Nurse gives up career after refusing flu shot.

Post Reply New Topic

It's not even a matter of protecting patients. If a person has been infected with the flu less than 48 hours before taking a flu shot, it makes the flu 10 times worse. It has dozens of side effects that may or may not be personally acceptable, but that should not be forced on people.

Also there is no set qualifications as to what comprises a flu shot. It is whatever stressed, overworked, rushed researchers throw together each yeah and modified as the season moves one. If you find out what goes into a flu shot in 2008, it could have no components at all in common with the flu shot from this year, so you never really know what they're putting into you. The flu shot and the mandate are simply management response to look good to a world following a media that would love to have something to report so badly they are creating an epidemic. Our small rural hospital dealt with over 12,000 cases of the "flu" last year. 2,168 of them actually tested positive for influenza. The rest had bronchitis, Upper respiratory infections, COPD exacerbations, a few people in DTs, and a food poisoning outbreak at a church dinner. But every one of them was 100% certain they had the flu.

People continue to overreact to the flu and it causes ridiculous paranoia like that, and the rational people are the ones that suffer. Even if I didn't have a bad reaction to flu shots, no one is injecting anything into me that I can't look up the components in a Physicians Desk Reference. And how many of my patients have I given the flu? None. I have not tested positive for actual influenza since high school. That's over ten years of being exposed to every horrific germ out there, 6 menningitis scares, and outbreak of fifth disease in my son's little league team, and an exposure to a strain of C. Diff that the CDC stepped in on. The flu is the least of a healthcare worker's worries, the patient's worries, or the things that should be protected against. It's just the popular one today. There is over 500% more likelihood of contracting MRSA from a hospital than the flu, it is actually lethal to otherwise healthy people, and no one seems too concerned about that.

I applaud those who stood up to the weak-minded management that are business people rather than informed medical personnel making personal decisions for their employees based on media perception rather than actual fact.

As someone with a currently weakened immune system I'd be pretty mad if I caught the flu because a nurse that was treating me didn't get the shot, was sick, and went in to work. That is irresponsible and putting patients in danger.

Is this really about personal liberty? We're talking about someone who will be exposed to many illnesses and works with potentially hundreds or thousands of people. It is a matter of personal responsibility. The arguments in favor of "personal liberty" can only go so far before it just becomes unreasonable, head-in-the-sand semantic masturbation. Is it also a matter of personal liberty if the nurse wants to not wear a surgical mask and goggles? Is it a matter of personal liberty if she or he does not want to wash their hands consistently?

The military, nursing home workers (when I volunteered, I had to receive two TB shots), persons who specialize in infectious disease and several relief organizations have a policy on mandatory vaccinations. In certain fields of work, the prevention of disease and its transmission outweigh personal convictions.

Sure, I like to drink a lot. Why should that disqualify me from driving a school bus? Are you saying that my personal freedom is less important than someone else's safety?

Yes, this is an equivalent argument. Of course the nurse has the freedom to refuse the shot - but she must understand that this is also the freedom to find a different field of employment.

My own personal opinion - - my safety as a patient comes before the personal rights of a caregiver who has the responsibility to keep me from getting sicker.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's her job to take care of patients, and if her employers think that not getting a flu shot puts her patients in danger, then they have every right to fire her for not getting a flu shot.

Saying that she has the freedom to not get a flu shot is every bit as stupid as saying that a truck driver has the freedom to get drunk on the job. In both cases they are doing something that could hurt the people around them.

Also, what about her employer's right to fire her?

The flu kills people in hospitals. Choosing not to have a flu shot if you work there is like choosing not to wash your hands or wear a face mask. She can check her personal freedom at the door, like everyone else who has a job.

i personally count free vaccines as one of the benefits of working in healthcare. If there is ever an outbreak (including the annual outbreak of flu, I'm one of the first round of people to get the vaccine. I could have gotten the anthrax vaccine a few years ago if I had wanted to, but decided not to since my grandma is immunocompromised and I would have had to avoid her for a while.

Another benefit of getting the flu vaccine: knowing that I'm less likely to pass something from my patients on to my grandma.

When you work somewhere you have to follow some rules. If she was in national security would you be alright if she would not wear a bullet proof vest when protecting you? I think she fishing for a law suit.