The Controversy: Mandatory Flu Vaccines

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:

  • Sudden onset fever
  • Headache
  • Chills
  • Myalgia
  • Dry cough
  • Sore throat
  • Stuffy nose
  • Loss of appetite
  • Limb or joint pain
  • Difficulty sleeping
  • Diarrhea or upset stomach

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.

What is the purpose behind the push toward flu vaccines?

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.

What hospitals have created a mandatory flu vaccine policy?

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:

  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA) - since 2009
  • Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics (Kansas City, MO)
  • Children's Colorado (Aurora, CO)
  • Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters (Norfolk, VA)
  • Children's Medical Center Dallas (Dallas, TX) - since 2012
  • Riley Children's (Indianapolis, IN) - since 2012
  • East Tennessee Children's (Knoxville, TX) - since 2013
  • Boston Children's (Boston, MA)
  • Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns (San Diego, CA) - since 2013
  • Roger Williams Medical Center (Providence, RI)
  • Brookwood Medical Center (Birmingham, AL)
  • Johns Hopkins (all hospitals/clinics) (Baltimore, MD)
  • Driscoll Children's Hospital (Corpus Christi, TX)
  • Spohn Health System (Corpus Christi / San Antonio, TX)
  • All Connecticut Hospitals

What are some reasons that people refuse the flu vaccine?

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.

Common concerns and myths about the flu vaccination

(taken from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health outline of flu vaccine talking points for managers)

The flu shot will give me the flu

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.

I don't believe the flu vaccine actually works

Studies have shown that flu vaccination prevents flu in 70% to 90% of healthy adults younger than 65 years old.

I had the vaccination last year

You need a new vaccine every year - the virus changes over time.

What about possible adverse reactions

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.

I'm not in a high-risk group

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.

The flu vaccine made every year does not match the circulating flu strain

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%.

Knowledge is Power

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:

  1. Do you take the flu vaccine yearly? If you do not, what is the reason you do not participate (if you don't mind answering this question)?
  2. Does your employer have a mandatory influenza vaccination policy as a condition of employment? If yes, where do you work?
  3. What concerns do you have about the flu vaccine?
  4. Do you know if anyone who has been released from their job because they did not get the flu vaccine?

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

Specializes in Critical Care.
I think I'll drink the tea, eat organic salads, and allow Dr Gerson's followers to give me coffee enemas every morning. At least I'll be full of energy instead of puking my guts out while brushing the three hairs that are left on my body.

It might not be a cure, but at least hippies will be getting rich off of me instead of some doctor that could care less if I live or die.

Some tea with a nice salad with organic veggies does sound good right about now.

th?id=JN.%2b2AByo8M5rUsl%2f2vCMceig&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

As someone whose parent tried the holistic route to cure cancer, let me assure you that in the end, you wind up sick as hell and needing hospital care either way.

Perhaps the chemo can buy you twenty additional years to live your life, or more. Perhaps you are one of the unlucky ones who doesn't respond to traditional therapy, but at least you have professional palliative care and symptom management. Or maybe you actively choose not to pursue treatment, but for the sake of others, are HONEST about the fact that alternative medicine and diet only take one so far.

The holistic route bought my parent eight years of silent suffering and excruciating pain, as well as unknown sums of wasted money. And I have yet to meet a cancer survivor who truly cured him or herself using totally holistic methods. My parent used that line, too, in motivational speaking to those who wished to believe in pseudo-science--until 6 months prior to death, when they could no longer ignore the signs of extensive metastasis.

Sorry to get off topic, but pseudo-science is not harmless. Chemo and radiation (and vaccines, for that matter) never purport to be harmless, and that is the difference.

SCIENCE is aware of its shortcomings.

But you got the flu shot so why do you care if they breath in your direction. If the flu shot works, as you advocate you shouldn't have to worry about getting the flu from someone breathing in your direction.

Geez, does no one watch Monty Python?

Way to be stupid and aggressive to someone who has bowed out of the thread. I just happened to stop by out of curiosity. I'm all ticked now. Won't make that mistake again.

PS - I'm not nearly a rabid enough advocate, unlike some on this thread, for you to bother with. Go away and leave me alone.

Re: Quote from cayenne06:

Cancer patients are frequently swindled into spending thousands and thousands of dollars on ineffective or potentially harmful "natural" cancer remedies. It's very sad

Actually, I believe most turn to natural remedies only after they've done the cut, chemo and radiation. How much do they cost? One man spent literally pennies on baking soda and molasses, and it worked for him, so, I find it funny when the "cost" is a concern.

As someone whose parent tried the holistic route to cure cancer, let me assure you that in the end, you wind up sick as hell and needing hospital care either way.

Perhaps the chemo can buy you twenty additional years to live your life, or more. Perhaps you are one of the unlucky ones who doesn't respond to traditional therapy, but at least you have professional palliative care and symptom management. Or maybe you actively choose not to pursue treatment, but for the sake of others, are HONEST about the fact that alternative medicine and diet only take one so far.

