Many hospitals are moving towards creating mandatory influenza vaccination policies as a condition of employment. Such mandates are causing surefire responses on both sides of the fence. What is the push behind the movement, and what is causing the pushback?
Updated:
First, let me just go over some of the symptoms of the flu, and then we will get down to business on the controversy surrounding the push to create mandatory flu vaccines for healthcare workers:
I can't think of anyone who wants any of these symptoms, or to come down with the flu, can you?
Influenza vaccination research has clearly documented the benefits of receiving the flu vaccine (Google it - you will find a plethora of information...however, I will list some links at the end of this article for your information). However, even though there is sufficient evidence to prove the benefits of receiving the flu vaccine, vaccination rates among healthcare workers are pitifully low. In 2013, only 55% of nurses in the frontlines were vaccinated.
Organizations such as The Joint Commission, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control, Healthy People 2020, etc., etc., have stated their position on recommending the flu vaccine for healthcare workers in order to decrease the risk of exposure and reduce deaths. Due to this recommendation, many healthcare facilities are now creating mandatory flu vaccine policies as a condition of employment.
Employers who create mandatory policies will have exemptions, of course. Exemptions are made for medical and religious exceptions. For places that do not have a mandatory flu vaccine, they may "strongly recommend" the vaccination and may have a declination form for employees to submit if they refuse the vaccine. Additionally, some employers will enforce refusers to wear a mask during flu season while they are at work in order to protect the patients and the employee.
Evidence has shown that there are more than 36,000 deaths in the US each year related to influenza, and more than 200,000 hospitalizations. Influenza is the 6th leading cause of death. Healthcare workers are the leading cause of influenza outbreaks in the healthcare system. up to 50% of people who are infected by the flu virus do not fill ill for several days and can spread the virus to people at risk of complications and death from the flu. Additionally, evidence shows vaccination decreases mortality by 40%, decreases the spread of nosocomial infections by 43%, and decreases absenteeism by 20-30%.
Additionally, there is the ethics to consider. As healthcare workers, we have all taken an oath to "do no harm". As a nurse caring for patients who are not in their most physically healthy state, do we take the vaccination in order to prevent spreading the flu to our vulnerable patients, in order to "do no harm"? We must consider this when we make our decision to take or refuse the vaccination.
I have the names of a few hospitals, and this is by no means a comprehensive list. This is based on a ListServe survey of hospitals and these are the responses received:
Refusal may be largely due to misconceptions related to the vaccine. Fears that the immune system will cause them to get the flu, beliefs that hygiene and better nutrition are more helpful than the vaccine, fear of needles, beliefs that the vaccine does not work, and fear of side effects. Others believe that they have a constitutional right to refuse the vaccine and that mandatory policies are violating these rights.
(taken from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health outline of flu vaccine talking points for managers)
The flu shot does not give people the flu. It uses inactivated ("dead") virus. People may still catch a cold or other virus that the vaccine is not designed match.
Studies have shown that flu vaccination prevents flu in 70% to 90% of healthy adults younger than 65 years old.
You need a new vaccine every year - the virus changes over time.
Serious adverse reactions are very rare. They are explained on the CDC's Vaccine Information Statement, which is distributed when the vaccine is administered.
Local short-term reactions - such soreness at the vaccination site, slight fever, achy feeling - may occur but usually do not last long. Over the counter medicines are helpful. Even short-term reactions are much less bothersome than catching the flu and feeling very sick for days.
Your patients are at-risk, and possibly some friends and family members. You can be infected with the flu virus but not feel ill - and can still transmit flu to at-risk patients.
Inactivated influenza vaccine is effective in preventing transmission and reducing complications of the flu. In years when there is a close match between the vaccine and circulating virus strains, the vaccine prevents illness among approximately 70%--90% of healthy adults under 65 years of age. Vaccinating healthy adults also has been proven to lead to decreased work absenteeism and use of health-care resources, including use of antibiotics. Strong protection is also expected when the vaccine is not a close match with circulating strains, with 50%--77% effectiveness in these instances. In addition, effectiveness against influenza-related hospitalization for healthy adults from inactivated vaccine is estimated at 90%.
