified and given her options either take the flu vaccine per hospital policy that she was well aware or resign. She decided without any medical recommendation medical exemption and/or religious exemption to go against the hospital policy. She decided to effectively resign her position by voluntarily not following hospital policy, so how is that being "nasty" on the part of the hospital? It is the hospitals job to protect the patients first not advocate conspiracy theories.[/quote'] It's nasty because clearly this woman was very distraught about already losing two babies and thought the flu shot may up her chances on losing this one. Instead of firing her, at least let her wear a mask. Not everything needs a note from the doctor. What happened to people having empathy? My goodness, if I'm not mistaken she was working there for 4 years, and has been getting the shot, so obviously there had to be more to why she didn't want it this time around. She felt like doing what's best for her unborn baby. She'll find another job just fine. Hope she has a smooth pregnancy. :)

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Thats inconclusive. Her two notes were not satisfactory to the Hospital, which I am not negating. What I have an issue is that she could be that one anomaly that has a reaction. We do not know. Her doc stated that he was apprehensive about her taking the shot because it might cause un-due stress and anxiety (which could lead to worse outcomes for the baby). It obviously didnt fit the rule of an actual allergy so it wasnt acceptable- not my call.

Also, we do not know when the mandatory took effect. The article states that she took it year one and that was it, which could have suggested it was only recommended prior to [2013] and not mandatory so she might have/had not taken it again for some reason. She ought to have had a plan B since this flu vac became mandatory; prego or not because as the article states, Horizon is now requiring flu shots to remain employed.

Fired: pregnant nurse studies flu vaccine fine print, decides it's too risky | PennLive.com

Neither note from either provider gave a medical reason to not specifically get the flu vaccine.

"First, she went to her midwife, a certified nurse, who wrote a letter citing the fact that Pennsylvania law does not require nurses to get them, the lack of tests on pregnant women regarding vaccines and a citation by the Food and Drug Administration that flu vaccines are not demonstrated safe for pregnant women.

That wasn't good enough, Breton said. The note had to be from a doctor.

So, she went to her doctor, an LGH doctor, and he said he would give her a letter, but not a medical reason.

"In my view," the doctor wrote, "getting the flu shot would significantly and negatively impact her health because of the increased fear and anxiety it would create as well as the emotional impact it could cause if she does miscarry again."

Read more: Elizabethtown nurse fired for refusing flu shot says she had to protect unborn child - News The last time I checked anxiety was not a legitimate excuse to not get the flu shot. The CNM note was nothing but fluff that disregarded the ACOG and CDC recommendations.

I apologize for all the crazy font sizes.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

It's nasty because clearly this woman was very distraught about already losing two babies and thought the flu shot may up her chances on losing this one. Instead of firing her, at least let her wear a mask. Not everything needs a note from the doctor. What happened to people having empathy? My goodness, if I'm not mistaken she was working there for 4 years, and has been getting the shot, so obviously there had to be more to why she didn't want it this time around. She felt like doing what's best for her unborn baby. She'll find another job just fine. Hope she has a smooth pregnancy. :)

What about patient safety and protecting patients? Isn't it our job to protect patients (Do no harm). A surgical mask is only minimally effective and the majority of people don't wear them right or change them as often as they are supposed to severely limiting their effectiveness.

Flu vaccines are also being tied into reimbursement rates.

"For this reporting program, acute care hospitals are subject to a 2% payment reduction if they fail to report required quality measures. Quality data reported through the Hospital IQR Program are made publicly available on the HospitalCompare.gov website."http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/hai/hcpflu.html

[imintrouble, BSN, RN]

The nurse didn't get the vaccination that was required as part of her job.

I don't consider any part of this to be the least bit complicated.

She should have been fired. Or quit/resigned. Whatever the hospital and nurse choose to call it.

It's what I would expect if placed in the same situation. Sometimes choices are bad and worse. When that happens, I can and do feel sympathy for the person making the choice.

[elkpark]

Of course, we only know what has been reported in the press, and that is usually a one-sided account, same as the threads here people start about how "my hospital just up and fired me for no good reason, for just this one little thing that was no big deal." Often when you have more information, it turns out there was a lot more to the story than the person wanted to share, and the "one little thing" was just the final straw for the employer after a series of problems/issues with that employee. This may be a case like that; the individual had gotten to a point where the employer was looking for a reason to fire her, and she gave them one. We don't know.

[Nurseworks, ASN, RN]

I agree with the decision to fire her, but I am adamantly pro-vaccine.

I personally would require everyone, without a legitimate medical reason (verifiable allergy, rare immune problems etc.), to be vaccinated just as everyone in the military is required to do.

Presumably that means you would also require that a standard of practice would be established so as to identify those individuals prior to their being required to adhere to the current vaccination schedule, correct? Because as I'm sure you are aware, no such system is in place now.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Presumably that means you would also require that a standard of practice would be established so as to identify those individuals prior to their being required to adhere to the current vaccination schedule, correct? Because as I'm sure you are aware, no such system is in place now.

I would use this thing called the adult vaccine schedule from this little known place called the CDC.

CDC - Vaccines - Adult Immunization Schedules and Tools for Providers

[Nurseworks, ASN, RN]

I would use this thing called the adult vaccine schedule from this little known place called the CDC.

CDC - Vaccines - Adult Immunization Schedules and Tools for Providers

Why the crankiness? I'm trying to engage in honest debate on the subject. And in return this is what I get?

Almost all of those name "allergy to a vaccine component", a pretty vague catch-all. How would a HCP go about identifying such individuals? Or such components?

Before we can go requiring that the system becomes mandatory like you'd desire, we ALL have to agree that the system is imperfect and therefore needs more tweeking. I don't see why that would be such an outrageous thing to want for everyone. Why do you?

[toomuchbaloney]

Why the crankiness? I'm trying to engage in honest debate on the subject. And in return this is what I get?

Almost all of those name "allergy to a vaccine component", a pretty vague catch-all. How would a HCP go about identifying such individuals? Or such components?

Before we can go requiring that the system becomes mandatory like you'd desire, we ALL have to agree that the system is imperfect and therefore needs more tweeking. I don't see why that would be such an outrageous thing to want for everyone. Why do you?

You identify allergy to the vaccine or it's components by identifying symptoms of allergy following previous vaccination OR by previously identified allergies which would automatically generate a contraindication to the vaccine.

You seem unfamiliar with some practice standards related to administration of vaccines.