Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[Joepublic2]

Warning label for the vaccine says "'should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed."

It was clearly needed because she was working in a hospital. The hospital did the right thing, hope she's blacklisted from working as a nurse. A lot of people just don't understand how big a deal influenza is.

The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 – December 1920)[1] was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic, the first of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus (the second being the 2009 flu pandemic). It infected 500 million[2] people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million of them—3 to 5 percent of the world's population[3] —making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.

Seriously, the 1918 flu killed ONE OUT OF EVERY 20 PEOPLE ALIVE.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Meanwhile ambulatory surgery centers in TX aren't required to employ doctors with admitting privileges.

Their legislators aren't concerned about that for some reason.

Really? That's not what Texas law states. Click on the link for Chapter 135.4

https://www.google.com/search?q=amb...hapter+135.4&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial

(B) an effective procedure for the immediate transfer to a hospital of patients requiring emergency care beyond the capabilities of the ASC. The ASC shall have a written transfer agreement with a hospital or all physicians performing surgery at the ASC shall have admitting privileges at a local hospital;

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I am genuinely curious: do people think that texashiker is actually this dumb, or is he just trolling the shit out of all of us?

I'm only slightly confused by his stance on women's rights, he is usually on the nehalm side of misogyny, and yet here he appears to actually have some compassion for women's health issues.

I'm split, I think it's part trolling, part dumbfuckery

 

[lotus503]

I am genuinely curious: do people think that texashiker is actually this dumb, or is he just trolling the shit out of all of us?

I think he has found a nuance in position and he is sticking with it out of ego .I don't think he is trolling and I don't think he is this ignorant, I think he has an impossible time being wrong. he will fight tooth and nail not to be, its why he cant or wont accept that a study of all pregnant women included high risk and its good enough for everyone but him.

 

[Theb]

Really? That's not what Texas law states. Click on the link for Chapter 135.4

https://www.google.com/search?q=amb...hapter+135.4&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial

They're required to have a transfer agreement or admitting privileges.

I think that's reasonable, but I also think it would be reasonable for abortion clinics.

 

[werepossum]

It was clearly needed because she was working in a hospital. The hospital did the right thing, hope she's blacklisted from working as a nurse. A lot of people just don't understand how big a deal influenza is.

Seriously, the 1918 flu killed ONE OUT OF EVERY 20 PEOPLE ALIVE.

I started to post that a modern influenza epidemic will not be anything like that, but then I realized that there is no particular reason it couldn't be that deadly, or near so. However, any influenza virus that was so mutated or new as to afford people virtually no immunity would not be affected by a vaccination which must be for one or a few strains.

I'm only slightly confused by his stance on women's rights, he is usually on the nehalm side of misogyny, and yet here he appears to actually have some compassion for women's health issues.

I'm split, I think it's part trolling, part dumbfuckery

You guys are doing him a disservice. He isn't at all misogynistic, he just believes in a very traditional role for females and males. On this issue, he has somewhat of a point about women's health in that our doctors are much too quick to advocate yanking out all the plumbing in case of a problem. Same thing with men though with prostate cancer. When my father was diagnosed, surgical removal was recommended. I did some research and discovered that while doctors advise surgical removal for something like 85% of patients with prostate cancer, doctors who are diagnosed with prostate cancer opt for surgical removal 4% of the time. (My numbers made be slightly off as it's been a decade, but the numbers are that lop-sided.) Surgical removal (of whatever offending part) allows the doctor to fix the problem and the side effects are considered acceptable as long as someone else suffers them.

I have no problem with this as long as the patient wisely chooses a doctor, understands why surgery is so often recommended, understands the risks and side effects for all partial treatments, and takes responsibility for choosing.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm only slightly confused by his stance on women's rights, he is usually on the nehalm side of misogyny, and yet here he appears to actually have some compassion for women's health issues.

I think he has found a nuance in position and he is sticking with it out of ego .

Do you love your wife? Do you think her rights and the rights of your unborn child should be protected?

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance, and with no reasonable accommodation?

The CDC recommends pregnant women be vaccinated against the flu, and I agree with that stance. But the woman had a history of miscarriages,which there is not a single study where the primary focus of the study was testing the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

while doctors advise surgical removal for something like 85% of patients with prostate cancer, doctors who are diagnosed with prostate cancer opt for surgical removal 4% of the time.

Thank you.

As long as it is someone elses misery, so what.