All healthcare facilities will be facing the choice of creating a mandatory influenza vaccination in the near future, if they have not already. In order to make an informed decision on the topic, we must have information. Knowledge is power. Before you make a blanket statement on pros or cons, have the information you need, know the research, and make an educated decision.
Please respond to this article by answering the following questions:
References
American Association of Family Practitioners. (2011). AAFP supports mandatory flu vaccinations for healthcare personnel. Retrieved from: AAFP Supports Mandatory Flu Vaccinations for Health Care Personnel
ATrain. (2014). To accept or refuse the flu vaccine. Retrieved from: ZZZ_133_Influenza: Module 7
CDC. (2014). Vaccination: Who should do it, who should not and who should take precautions. Retrieved from: Vaccination: Who Should Do It, Who Should Not and Who Should Take Precautions | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC
Influenza Action Coalition. (2015). Influenza vaccination honor roll. Retrieved from: Honor Roll: Mandatory Influenza Vaccination Policies for Healthcare Personnel
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2014). Talking points for managers. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/p6nbg2u
National adult and influenza immunization summit. (2015). Vaccinating healthcare personnel. Retrieved from: Vaccinating Healthcare Personnel - National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit
NursingTimes. (2014). Why do health workers decline flu vaccination? Retrieved from: http://www.nursingtimes.net/Journals/2014/11/28/y/k/x/031214-Why-do-health-workers-decline-flu-vaccination.pdf
TJC. (2012). R3 Report: Requirement, rationale, reference. Retrieved from: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/R3_Report_Issue_3_5_18_12_final.pdf
I wonder what percentage of "anti-vaxxers" are also "anti-GMO", would be an interesting study to conduct, as both movements share the same principles.
The principle of wanting to know what goes in or on one's food, how it's grown, is it food? or what one is being injected with, and deciding for themselves if it's worth it? Yes, I hold to that. I think it would be strange if one didn't, but that's me. :)
I do not take the flu shot and never will. Any facility that requires it would not have me as an employee. The last one I had was in childhood. Look at other sources of flu shot stats instead of believing everything the drug companies tell you. Their ONLY interest is profit. If you believe flu shots are effective you are either misinformed or deluded.
I wonder what percentage of "anti-vaxxers" are also "anti-GMO", would be an interesting study to conduct, as both movements share the same principles.
I would say close to 100%, however, although I am anti GMOs- I am not an anti-vaccine advocate. Vaccines that work are A-OKAY with me. Take the MMR- and you don't get the measles. Take the polio Vaccine- and you don't get polio (usually). The same goes for all of the proven ones that give at least 10 years of protection.
Now lets go to the Flu shot. If you get the flu shot, then you still have close to the same chance as getting the flu. With a yearly dose, your body responds less effectively. As you build up a tolerance,
the flu shot becomes even less effective.
Is there a correlation between vaccines and Autism, 100% yes CDC | Data and Statistics | Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | NCBDDD, however there is also a correlation between everything else in the world and autism. The issue is with causation.
Let us also not forget that many vaccines are made using fetal cell DNA. The residual DNA fragments are capable of incorporating themselves into our primal DNA chain, thus changing us completely once they are administered. Now, there's the rub. How do pro-life advoacates and fundamental Christians feel about vaccines, now? They should be marching in front of Big Pharma instead of SCOTUS.
And lets not forget that people are inherently distrustful of a government that lies to them: Dark Alliance, Watergate, The Pentagon Papers, Trailblazer, WikiLeaks, NSA, Tuskegee, Remember the Maine, and the list goes on and on and on ............
Look at other sources of flu shot stats instead of believing everything the drug companies tell you. Their ONLY interest is profit. If you believe flu shots are effective you are either misinformed or deluded.