The holistic route bought my parent eight years of silent suffering and excruciating pain, as well as unknown sums of wasted money. And I have yet to meet a cancer survivor who truly cured him or herself using totally holistic methods. My parent used that line, too, in motivational speaking to those who wished to believe in pseudo-science--until 6 months prior to death, when they could no longer ignore the signs of extensive metastasis.

Sorry to get off topic, but pseudo-science is not harmless. Chemo and radiation (and vaccines, for that matter) never purport to be harmless, and that is the difference.

SCIENCE is aware of its shortcomings.

Re: "Sorry to get off topic, but pseudo-science is not harmless. Chemo and radiation (and vaccines, for that matter) never purport to be harmless, and that is the difference.

SCIENCE is aware of its shortcomings."

I believe everyone understands for one, nothing is a guarantee, even in natural treatments. I found natural things like vitamins (C is amazing:) and an organic diet are better for my respiratory problems. My son found them better for his allergies, that are non-existent now. I'm sorry for your parents, but, regardless, it is and should always be the person's choosing of what kind of health treatments they seek. I don't think rattling off all the negative side-effects of medicines and treatments makes them better either. Sales actually grew from it. Maybe there's something to it :)

Actually, we do not know how many people died from influenza because there is no mandatory reporting of adult deaths from influenza. Why is there no mandatory reporting? Because the veil would be lifted and influenza vaccination rates would plummet.

This would be bad for big pharma because profits would drop. However, the CDC reason is that another major flu pandemic is predicted. One that will make 1918 look like a good year. Every hospital bed in the country will be full. 1-2 million will die and 100 million will be sick.

It will likely be a bird flu that drifts with another prevalent strain to create a Franken-flu (not trying to be funny) and will tax even the strongest immune systems. We do not have a flu vaccine that will ease the pain from this next pandemic.

The flu vaccine at present may as well be sterile water for all the good that it will do. However, by introducing enough different flu strains into peoples systems over the years, it is postulated that we will have enough indirect protection to keep it under control.

The problem is that each time a person is vaccinated, they develop fewer antibodies. So this year's shot will not be as effective for a dedicate vaxxer as it will be for the occasional vaxxer who has only had two to three shots in their lifetime.

This is why we need TARGETED VACCINATION VS UNIVERSAL VACCINATION. The target? School age children, not adults. Aye, there's the rub. Children assuming all the risk to protect the frail and the elderly. Slightly dystopian.....is it not?

Hoorah! Yes!

Yes, lets count how many died last year from Ebola. The point is that Ebola is a deadly virus with a high mortality rate. The flu is not.

If vaccines were 100% safe we would not be talking. It is impossible for a manufacturer to conduct the wide scale testing needed to account for every possible risk with vaccines.The Supreme Court stated that vaccines are "inherently unsafe". That is why physicians and drug manufacturers were made exempt from lawsuits and the vaccine injury compensation board was created.

Yes people die every year from the flu. Does that justify a mandatory vaccine? Where does your moral certainty come from? I can make moral arguments as well. How many people die each year from gun violence? How many die from mistakes in hospitals? How many innocent civilians die in wars each year? How do these compare to deaths from the flu? Do the numbers make my argument superior? I've written previously about informed consent, educating the public, and more research to create safer vaccines. Respect for different opinions is crucial if progress is to be made. I accept the consequences of my decisions. I also respect your right to make your own decision.

Exactly right!

Specializes in Critical Care.
Re: "Sorry to get off topic, but pseudo-science is not harmless. Chemo and radiation (and vaccines, for that matter) never purport to be harmless, and that is the difference.

SCIENCE is aware of its shortcomings."

I believe everyone understands for one, nothing is a guarantee, even in natural treatments. I found natural things like vitamins (C is amazing:) and an organic diet are better for my respiratory problems. My son found them better for his allergies, that are non-existent now. I'm sorry for your parents, but, regardless, it is and should always be the person's choosing of what kind of health treatments they seek. I don't think rattling off all the negative side-effects of medicines and treatments makes them better either. Sales actually grew from it. Maybe there's something to it :)

As a former oncology nurse, I won't ever disagree that is and should always be the patient's choice to devise a course of treatment--or lack thereof. I would never have denied my family member the right to choose their own treatment, even if (and when) I knew it was leading to an excruciating outcome. Not at all my point.

Pseudoscientific claims don't post efficacy rates or side effects routinely; I fail to see how this is a good thing. In addition, pseudoscience often uses semi-scientific sounding but flawed explanations to make the undereducated consumer feel like they are doing something intelligent. Rattling off negative side effects doesn't make things better; it allows potential consumers to make educated choices, and it acknowledges that treatment is not without risk.

It's clear from other threads on here (as well as my own practice observations) that "everyone" does NOT understand that nothing is a guarantee--patients routinely CAN and DO misunderstand, misinterpret, or flat-out disbelieve even the most basic of health provider teaching. There's a thread active right now discussing crazy things patients have done to themselves because of this misunderstanding/lack of education: witness, the guy who ate 3 lbs of nuts and seeds with minimal hydration and had to seek medical intervention because of it.