 

[TraumaRN]

Do you love your wife? Do you think her rights and the rights of your unborn child should be protected?

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance, and with no reasonable accommodation?

The CDC recommends pregnant women be vaccinated against the flu, and I agree with that stance. But the woman had a history of miscarriages,which there is not a single study where the primary focus of the study was testing the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

She got fired because she violated the terms of employment.

Moreover given that the people writing hospital employment contracts understand 1.) What research study actually is, and 2.) Understand what the words "all pregnant women" means unlike you.

Here is a mind blowing fact for you. The CDC considers ALL PREGNANT WOMEN as a HIGH RISK PATIENTS regarding influenza.

 

[Texashiker]

She got fired because she violated the terms of employment.

When society allows employers to force employees to inject something into their bodies, something is seriously wrong.

An employer can not pat a woman on the ass and say nice job, but they can require said woman to take an injection?

Something is wrong there.

How about if your employer came out with a new terms of employment? No jews or blacks, would that be ok with you? Terms of employment and non-negotiable,,, right?

As long as the employer is discriminating against pregnant women, nobody cares.

 

[brycejones]

When society allows employers to force employees to inject something into their bodies, something is seriously wrong.

An employer can not pat a woman on the ass and say nice job, but they can require said woman to take an injection?

Something is wrong there.

How about if your employer came out with a new terms of employment? No jews or blacks, would that be ok with you?

Terms of employment and non-negotiable,,, right?

You're right something is wrong here. You. Nice new strawman.

 

[MrPickins]

which there is not a single study where the primary focus of the study was testing the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies

And you've been told time and again that there doesn't need to be a specific study on this group as it was included in the sets of data obtained from the studies of the entire population.

Admit it, you've never taken a statistics course in your life.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I am genuinely curious: do people think that texashiker is actually this dumb, or is he just trolling the shit out of all of us?

I don't think he's this dumb. I think he's latched onto a couple issues that he has very strong feelings about (women's health issues and vaccinations), combined them with his own personal feelings (his wife's medical history and his own fear of needles/shots) and his emotional response completely overrides any logical attempt to get through. In his mind, he knows that he's right, and he's shocked that he's not able to convince us. There's just no getting through that barrier.

 

[werepossum]

Do you love your wife? Do you think her rights and the rights of your unborn child should be protected?

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance, and with no reasonable accommodation?

The CDC recommends pregnant women be vaccinated against the flu, and I agree with that stance. But the woman had a history of miscarriages,which there is not a single study where the primary focus of the study was testing the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

Thank you.

As long as it is someone elses misery, so what.

Not a problem, dude.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't think he's this dumb. I think he's latched onto a couple issues that he has very strong feelings about (women's health issues and vaccinations),

You are right about womens health, you are wrong about vaccinations.

I am very pro-vaccination.

I see an employer forcing an employee to inject something (anything) into their bodies as a basic human rights violation.

This is not about vaccines, this is about civil and human rights.

 

[MrPickins]

You are right about womens health, you are wrong about vaccinations.

I am very pro-vaccination.

I see an employer forcing an employee to inject something (anything) into their bodies as a basic human rights violation.

This is not about vaccines, this is about civil and human rights.

404 Force Not Found

They gave her the option of fulfilling her contract or being fired. She chose the latter. They didn't tie her down and inject her with anything.

 

[Exophase]

So now the stance is that nurses shouldn't have to take shots to keep being nurses, period? What was the point wasting all of this time moaning about a lack of a pointless study that only included high risk pregnancies if it all boils down to something like that?

Next thing you know we'll be hearing how it's a civil rights violation for employees to be required to wash their hands...

 

[TraumaRN]

You are right about womens health, you are wrong about vaccinations.

I am very pro-vaccination.

I see an employer forcing an employee to inject something (anything) into their bodies as a basic human rights violation.

This is not about vaccines, this is about civil and human rights.

Guess what most states require nurses doctors patient care tech etc have certain mandatory things, vaccines up to date is one of them. No force just terms of employment. And yes they are legal despite your inane strawman rants.

We are also required to get annual TB tests. Annual respiratory mask fit testing etc.

Also.

The CDC considers ALL PREGNANCIES HIGH RISK PATIENTS FOR CONTRACTING INFLUENZA.

 

[glenn1]

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance, and with no reasonable accommodation?