So where do you get your information? Can you share your sources? Enlighten us because we are obviously misinformed and deluded by science.
Cite your sources. Or do you "just know"?
I don't think it's going far enough, actually. When people's ignorance of how vaccinations work and why that's a good thing (and yes, I do mean ignorance, as true understanding of what we're talking about wouldn't lead people to refuse them summarily) leaves these people's children susceptible to diseases that are painful at best and deadly at worst, when they decide that not only are their OWN children going to risk getting preventable illnesses but they feel it's ok to put everyone ELSE'S children at risk....then no, I think it is very fair to say these parents ARE a danger to their own children AND mine. Loving one's own children doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to do what's best, and NOT 'in their own opinion" when their opinion is based on unfounded crap spouted by crackpots....and not on SCIENCE.You are using your own anecdotal evidence (what happened to YOU)
And, to most every child at the time. It was encouraged to get measles, mumps and cp at that age as they were considered a "mild" disease, and only "dangerous" when one was an adult, and they were correct. I'm not ignorant in it.
to state a complete UNTRUTH. You are showing your ignorance of how these diseases have affected humans worldwide....
That's the problem. You and they are talking about #s and dangers of these mild diseases in malnourished children worldwide..., where a cold could be "dangerous" and where they need real food and nourishment, which really is the problem.
"And as for these diseases only adversely affecting malnourished children...your ignorance is showing yet again...."
but, the #s used are not in America or developed nations...so, how am I ignorant? Measles is a fever, runny nose and rash, and that's about all, very unremarkable as I don't even remember the actual experience except time off from school. Treating them like the plague is the ignorance.
"When their ignorance or stupidity hurts MY child, then yes...it's my business. And when an entirely preventable disease (Rubeola, anyone?) suddenly erupts in outbreaks that risk MY children because someone else didn't do their due diligence and instead relied on bloggers and talk show hosts for scientific data.....yeah, it's my business.
"How do you know what those parents know?" Well, gosh, it's pretty clear I know what they DON'T KNOW!
So, on a hypothetical, you're pitting other parents and their responsibility and protection of their own child against yours, and you're demanding they relinquish theirs for yours. Sorry, I don't know what to say to that. It's my business to protect my child, and their business to protect their child, and that mentality is very strange to me. I'd say I'm sorry that your child can't be vaccinated, but, I actually believe he/she's fortunate! Vitamins may be something to consider. It's not like there aren't other choices, and immunity building naturally. Forcing your way as the only way is what's diabolical and dangerous in this world today.
I am a manager and as a manager I get reps coming to my door from all types of companies. Each Rep has a "plethera of resaearch" to prove why I should be buying/using their product.
You say that you are a manager. Is this in a medical facility of some sort? What's your educational background? The reason I ask is because I've read the plethora of research regarding influenza vaccines as well as childhood immunizations and I don't reach the same conclusions as you at all. I find that influenza vaccinations are beneficial and that childhood immunizations are safe and save many thousands of lives.
Just FYI - I had seven staff all of sick on the same day after having the Flu shot. Almost all my staff that have taken time off with the flu have been vaccinated! (when I say almost I am allowing for the 2 that didnt).
That's anecdotal and the value of such evidence is nil.
I will finish with a quote from Adlof Hitler:"Isn't it good fortune for governments that people do not think".
Could we please keep Adolf out of this debate (Godwin's law).
The I want to prove my point research, appeals to the superficial, oh look at that, I cant be bothered to check it out for my self, sheeple.
I genuinely don't understand this sentence. Who do you consider "sheeple"? Yourself? Others? Us?
Ever wonder about cancer research how they wont even look at natural therapy claims but just dismiss it?
Do you actually believe that "natural therapy" cures cancer?
There certainly is research about cancer and various vitamins/antioxidants and herbal remedies available. I don't see how one could receive ethical approval to study any of those as monotherapy and compare it to a proven treatment. There's not near enough evidence to suggest/support that any natural remedy would have an as good as or better chance of curing cancer than the treatments that are available today.
