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 know how we can lift a veil. How about we also let anti-vaxxers take tours through ICUs anywhere with vented patients who developed respiratory failure/arrest from the flu. Babies, asthmatic otherwise healthy people, moms, dads, sons, daughters... My tiny community hospital typically has vented flu positive patients through the whole season. It probably is rather easy to have an anti-vax position when you don't see first-hand the effects of the flu.Hospitals have an obligation to protect patients and visitors from the spread of flu. If only 60% of people vaccinated go flu-free for the season in a poorly effective year, so be it. That means 60% of the staff will not expose others to a virus that can be deadly. Yes, DEADLY. If you've ever seen a person die from the flu, you know the scary bolding, capitalization and "scare quotes" are for emphasis, not a scare tactic.
If you've never seen a person clinging to life on a respirator from the flu, then my guess is you don't work critical care. Genuinely, I'd encourage you to volunteer on a critical care unit a few times. Just see. If the numbers can't convince you, perhaps the experience of it will.
And, from the judgmental Ixchel vault that rarely is ever opened for public consumption, if you could physically do something to PREVENT the suffering and potential death of the people you are licensed to protect, but choose not to, I honestly don't know how you can live with yourself. I mean honestly.... If you getting the flu meant your mom go it, and then she died, how would you not sit there and think, "omg I could have prevented that"?
Disclaimer: those with medical reasons for non-vaccination are completely forgiven from the above statement. I am referring only to those who are capable and have access to flu vaccines, but refuse to get them.
IVC actually has been used for extreme cases (on death's door) of influenza, polio and pneumonia. One hospital board refused to administer it until the patient's family had a lawyer on it. Reluctantly (why would those in the care of the sick and dying refuse something so harmless I couldn't say, though I have my ideas:) they gave in. The end of the story is, the man's life was saved because of it. It should be around the world and back by now, administered to all those vulnerable and dying of respiratory problems like influenza, but it's not. If you all are in the position of saving, then, why not look into it for yourselves. Just a thought :)
IVC actually has been used for extreme cases (on death's door) of influenza, polio and pneumonia. One hospital board refused to administer it until the patient's family had a lawyer on it. Reluctantly (why would those in the care of the sick and dying refuse something so harmless I couldn't say, though I have my ideas:) they gave in. The end of the story is, the man's life was saved because of it. It should be around the world and back by now, administered to all those vulnerable and dying of respiratory problems like influenza, but it's not. If you all are in the position of saving, then, why not look into it for yourselves. Just a thought :)
As the old saying goes, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." There are always "outlier" cases, but they don't prove anything. The fact that you are aware of one person who appeared to have benefitted from IVC doesn't really mean anything. Every smoker is happy to tell you about someone s/he knows who smoked three packs a day all of her/his adult life and died peacefully of old age at 97, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for you and killing a lot of people.
Do a legitimate, double blind, controlled study that shows statistically significant results, and then we can talk. Just a thought ...
This is in response to whoever called me ShuntRN lol now I can't find the original post. Not that it matters, because no one's mind is going to changed by this yearly debate. Ugh.
Just to clarify, there were two flu vaccines that year because the swine flu strain wasn't in the original vaccine. It was too late into production to make it in the original batches.
Secondly, you missed the entire point of that story. Without the vaccines, I probably would've ended up hospitalized with pneumonia. Instead of pneumonia, I got secondary bronchitis. Hence the extra long recovery time.
If I had to live it over again, I would get both without hesitation. Please read the entire post before latching onto a single passage. I do make sense occasionally :)
Actually, I'm aware that if I keep myself healthy, I am less of a threat to anyone else too. The disagreement is, how one does that. I have kept myself healthy from flu and colds for years now, without rowing anywhere, but with Vitamin C, my own "cold protocol" (apple cider vinegar, honey and cinnamon) at the very first sign, and an organic diet as said. You and any other hypothetical vulnerable person should thank me! I would go a little further and wish to heavens you all would learn how amazing a few basic vitamins (like C and omega 3s) would go a long way to protect the "vulnerable". Myself being susceptible to respiratory problems all my life had to find out for myself. Sorry, I don't buy into your "science" as stated above.
