Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[JD50]

You still haven't answered the question. They studied ALL pregnancies. What do you see in those studies that leads you to believe that there needs to be more studies done on high risk pregnancies?

What is the difference, in your opinion, between a comprehensive study of pregnant women that includes high risk pregnancies, and a study that focuses on high risk pregnancies. If the former study showed no adverse effects, why do you feel the need for the latter?

Bump.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Tell me something, and lets be honest, where does company policy end and civil rights start?

In this particular case, nowhere.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[Texashiker]

It's Texashiker's way.

When presented with evidence that refutes your argument, ignore and deflect.

Still don't understand statistics or how studies are performed, huh?

Do you enjoy reveling in your ignorance?

Why should we spend millions studying a certain red headed woodpecker?

Why not study all woodpeckers and call it a day?

The truth is women are like cattle. Have a miscarriage? Wait a few months and get knocked up again.

In this particular case, nowhere.

So pregnant women do not have control of their bodies when it comes to company policy?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why not study all woodpeckers and call it a day?

Well if we did study all woodpeckers including "a certain red headed woodpecker", then we wouldn't have to do a separate one.

 

[Texashiker]

Just to be clear, nobody here things pregnant women deserve their own studies?

 

[MrPickins]

Just to be clear, nobody here things pregnant women deserve their own studies?

Just to be clear, you have your fingers in your ears and are repeating "I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO!!!"

 

[Texashiker]

Just to be clear, you have your fingers in your ears and are repeating "I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO!!!"

Please answer the question.

Large problem with this thread is men ignoring the special needs of pregnant women. A problem that you just repeated.

 

[TraumaRN]

Just to be clear, nobody here things pregnant women deserve their own studies?

Just to be clear, I think myself and numerous other have pointed out that pregnant woman do deserve studies and I threw down a challenge to you to find how many studies there are and how much money is spent on but you ognored my request because it would utterly annihilate your argument.

I'll give you a hint though, in the US alone there are numerous studies on pregnancy and a very large sum of money spent on all women's health issues.

So once again put up or shut up you misogynistic dolt.

 

[Texashiker]

So once again put up or shut up you misogynistic dolt.

You made the claim, you post evidence to support that claim.

It is not my job to do your research for you. Nor is it my job to post anything that supports your stance.

Just to be clear, I think myself and numerous other have pointed out that pregnant woman do deserve studies

And yet not a single study on a high risk demographic.

 

[mikeymikec]

It is not my job to do your research for you. Nor is it my job to post anything that supports your stance.

Have you posted any evidence that actually supports your opinion? No, I'm not talking about woodpeckers or anything else you've tried to use to deflect the questions people have asked you.

 

[TraumaRN]

You made the claim, you post evidence to support that claim.

It is not my job to do your research for you. Nor is it my job to post anything that supports your stance.




And yet not a single study on a high risk demographic.

Nope, I'm not posting anything because you ignore it. You've tottered along posting about cow farts and woodpeckers but seemingly can't be bothered to look up what is spent on women's health. You are the one claiming we don't spend money on women's health so back up your bullshit claim or do us all a favor and admit you are wrong and shut up.

I refuse to address the high risk pregnancies issue because myself and other proved you wrong pages ago.

Moreover it seems by your tone that you won't post the facts on money spent on women's health because you know you are wrong and know you'll have to backtrack or admit you are totally wrong but you aren't capable of admitting you are wrong as this thread has repeatedly shown.

 

[Texashiker]

I refuse to address the high risk pregnancies issue because myself and other proved you wrong pages ago.

I have yet to see a single study where the primary focus group were high risk pregnancies.

This leads me to believe you, like a lot of people posting in this thread, do not give a rats ass about pregnant women with high risk pregnancies.

 

[lotus503]

I have yet to see a single study where the primary focus group were high risk pregnancies.

This leads me to believe you, like a lot of people posting in this thread, do not give a rats ass about pregnant women with high risk pregnancies.

No we just understand there is no requirement for a specific study when other studies include High risk.

This single point has eluded you the entire thread.

 

[TraumaRN]

I have yet to see a single study where the primary focus group were high risk pregnancies.

This leads me to believe you, like a lot of people posting in this thread, do not give a rats ass about pregnant women with high risk pregnancies.

Funny part is I'm taking care of a pregnant woman today, she's high risk too. She has expressed to me how thankful she is for the good care myself and other staff have given her today. Guess you are wrong again. Try again. Like I said I do more for women's health then you could ever dream.

Moreover good job ignoring the rest of my previous post. Care to address that? Or will you just ignore it again.

 

[Texashiker]

No we just understand there is no requirement for a specific study when other studies include High risk.

Why do we need specific studies on the eastern red headed woodpecker? Why not just leave it with our current knowledge of woodpeckers?

To help us understand what is going on, that is why.

The problem with studying women, they are a minority and they are not endangered.

The world is run by selfish men. As long as women can keep getting pregnant, so what.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

OP has once again shown his ignorance and refused to post any semblance of a real argument in support of his position.

Thread needs to be locked since the OP refused to engage in rational debate or post any evidence in support of his views.

 

[TraumaRN]

Why do we need specific studies on the eastern red headed woodpecker? Why not just leave it with our current knowledge of woodpeckers?

To help us understand what is going on, that is why.

The problem with studying women, they are a minority and they are not endangered.

The world is run by selfish men. As long as women can keep getting pregnant, so what.