I'm not saying that vitamins and dietary changes cannot be a healthy adjunct to traditional treatment. But the poster I quoted specifically mentioned coffee enemas. Little different.

:) Ok, well, maybe there is illogical thinking in some ...like eating pounds of seeds and not hydrating. And, there are no efficacy rates because there is no official central holistic authority to report them to. I've taken vitamin C for years for colds, flu and asthma, but conventional science still denies it no matter how many times I "report" it, so people are left to find things out for themselves. It then ends up that people learn to "doctor" themselves. I don't believe a coffee enema is that dangerous, so putting "fear" in everything tried apart from conventional say so is what's disturbing to me. Maybe you're not, but, that's how it does come off, assuming everything natural is "psuedoscience" for one, or not within the conventional perimeter of being legitimate. The conventional treatments fall short on many things, I would say add to health problems, but, that's my general opinion and view too. So for them to take "authority" as to what's health and what isn't is well, funny to me.

Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
Okay, some of the CIs are laughable, but the end result is that the vaccines do not offer near enough protection against a pandemic. The article is biased in favor of using current vaccines until better ones can be developed. But better vaccines will not be developed because of the current financial model.

In 20 years we will be reading about how the call for universal flu vaccination was misdirected.

We need something better, something that works......

On your critical read of the studies, show us where you think the bias is. What could the researchers or design have done different to have less bias?

A new influenza vaccine is developed every year. There is active research about overcoming antigenic drift.

The influenza vaccine works, to the tune of an average efficacy over 50%. If you had a 50% percent chance of winning the lottery would you not play because it wasn't 100% or 75%? If we were to take all the medication off the market that weren't more than 50% effective we would have very little medication.

I know people believe in the "science" of flu vaccines, but a lot of the scientific evidence is provided by big pharma, which is clearly interested in profits more than anything else.

BigPharma, statistically, makes no significant profit from vaccinations.

Maybe you're not, but, that's how it does come off, assuming everything natural is "psuedoscience" for one, or not within the conventional perimeter of being legitimate.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

The truth is that many CAM treatments have never been able to demonstrate any superiority to placebo in RCTs. It's interesting to me that people arguing about the 50% effectiveness of influenza vaccines is happy to promote CAM treatments on par with placebo.

On your critical read of the studies, show us where you think the bias is. What could the researchers or design have done different to have less bias?

A new influenza vaccine is developed every year. There is active research about overcoming antigenic drift.

The influenza vaccine works, to the tune of an average efficacy over 50%. If you had a 50% percent chance of winning the lottery would you not play because it wasn't 100% or 75%? If we were to take all the medication off the market that weren't more than 50% effective we would have very little medication.

BigPharma, statistically, makes no significant profit from vaccinations.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

The truth is that CAM treatments have never been able to demonstrate any superiority to placebo in RCTs. It's interesting to me that people arguing about the 50% effectiveness of influenza vaccines is happy to promote CAM treatments on par with placebo.

It's not really effectiveness rate imo but the bad effects and perhaps even making one more vulnerable. Perhaps that's where the money is made. How can I go for years without the flu and yet no vaccine otherwise. What do I credit that "effectiveness" to if not "placebo" and vitamin C? How does one whose been vaccinated even know they've been in contact with the bug to count in the "effective" rate of the vaccine, and it's not their diet and other health practices, or are they assumed they've been in contact and then counted as effective, regardless of their health practices and placebos. I think there's lots of questions in the whole matter, to be considered factual and science.

Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
[/b]How does one whose been vaccinated even know they've been in contact with the bug to count in the "effective" rate of the vaccine, and it's not their diet and other health practices, or are they assumed they've been in contact and then counted as effective, regardless of their health practices and placebos. I think there's lots of questions in the whole matter, to be considered factual and science.

You first need to understand the science; if you had read any study on vaccine effectiveness you would know that it is a simple mathematical calculation that describes the reduction in disease between the vaccinated group and the vaccinated group:

Vaccine Efficacy = (attack rate in unvaccinated - attack rate in vaccinated)/(attack rate in unvaccinated) 100.

Of course, lack of exposure to the virus is the best prophylactic "treatment". If you are not exposed you have 0% risk of contracting the virus thus it is 100% effective.

Were both groups isolated and was the vaccinated group known to be in contact with the disease? If the whole unvaccinated group was in contact with the flu, did all contract the flu, regardless of health practices.

I should add, when I was vaccinated, then contracted the flu a few weeks later, I also lived and worked in a big city environment, then and years after when I didn't take the vaccine. So, city or not, without a vaccine, I didn't get the flu. When I did have a "flu-like" episode, I was simply sitting at my computer at the time, and not living in a big city to blame, so I wonder if it's not only contact, but low immune system. I can say taking vitamin C and some other placebos (like acv and honey) to boost my immune system, that they did stop the symptoms within an hour.