firecracker_1

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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.

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.

According to the research that I have done, as well as the hospitals and multiple lawyers I have spoken to, the religious belief exemption is not affected (or founded) legally by the specific religion upon which the belief is founded; it is based on whether or the not the belief is "sincerely held" by the individual seeking said exemption, which must be collaborated through testimony given under penalty of perjury, as well as the agreement of testimony from persons who know you. Thus, it doesn't matter if the religion is "major," mainstream, or otherwise, nor does the label of the religion affect its legal standing. There are several different legal ramifications that come into play, but for the sake of not going into lengthy ramblings, I will just point to one, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employer discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Thus, in healthcare work environments, if you are not hired because of your legal declination of immunizations for religious beliefs, that is a direct violation of said Act and discriminatory. As for the other scenarios you mentioned such as people with criminal records, testing positive for legal substances, or smoking is not related at all to religious beliefs, but an entirely different matter altogether, as one is protected by federal law, and the other is the rightful prerogative of employers. Right, I absolutely agree with you that in the nursing profession,the threat of disease is a permanent variable in the equation. Haha, I've got tough skin so I don't mind it I find sarcasm very funny so I've laughed at quite a few responses because they were genuinely funny LOL But I really appreciate you being open to the topic even though you see it differently and having a productive and interactive discussion! I agree with you that in the examples you used, the employer has the right to not hire (or fire) someone. However, when it comes to religious beliefs, it is substantially different from a legal perspective. I briefly mentioned it earlier, so I won't go into detail, but according to legal counsel, it violates the civil rights act and the EOCC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supports this stance on legal grounds as well. 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.

Okay, thanks! Out of curiosity, what is the general position of the hospitals regarding religious beliefs that are protected by law and their mandatory exemptions?

Okay, that makes sense, thanks so much for breaking it down!

Thanks for your insight!

I apologize if I came off sounding argumentative as that was not my intention. I really do appreciate you sharing your thoughts, as you have more experience than me, so thank you. As for legal standing, I would respectfully disagree, but will take your input into consideration.

Good point you made and I agree! I have been accepted into multiple nursing schools and they have been very helpful and given the option of immunization waivers. However, in addition to this, they have informed me that I must also receive waivers from the clinical facilities as well. This what I am currently researching and working through at the moment.

You do have a point, that I don't have professional experience in healthcare, which I acknowledge. However, I'm just trying to work with where I am now and the next step of nursing school. I understand where you are coming from, but I am willing and okay with it being known and being a part of my professional reputation, as well as affecting the outcome of my career.

Thanks for sharing your experience, I really appreciate it!

Yes I am. However, I have not entered into this naively. I have studied this extensively for the last 5 years, as well as the regulations and laws that are involved, so I am well aware of what I am getting myself into. I don't expect your support, I just wanted to clarify that I am familiar with the situation. As my original post outlined, I posted here as part of my ongoing research on the issue, and "my intention is not to debate or discuss the merits of vaccinations."

I've heard of those tests, but I've never known anyone who has taken them before. Right, thanks! Thanks for sharing. I understand the implications of opting out of vaccinations and am willing to accept the consequences.

Gotcha, thanks for your perspective. It's nice to hear from someone who has experience in a variety of medical workplaces!

rofl, that made me die laughing, good one!!