Selfish men like you who continue to strip them of their health care options like you did with your support of that bill in texas that closed numerous legitimate women's health clinic. That's pretty fucking low even for you.

Moreover, you still have only presented one side of your argument. Why aren't you posting how much is spent on women's health care? Why aren't you posting about all the numerous studies currently in progress on pregnant women?

 

[lotus503]

Why do we need specific studies on the eastern red headed woodpecker? Why not just leave it with our current knowledge of woodpeckers?

To help us understand what is going on, that is why.

The problem with studying women, they are a minority and they are not endangered.

The world is run by selfish men. As long as women can keep getting pregnant, so what.

Help us understand whats going on with what? For fucks sake stop moving goalposts. This thread is about a women fired for not getting vaccinated, she did not get vaccinated because she has emotional issues surrounding previous miscarriages. Your opinion is she shouldn't have been fired because there is nothing specifically stating the vaccine is safe for high risk preganant women. You were provided data of studies that included High risk pregnancies, that study concluded that the vaccine is safe for all pregnant women including high risk, You reject that information because you are obtuse. Then you go off on woodpecker tangents because you are incapable of addressing the very real fact a study of all pregnant women including high risk, has in fact demonstrated its safe for high risk.

That's it in summary, anything you type that is outside the bounds of the above is simply a duck and dodge by you. rather than Man up and say you know guys I see your point, you play personal twister to not be wrong.

Then you get all weird, oh if you don't think like me you don't care about women? Seriously its just mental, like in seriously seek out some counseling or something, the behavior is just strange.

 

[Texashiker]

Your opinion is she shouldn't have been fired because there is nothing specifically stating the vaccine is safe for high risk preganant women.

Not pregnant women in general, but high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages - which is the case of the woman in the opening post.

You were provided data of studies that included High risk pregnancies, that study concluded that the vaccine is safe for all pregnant women including high risk, You reject that information because you are obtuse.

Those studies included 5% - 10% high risk. Which is not enough to draw a conclusion.

The government can provide money to study an exact species of animals, but not study a high risk population of women?

Selfish men like you who continue to strip them of their health care options like you did with your support of that bill in texas that closed numerous legitimate women's health clinic. That's pretty fucking low even for you.

If a doctor wants to provide a service, then they should be required to meet certain standards.

 

[TraumaRN]

Not pregnant women in general, but high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages - which is the case of the woman in the opening post.

Make up your mind. Just a few posts ago you were blathering on about pregnant women and women's health in general not being studied. Maybe if you stopped move the goalposts so much you wouldn't contradict yourself.

Those studies included 5% - 10% high risk. Which is not enough to draw a conclusion.

The government can provide money to study an exact species of animals, but not study a high risk population of women?

Take a statistics class, then try again. This has been refuted ad nauseum at this point. You are simply to ignorant of what people are trying to show you.

The government does study high risk populations including women, I've asked and other have asked for you to show proof of this claim, that the government does not fund high risk pregnancy research/women's health/women at risk of miscarriage/whatever you are actually asking for because you've moved the goalposts so many times I'm not quite sure at this point.

If a doctor wants to provide a service, then they should be required to meet certain standards

What standards are you talking about? Can you example them in a cogent way? Can you show evidence as to why these standards are required by law? The standards included in that bill were arbitrary and simply designed to further oppress women by making it even more difficult for them to access health care. That law is a prime example of throwing the baby out with the bath water, pun intended.

It stripped women of access to simple things such as birth control which might control painful and difficult health problems such as endometriosis and uterine fibroids. Now they will either have to travel further or simply not have access to such things. Shame on you for furthering the oppression of women.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So pregnant women do not have control of their bodies when it comes to company policy?

Did you see anyone holding this woman down while someone forcibly injected her with the flu vaccine? No, neither did I.

Seems to me she still exercises complete control over her own body.

She went to work for a company that has a particular employment policy. She knew about this policy when she accepted the job.
She decided of her own free will not to follow that policy knowing full well that it was a condition of employment.
Company fired her for knowingly refusing to follow said company policy.

This aspect of the debate is over. There is nothing else to say.

Your weird debate over flu studies is all that's left so have fun with that.

 

[brycejones]

If a doctor wantsj to provide a service, then they should be required to meet certain standards.

I'm going to assume you are talking about the package of shit passed by the Texas legislature and other similar bills around the country. Those had nothing to do with actually addressing women's health issues or protecting women as has been shown in other threads on that very subject.

I really hope you lubed up before you firmly planted your head in your ass before starting this thread.

 

[mikeymikec]

Have you posted any evidence that actually supports your opinion? No, I'm not talking about woodpeckers or anything else you've tried to use to deflect the questions people have asked you.

Bump

- edit - are you still arguing percentages, even though someone has already explained for you how percentages work?

 

[werepossum]

Did you see anyone holding this woman down while someone forcibly injected her with the flu vaccine? No, neither did I.

Seems to me she still exercises complete control over her own body.

She went to work for a company that has a particular employment policy. She knew about this policy when she accepted the job.
She decided of her own free will not to follow that policy knowing full well that it was a condition of employment.
Company fired her for knowingly refusing to follow said company policy.

This aspect of the debate is over. There is nothing else to say.

Your weird debate over flu studies is all that's left so have fun with that.

I think in the end it may really be this simple. The employer has a rational reason for this policy - she is in a position to spread infuenza to a lot of people, including some who would be at risk of death - while she has no science on her side. I can understand her reluctance to take anything into her body with her history of miscarriage, but I can see the employer's side as well.