The key word in that sentence is "reasonable," which you most certainly are not. It's what's a normal person would consider reasonable, not TexasHiker's batshit crazy idea about how the world should be and what constitutes a proper scientific study.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You are right about womens health, you are wrong about vaccinations.

I am very pro-vaccination.

I see an employer forcing an employee to inject something (anything) into their bodies as a basic human rights violation.

This is not about vaccines, this is about civil and human rights.

Then I guess that she never should have applied for the job in the first place.

She knew the terms of employment when she applied and was hired. If she's not willing to live up to those terms then I guess it sucks to be her.

No one is *forcing* anyone to do anything. She has every right to not have the vaccination and the company has the right to terminate her employment for not meeting the terms of that employment.

No infringement of anyone's 'rights' to be found.

 

[zinfamous]

All I asked for was a single study.

That is nothing more, nor less, than what anyone else here would do.

The problem is I asked for a study on a vaccine, which seems to be a taboo topic. It is either blindly follow and not ask questions, or be called a troll.

If any other topic were to come up, people would be demanding a study to backup the claims.

You are repeatedly given every thing you ask for.

ad nauseum.

but it never satisfies you, because you invent your own rules about significance. If the data gives you exactly what you asked for, you move the goalposts, or you simply ignore the study and change the subject "I'm just asking questions!"

This is a very simple issue: You simply refuse to understand this data, or even approach the necessary knowledge needed to interpret it. You make up shit that you, and only you, define as significant, or worthwhile because, frankly, I think you are just too fucking stubborn to think beyond your preconceived beliefs about the world around you--a world that never put a modern scientific or medical text in front of you at any point during your 4+ decades.

This isn't complicated. You really should stick to smoked meats and pastoral armament photography.

 

[cabotp]

While I do feel that a nurse should be vaccinated. Being vaccinated does not mean she isn't carrying a virus that could be deadly.

The hospital though should of taken into consideration her condition and put her on paid maternity leave.

Being fired for being a mother to be is down right sexist.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Guess what most states require nurses doctors patient care tech etc have certain mandatory things, vaccines up to date is one of them. No force just terms of employment. And yes they are legal despite your inane strawman rants.

We are also required to get annual TB tests. Annual respiratory mask fit testing etc.

Also.

The CDC considers ALL PREGNANCIES HIGH RISK PATIENTS FOR CONTRACTING INFLUENZA.

Meh, he's a waste of time. You and I and a few others know his position is illogical and irrational because of our professions. Most people upon entering grade school understand the concept of "all". Barring organic brain disease of a most bizarre type he must understand what has been explained time and again. The conclusion I come to is he's pulling our chain or perhaps suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and it's impossible for him to realize he's mistaken. His world is and always be flat.

 

[JD50]

All I asked for was a single study.

That is nothing more, nor less, than what anyone else here would do.

The problem is I asked for a study on a vaccine, which seems to be a taboo topic. It is either blindly follow and not ask questions, or be called a troll.

If any other topic were to come up, people would be demanding a study to backup the claims.

You were given a study that included high risk pregnancies.

 

[lotus503]

Do you love your wife? Do you think her rights and the rights of your unborn child should be protected?


Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance, and with no reasonable accommodation?

The CDC recommends pregnant women be vaccinated against the flu, and I agree with that stance. But the woman had a history of miscarriages,which there is not a single study where the primary focus of the study was testing the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.




Thank you.

As long as it is someone elses misery, so what.

Yes of course, but if my wife was a nurse who a chose a profession, went to school, received training, Got hired, agreed to get vaccinated as part of her position, then refused to even though there is hard data on the issue. I would expect her to be fired.

what if she miscarries now? now she out a baby and a job, possibly her career. Don't get me wrong I think the appropriate response would have been mental health leave, you can return when you have been seen for the mental health issues surrounding all the miscarriages and get vaccinated, I'm surprised this wasn't the approach, it makes me think there were other issues.

What actually bothers me the most is this idea you have that she has a right to employment, especially given she wasn't holding up her end of the bargain. Its the same mentality at work with the whole duck dynasty thing, like somehow, we can do what we want and keep our job.

No matter what your rights, actions have consequences and you had better know what those consequences are because society doesn't owe you shit.

 

[umbrella39]

I am genuinely curious: do people think that texashiker is actually this dumb, or is he just trolling the shit out of all of us?

Part troll part very damaged goods who prays to God for miracles and gets pissed off at Man when they don't arrive.