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.
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.
Alright alright alriiiiiiiiiiiiiight ???
This rerun is on again
Woo! Yeeeeehawww! Owwwww!
???????
Grammie I admire your spirit and your point. Ironically, the same respect and protection we afford our patients we often deny for ourselves in this industry.
What makes this vaccine and the arguments surrounding it is how new the drug is and its method of producing an immune response.
What makes it challenging to oppose it are the statistics showing how many of the hospitalizations and deaths are among the unvaccinated that never had COVID.
THE worst thing about the discussion is how divided we are about it. People pick a side and argue to the death that their perspective is correct without regard for any other. No balance! No understanding! All of which leads to fewer results.
Stay grammie stay tuned for 60 pages of people telling you how wrong and selfish you are, heads up!
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."
Mike drop ?????JNC, I would love to hear a logical, cogent refute to those wonderful words!
As repeatedly said by me in numerous posts in the political forum, If you choose to live in a society, you are then subject to the laws of the society or you are banned and free to leave! It's the definition of a civil society and the tie that keeps it together!
Apparently for some people like criminals, they don't respect the laws of society and they pay the penalty!
Airlines set standards on the behavior and actions of pilots. they cant do things that put the passengers at risk, like drinking on the job. The things that can harm others are things a company is responsible for preventing, and this includes ensuring employees choices, actions and decisions are one’s that do not put clients/customers/patients/other employees in harm’s way. A pilot can either not drink before flights or not be a pilot.
In healthcare, employees can harm patients in many ways, one of them is potentially spreading a deadly virus. A nurse can either vaccinate, not work as a nurse, or, if a nurse chooses to remain susceptible, must mitigate the risk to others by wearing a mask, weekly testing, etc.
I personally would be happy if all personal/religious exemptions were eliminated for schools and other sectors.
1.Airlines set standards on the behavior and actions of pilots. they cant do things that put the passengers at risk, like drinking on the job. The things that can harm others are things a company is responsible for preventing, and this includes ensuring employees choices, actions and decisions are one’s that do not put clients/customers/patients/other employees in harm’s way. A pilot can either not drink before flights or not be a pilot.
2.In healthcare, employees can harm patients in many ways, one of them is potentially spreading a deadly virus. A nurse can either vaccinate, not work as a nurse, or, if a nurse chooses to remain susceptible, must mitigate the risk to others by wearing a mask, weekly testing, etc.
3.I personally would be happy if all personal/religious exemptions were eliminated for schools and other sectors.
1. There's a big difference between requiring sobriety and requiring someone take a new medication. Your point is understood but would be better made with a different example.
2. Unfortunately, the vaccinated can spread the virus as well. The counter is they can "spread it less". Additionally, masks are already required and not offered as a substitute like was the case for those declining the flu vaccine.
3. In regards to this vaccine or something else/more?
1. There's a big difference between requiring sobriety and requiring someone take a new medication. Your point is understood but would be better made with a different example.
2. Unfortunately, the vaccinated can spread the virus as well. The counter is they can "spread it less". Additionally, masks are already required and not offered as a substitute like was the case for those declining the flu vaccine.
3. In regards to this vaccine or something else/more?
this vaccine especially, but I am not in support of personal exemptions for vaccines in general…
my example was not meant to mirror or mimick closely the situation, I was just making the point that employers must ensure that employees - in whatever way possible - are not increasing risk of harm to patients, or customers…drinking pilots is an extreme example…but unvaccinated healthcare workers and drunk pilots both pose a danger to those they are caring for.
Specializes in Clinical ICU/Hospital Administration.
I'm more of a big picture thinker. We can all squabble intellectually about vax and employment rights etc. Except that's much like making sure to dust the trophies while a tornado rips your house apart, right?
Nurses are educated individuals, and role models and people trust 100% most of the time. We often sacrifice our own needs for others, right?
I, for one, would like to know all my pro-health, anti-disease philosophies, motivations and practices aren't being sabotaged by foolish colleagues.
this vaccine especially, but I am not in support of personal exemptions for vaccines in general…
my example was not meant to mirror or mimick closely the situation, I was just making the point that employers must ensure that employees - in whatever way possible - are not increasing risk of harm to patients, or customers…drinking pilots is an extreme example…but unvaccinated healthcare workers and drunk pilots both pose a danger to those they are caring for.
I don't totally disagree with what you're saying. The mandate aspect is my concern. This vaccine is not like all the others we have recieved. If the vaccinated person can still get and spread COVID, how has the danger for the patient been eliminated by requiring the COVID vaccine indiscriminately (contraindications aside)? The primary job of the vaccine is to protect the inoculated.
I don't totally disagree with what you're saying. The mandate aspect is my concern. This vaccine is not like all the others we have recieved. If the vaccinated person can still get and spread COVID, how has the danger for the patient been eliminated by requiring the COVID vaccine indiscriminately (contraindications aside)? The primary job of the vaccine is to protect the inoculated.
I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I've never considered the primary benefit of vaccination against a pandemic disease to be protection of the vaccinated.
The primary benefit is that we know from multiple previous pandemics that this is how we can come to live in a world that is post-Covid. At that point the protection a vaccine provides you as an individual is very much secondary.
I feel like you're being a bit obtuse by suggesting that a measure that improves safety is only worthwhile if the danger it protects against has been "eliminated". People still die jumping out of airplanes despite using a parachute, are you also skeptical of the benefit of parachutes?
I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I've never considered the primary benefit of vaccination against a pandemic disease to be protection of the vaccinated.
The primary benefit is that we know from multiple previous pandemics that this is how we can come to live in a world that is post-Covid. At that point the protection a vaccine provides you as an individual is very much secondary.
I feel like you're being a bit obtuse by suggesting that a measure that improves safety is only worthwhile if the danger it protects against has been "eliminated". People still die jumping out of airplanes despite using a parachute, are you also skeptical of the benefit of parachutes?
How do you call anybody obtuse with an avatar like the one you have? The way you talk on this forum makes it easy to picture you being like the guy in that photo.
Come back when you're ready to chill on the personal attacks.
Tenebrae, BSN, RN
2,021 Posts
New Zealand went into lock down on 17 August due to 1 case of the delta variant in our largest city.
In the space just under a month thats increased to almost 900 cases. From one case.
It shouldnt surprise me however it still does that so many educated health professionals don't want to do what ever it takes to end this pandemic.