I've met several (anecdotal, I know) patients with an T1 or T2, N0 M0 who declined conventional treatment and put their faith in some charlatan promoting some herbal remedy or other, only to have the patient return to the hospital some time later a terminal T4 N1 M1. It makes me livid. In my opinion these quacks should face criminal charges.
I don't know a single oncology nurse or physician who wouldn't be jubilant if carrot juice or something similar could cure cancer.
If often wonder how the various "natural remedy" proponents reason. Do they think that thousands and thousands of medical professionals are too stupid to see the truth that the conspiracy theorists see, or are the physicians and nurses simply evil and choose to disregard the benefits of naturals remedies and willingly subject their patients to unnecessary medical side effects? Or are perhaps all doctors and nurses paid off by the pharmaceutical industry? So which is it? Stupid, greedy or evil?
Actually, the truth is that surgery, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, medications such as for example hormone antagonists, radiation therapy and monoclonal antibodies is what we've seen is proven to work once a cancer has developed.
And rusti1, the issue isn't anyone trying to prevent me or others from vaccinating - it's a growing number of people NOT vaccinating and putting others at risk needlessly. The fact that your "idea" of health may differ from mine does not give you the right to endanger countless others.
I don't put anyone at risk, as I won't get the measles, mumps, or chicken pox (having them already) or the flu as I don't get the flu, not since being vaccinated 10 years ago and then having the flu. More children vaccinated against pertussis contract pertussis nowadays, not sure what the protection is there either. And, it used to be those vaccinated should stay away from vulnerable children and the sick. So, that's no longer the "science". I wonder how much will be dismissed and denied when it does occur. Those sick but vaccinated are "safe" around the sick, but those healthy but not vaccinated are not. Strange conventional world it is :)
That's a good way to put it. I was responding to what I thought the poster was saying that if a vaccine didn't cause autism, then autism just magically appears.It definitely isn't magic. The research shows it to be a neurological disorder that starts in infancy but people miss the signs. Coincidentally, we start to get immunized in infancy.
Correlation does not equal causation. If that were the case I could say changing from breast milk to solid food at around six months causes autism.
There's evidence that it starts BEFORE infancy, during gestation. It's been awhile since I read on that particular aspect, but it was pretty well-published several years back. While neurological pathways continue to develop in infancy, the foundation on which the autism disorder is laid appears to occur PRIOR to birth....throwing much of the anti-vax propaganda into the trash (where it belongs).
So, on a hypothetical, you're pitting other parents and their responsibility and protection of their own child against yours, and you're demanding they relinquish theirs for yours. Sorry, I don't know what to say to that. It's my business to protect my child, and their business to protect their child, and that mentality is very strange to me. I'd say I'm sorry that your child can't be vaccinated, but, I actually believe he/she's fortunate! Vitamins may be something to consider. It's not like there aren't other choices, and immunity building naturally. Forcing your way as the only way is what's diabolical and dangerous in this world today.
Vitamins! ROFL....when my child was first diagnosed, I was looking to anything and everything POSSIBLE to alleviate his symptoms, hell even CURE him. I tried the crackpot methods of high levels of Vitamin B, B complexes as "recommended" by some quack in California who was "making great strides against autism" with his unique blend of Vitamins. EXPENSIVE vitamins, too, for those who keep harping about the money being made off of vaccinations. THAT profit margin PALES SHARPLY when compared with the hand-over-fist money being made by shell-game operators hawking VITAMINS as the answer to everyone's problems and illnesses and disorders. You want to talk SCAM? Let's look at THAT!
Sure, ok, I was a desperate parent, I'd try ANYTHING. I ALSO, btw, trusted in education and the standard for care, which included behavior therapies. I did it all....and in the end, vitamins did NOTHING. He takes a multi-vitamin daily as his diet is not well-balanced, but you talking about vitamins as a curative is a real insult.