"At the very first sign", you've already exposed everyone you've come into contact with for days.
IVC actually has been used for extreme cases (on death's door) of influenza, polio and pneumonia. One hospital board refused to administer it until the patient's family had a lawyer on it. Reluctantly (why would those in the care of the sick and dying refuse something so harmless I couldn't say, though I have my ideas:) they gave in. The end of the story is, the man's life was saved because of it. It should be around the world and back by now, administered to all those vulnerable and dying of respiratory problems like influenza, but it's not. If you all are in the position of saving, then, why not look into it for yourselves. Just a thought :)
IVC? Do you mean IV vitamin C?
Sorry, I'm a cardiac nurse and think of inferior vena cava filters when I read IVC.
To reply to your question, that you posed: "Concerned lady, could you please describe the mechanism of action of holistic methods on cancer cells and how they manage to cure cancer and link some relevant research."
g) Some cancers are diminished by eating the inner (softer) seed of (hard) apricot pits, known as apricot kernels. These apricot kernels contain the precursor of "laetrile". Don't over-do, because the cyanide in these members of the rose family, if over-done, is poisonous to the whole body, not just attacking the cancer cells.
When I asked you to describe the mechanism of action on cancer cells of a holistic method (any method, your choice) that you claim can cure cancer I meant on a cellular level. Vague and unsubstantiated claims and anecdotes that amygdalin can diminish
(I assume that's not the same as cure?) some cancers (which ones?) because someone on the internet says so, just doesn't cut it.
I also asked for supporting research. As a nurse, I live in a world of peer reviewed randomized double blind/controlled studies with reproducible results. I didn't expect that you'd be able to present research that proves the efficacy of a holistic method. If it actually had been proven through the scientific method it would have ceased to be alternative medicine at that point in time.
I'm not sure if the list you posted are your suggestions for cancer treatment or recommendations on how to stay healthy in general? Of course it makes sense for a person with celiac disease to avoid gluten and yes, vegetables and fruits are good for us. But they aren't cancer cures.
About the amygdalin. What's the LD50 and the therapeutic window of this "treatment"? You never mentioned doses and treatment regimen, simply that one shouldn't "over-do" it because then it'll be poisonous for the whole body. Very vague, not very reassuring and further proof that this so called treatment method hasn't been studied and concluded to be beneficial and effective.
By the way, I'm curious to know if my explanation of radiation therapy has now made you understand that calling it "burning" is a misnomer as well as needlessly inflammatory and frightening to patients?
4) Don't be afraid to question authority--keep asking questions!
I'm not sure who you consider authority? Me, I question pretty much everything :) When I read research, I don't just simply assume that it's true because people with a lot of abbreviations/titles after their names put words to a paper. I critically read research and decide for myself if I think that it holds water. I believe that most nurses and physicians do the same thing.
It seems to be a common denominator among most people who disbelieve the efficacy and/or safety of vaccines, immunizations and established/conventional cancer treatments to believe that only they are smart enough to see the truth and that thousands or rather millions of scientifically trained medical professionals don't.
(Or alternatively they've all been paid off by pharmaceutical companies to ignore the truth ). I realize that such a belief might facilitate the ability to be convinced of efficacy of completely unproven cures but does it really make sense to you? Are all nurses and physicians either stupid yes-sayers or corrupted?
Personally I think that people who reject treatment and cures that a vast majority of the medical community accept show ignorance when it comes to the scientific metod as well as ignorance about pharmacology, human physiology and pathophysiology. I'm not calling anyone stupid. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge of a particular subject. It can be rectified through education.
One found it in baking soda and molasses mixed in water, the molasses supposedly acts like a "trojan horse", carries the alkalining baking soda to the cancer cells, and kills them. This man was helped from stage 4 metastisized prostate cancer that he was told to go home being nothing more to do.
