I remember being taught in nursing school the rights of medication administration -
Right patient
Right medication
Right dose
Right route
Right time
Right documentation
Right situation
Right place
RIGHT TO REFUSE.
I also remember my nursing instructor stressing how important number 9 is and that we as nurses have a duty to ensure that the right to refuse any medical care or medication is honored and upheld. To advocate for our patients and protect them. Protect them from what you may ask? To protect them from other medical professionals and “people” who think they can bully, manipulate, control and dominate any patient to force a medication, procedure or any type of medical care.
And wouldn’t you know that this RIGHT to refuse has been what I have had to defend more than anything? As an RN of more than a decade, I will forever support the right to choose and also the right to REFUSE any form of medical care. I can’t believe anyone feels that mandates of any form of medicine or medical practice or procedure is acceptable. Even more shocked that some nurses and NURSE LEADERS feel this is acceptable after a career of fighting for, defending and advocating for our patients rights.
Forced healthcare is NOT healthcare and I stand for the freedom this country was founded on. I have stood for my patients right to choose. And now that nurses and other healthcare workers rights are being threatened, I stand for their right to choose as well. COERCION is not CONSENT.
Specializes in CVICU, Travel RN, Cath Lab, Clinic RN.
Please review the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 1905. That's right! Over 115 years ago!
I inserted the paragraph below and chose the section to bold, but the link for the entire case follows. This is established law (not a lawyer, like to look up answers). In summary, mandating vaccines is NOT NEW, NOT ILLEGAL.
If you don't like it, take it up with your representatives and good luck overturning this one- it's not just about vaccines but also protecting the "common good."
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned."
I totally agree. I chose to be vaccinated. I should also be free to choose to decline a vaccine. I decline a flu vaccine every year. I mind my own business and do what I choose for myself. I could care less if my coworkers are vaccinated or not.
There is no gray area. Every single statement you made can be researched and the answers found.
The vaccine was NOT RUSHED. IT went through 3 phases, as they all do. It was a double-blind, placebo controlled trial. They have been researching MRNA technology since the 90s.
The only thing that was 'rushed' was the waiting period usually spent getting funding. That was eliminated, allowing focus on the one thing they needed to figure out - which was how to get the MRNA into our bodies to speak to our DNA, everything else had already been blueprinted.
Also, it may have seemed "rushed" because it usually takes MUCH much longer to recruit enough trial volunteers. In the case of the Covid vaccine trials, they had ample volunteers pretty much immediately.
Specializes in Clinical ICU/Hospital Administration.
I say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
I, for the life of me, cannot understand how a person can devote themselves (via cost, education, establishing a credential) and builds their REPUTATION
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
3 hours ago, RN1987 said:
I chose to be vaccinated. I should also be free to choose to decline a vaccine.
You are free to make that choice. But every single choice we make has consequences. One of the consequences of choosing not to get a vaccine is no longer meeting the conditions of continued employment. Still a choice.
I remember being taught in nursing school the rights of medication administration -
Right patient
Right medication
Right dose
Right route
Right time
Right documentation
Right situation
Right place
RIGHT TO REFUSE.
I also remember my nursing instructor stressing how important number 9 is and that we as nurses have a duty to ensure that the right to refuse any medical care or medication is honored and upheld. To advocate for our patients and protect them. Protect them from what you may ask? To protect them from other medical professionals and “people” who think they can bully, manipulate, control and dominate any patient to force a medication, procedure or any type of medical care.
And wouldn’t you know that this RIGHT to refuse has been what I have had to defend more than anything? As an RN of more than a decade, I will forever support the right to choose and also the right to REFUSE any form of medical care. I can’t believe anyone feels that mandates of any form of medicine or medical practice or procedure is acceptable. Even more shocked that some nurses and NURSE LEADERS feel this is acceptable after a career of fighting for, defending and advocating for our patients rights.
Forced healthcare is NOT healthcare and I stand for the freedom this country was founded on. I have stood for my patients right to choose. And now that nurses and other healthcare workers rights are being threatened, I stand for their right to choose as well. COERCION is not CONSENT.
So you think that you should go into a Chinese takeaway and order Italian food because of your right to choose?
I'm sorry a hospital is all about treatment and the primary form of treatment except for a surgical procedure, ARE MEDICINES!