My child is fortunate for many reasons, INCLUDING the fact that he is FULLY vaccinated. I do have to say that you have several times now, in just one thread of discussion, misread or perhaps perhaps simply skipped over information that changes the entire context of WHAT you are reading. It gives a very clear picture as to why you might not understand what we are saying here....and WHY you might gravitate to the anti-science viewpoint.
You are picking out pieces of what you want to see, and ignoring the rest. You are twisting the words of people who are very clearly putting out understandable information, and I therefore can only deduce you do the same with ALL evidence as well as pseudo-evidence on this topic: you see what you want, read what you want, and cover your eyes and ears when the evidence contradicts your belief structure.
As for the rest of all of what you wrote above, YES, I take serious exception to the idea that if someone ELSE'S choices (made in ignorance) HARM MY CHILD those choices should be considered just as acceptable as my own. NOPE.
If a parent wants to leave his or her own child susceptible to illnesses, like I said, that's on them. THEY get to live (or not) with whatever happens. But they should NOT be allowed the ability and opportunity to harm MY child via attendance at school, daycare/aftercare, social programs/clubs, public gatherings, ANYWHERE where that potentially disease-carrying person can start an epidemic, risking the health of those who CANNOT be vaccinated, and rely on EDUCATED people to help keep them safe. Where they can adversely affect someone who HAS been vaccinated, but may still be susceptible. YOUR rights END at MY body. YES, I think my choice carries greater weight because MY choice doesn't in the least possible way harm YOU or YOURS. Your choice, if it carries equal weight, means I should sit there and LET YOU harm ME and MINE. No....I think not.
Someone may choose to drink himself into oblivion. Totally his choice. But if he then gets into a car and drives that car into a group of children....it is NO LONGER "his choice", but an actionable offense. Those of us who recognize the danger caused by those who refuse to vaccinate against preventable diseases see anti-vaxxers as driving a bus full of explosives into a school yard. You are dangerous.
I do not think the ignorant will simply become understanding. But I DO think they ought to be held to the consequences of poor decisions, that being isolation from the rest of society that chooses NOT to be infected with their diseases, thank you. And it IS coming about, btw. School districts that previously allowed someone to write "medical exemption" for vaccinations are now refusing that, seeking EVIDENCE before that is permissible. And physicians who might have just scribbled off an 'ok' are not so quick to do that now. Facilities that used to allow "religious exemptions" are now requiring supporting documentation from clergy stating that vaccinations are HONESTLY against the doctrine's of the religion, and guess what? Clergy are refusing to lie for these parents who want them to. Nope, religious exemptions going out the window, when they are LIES designed to support a nonsensical agenda of risky behavior, NOT a religious belief system.
RN...
Well, actually, I wasn't talking about vitamins to cure autism, but to "protect" your child, strengthening his/her immune system naturally, as you said he/she was in "danger" of those unvaccinated? Vitamin C alone is amazing against viral infections. But, now you say he/she WAS vaccinated...so, then, according to your own health, your child is not in "danger" of the unvaccinated, but you want others to vaccinate anyway against THEIR will to protect your child from what then? He/she's vaccinated. You might keep in mind those vaccinated for pertussis were the most likely to contract and spread pertussis.
And, anyone sick should stay home, vaccinated or not. Those that vulnerable not to be around any sickness perhaps shouldn't be anywhere in public. Colds might be a threat. I'd quarantine myself. I'd have everyone quarantined who gets a cold too, as, they're a danger to me with my asthma.
Maybe you're right. People will have to home school their unvaccinated children. But, somehow, I suspect the unvaccinated will be blamed anyway. It's a strange world we're coming to.
BostonFNP, APRN
2 Articles; 5,584 Posts
Just FYI, "flu-like symptoms" are clearly defined in the research methodology and remain constant without regard to vaccination status or etiology. Flu-like symptoms that present in individuals with laboratory-confirmed influenza is called influenza the rest is called non-influenza acute respiratory illness.