(quote from rusti1)
As much as I (fervently) wish that it was possible to cure a stage 4 cancer metastasized to the bones, this simply isn't so.
Molasses must be one heck of a trojan horse and baking soda must have magical qualities. Is this concoction taken p.o. (by mouth)?
Ok... The sodium bicarbonate which is a weak base land in the stomach's hydrochlorid acid which is a strong acid and has a rather low/acidic pH and somehow manages to retain it's alkalinity. I guess the molasses "protects" it...?
(I seem to recall from nursing school that all foods leave the stomach acidic and secretions from the pancreas neutralize stomach acids).
Then the sodium bicarbonate magically finds all cancer cells and "alkalinize" and kill them yet spare all normal cells. Because no normal cells in the body likes molasses...? If you actually believe that this treatment works, please show me the evidence and a plausible mechanism of action (some cellular signaling pathways would be much appreciated ).
I'm sorry, but this proposed treatment lacks physiological believability.
About cancer cells. It's a common misconception among alternative treatment believers that an "acidic body" causes cancer. The truth is while tumors grow faster in acidic environments, the thing is that the tumors actually create this acidity themselves. It's not the acidic environment that creates cancer, it's the cancer that creates the acidic environment.
By the way, the above "treatment" seems to be a close relative of that "acid-base" diet. The theory that if the body is too acidic, disease will follow and that an acidic body can be treated with alkalizing foods.
As all nurses know the body's acid-base balance is tightly regulated by chemical buffering agents, the respiratory system and the renal system, attempting to keep the arterial blood pH between ~7.35 and 7.45. Both too low and too high pH values can and will kill a human being.
Food will not alter the blood's pH.
Urine pH is not the same as blood pH so I have no idea why supporters of this nonsense diet keep using strips to measure their urine pH (or saliva pH).
It's been suggested in this thread that people who support EBM don't realize that the reason that alternative methods aren't accepted or even researched is because that there's no money to be made.
While I have no doubt that pharmaceutical companies are "in it" for the money (what business isn't?), I don't understand why it isn't equally obvious to everyone that CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) is a multi-billion dollar industry. The difference is that while the former demands evidence in support of their products, the latter often make far-reaching claims about their products with little or no evidence to back them up.
About the influenza vaccine. Why does it have to be 100% effective in order to be worthwhile? It's not 100%, we all know it. It's not 100% but it's far from 0%.
IVC actually has been used for extreme cases (on death's door) of influenza, polio and pneumonia. One hospital board refused to administer it until the patient's family had a lawyer on it. Reluctantly (why would those in the care of the sick and dying refuse something so harmless I couldn't say, though I have my ideas:) they gave in. The end of the story is, the man's life was saved because of it. It should be around the world and back by now, administered to all those vulnerable and dying of respiratory problems like influenza, but it's not. If you all are in the position of saving, then, why not look into it for yourselves. Just a thought :)
I just read this again. HOW do you actually determine that it was the "IVC" that saved him? I'm guessing that he was not able to swallow pills by the time they administered it, since they went the IV route. I imagine the reason it had to be fought for is because tamiflu is effective at treating the flu, as is symptomatic support. I seriously doubt a hospital eliminated literally every treatment except giving vitamin C (if they did, again, this is obviously why a lawyer was needed as the doctor would be negligent to do so). Understanding how medical care and pathophysiology work, it literally is impossible to say the "IVC" is what worked.
rusti1
133 Posts
Actually, I'm aware that if I keep myself healthy, I am less of a threat to anyone else too. The disagreement is, how one does that. I have kept myself healthy from flu and colds for years now, without rowing anywhere, but with Vitamin C, my own "cold protocol" (apple cider vinegar, honey and cinnamon) at the very first sign, and an organic diet as said. You and any other hypothetical vulnerable person should thank me! I would go a little further and wish to heavens you all would learn how amazing a few basic vitamins (like C and omega 3s) would go a long way to protect the "vulnerable". Myself being susceptible to respiratory problems all my life had to find out for myself. Sorry, I don't buy into your "science" as stated above.