If you didn't like the Italian food the Chinese takeaway made for you, leave. If you don't like the medication or treatment regime, leave, unless you are mandated because of, say, illness, maybe? Or, do you think a hospital is a great place to watch TV?
I believe in patient's rights, but only if they possess the intellectual ability and education to understand what's been proposed instead of the *** excuse of rights! It's the reason I don't have discussions with idiots because my time is valuable!
The absolute moronic reasons for being antivaccine or masks etc and the lack of shame from people who couldn't be bothered to even read a little, instead of listening to idiots, who most other people in the world could easily identify, and then expect to have rights upheld while not giving a second thought to other people's rights!
During a pandemic the only rights existing, is the right to banish the people endangering the public! We have an entire system built on infringing on the safety of others, with real world repercussions, jail or fines! Covid's repercussions, are a little bit more extreme!
There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.
I totally agree. I chose to be vaccinated. I should also be free to choose to decline a vaccine. I decline a flu vaccine every year. I mind my own business and do what I choose for myself. I could care less if my coworkers are vaccinated or not.
You couldn't care less. If you could care less, you do care some. Anyways, I digress.
If you work in a barber shop, I can see not really caring who is vaccinated or not, but we work in healthcare. With vulnerable patients. Hence the mandate, after which we don't need to care anymore because everyone will be vaxxed.
Being vaccinated is mandatory so that we as Nurses don't catch or spread Covid to our patients. It's part of the job to protect our patience, that's why these vaccines are mandated. There is a pandemic and direct rules apply. Knowing Delta could kill my medically fragile patients, is a virulent strain of Covid, makes this vaccine mandatory for all health care workers. Anyone choosing to not take the vaccine should lose their jobs. Being a Nurse, you need to protect your patients or go work somewhere else.
I remember being taught in nursing school the rights of medication administration -
Right patient
Right medication
Right dose
Right route
Right time
Right documentation
Right situation
Right place
RIGHT TO REFUSE.
I also remember my nursing instructor stressing how important number 9 is and that we as nurses have a duty to ensure that the right to refuse any medical care or medication is honored and upheld. To advocate for our patients and protect them. Protect them from what you may ask? To protect them from other medical professionals and “people” who think they can bully, manipulate, control and dominate any patient to force a medication, procedure or any type of medical care.
And wouldn’t you know that this RIGHT to refuse has been what I have had to defend more than anything? As an RN of more than a decade, I will forever support the right to choose and also the right to REFUSE any form of medical care. I can’t believe anyone feels that mandates of any form of medicine or medical practice or procedure is acceptable. Even more shocked that some nurses and NURSE LEADERS feel this is acceptable after a career of fighting for, defending and advocating for our patients rights.
Forced healthcare is NOT healthcare and I stand for the freedom this country was founded on. I have stood for my patients right to choose. And now that nurses and other healthcare workers rights are being threatened, I stand for their right to choose as well. COERCION is not CONSENT.
T he vaccine is to protect your patient. Don't care if you spread this virulent case Of Delta? Then you're not what Nursrs stand for. Find another profession that doesn't involve medically fragile patients. You were mandated to get MMR. Why? Because they are contagious. Delta is more contagious than measles and more deadly. You want to work as a nurse? Get vaccinated or lose your job, period. This is about the patients.
Please review the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 1905. That's right! Over 115 years ago!
I inserted the paragraph below and chose the section to bold, but the link for the entire case follows. This is established law (not a lawyer, like to look up answers). In summary, mandating vaccines is NOT NEW, NOT ILLEGAL.
If you don't like it, take it up with your representatives and good luck overturning this one- it's not just about vaccines but also protecting the "common good."
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned."
That was in 1905 and the employer is not forcing anyone to get vaccinated. They aren’t forcing you to continue to work for them either. There is still a choice. Employers have the right to choose if they want to risk employing someone who isn’t vaccinated to work with their patients. If they choose they want them vaccinated, then they can vaccinate or walk. Nothing is forced.
JNCMSP87, BSN, RN
5 Posts
Please review the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 1905. That's right! Over 115 years ago!
I inserted the paragraph below and chose the section to bold, but the link for the entire case follows. This is established law (not a lawyer, like to look up answers). In summary, mandating vaccines is NOT NEW, NOT ILLEGAL.
If you don't like it, take it up with your representatives and good luck overturning this one- it's not just about vaccines but also protecting the "common good."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/#tab-opinion-1921099