Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Texashiker

The vaccine had not been tested for pregnant women.

Has anybody looked to see if this poster was someone formerly banned? Sounds a lot like that idiot Riporin and many of his clones who would post this same crap over and over, only until someone realized it was the same person and banned him.

Him and a whole lot more like the Corrupted idiot. They are like malware bots, just keep replicating.

 

[Wreckem]

In the past couple of weeks a dozen or so people have died in Texas because H1N1(and they weren't old nor infants, or immuno compromised). It looks like there could be another H1N1 pandemic starting because asshats have decided not to get a cheap/free flu shot that now protects against H1N1. Survival of the fittest at its finest. The stupid choose not to get vaccinated.

As for the OP, the nurse refuses to take the vaccine, when a pregnant women getting H1N1 would likely kill both the mother and the unborn child. All while the vaccine isn't likely to cause any problems. Its for her protection, just as much as it is for the protection of patients. They don't know if someone has H1N1 right away. Hell in these recent cases in Texas they didn't realize it until six people had already died(it was reported for over a week as a "mysterious illness" killing the healthy. An unvaccinated nurse is likely to get infected by it if their patient has it. Then you have the liability issue. Whats to say, the unvaccinated nurse or her family won't sue the hospital after she contracts H1N1 and she or her baby dies as a result?

 

[Texashiker]

Anyways. Not tested? Sigh. Do some actual research before spouting bullshit... just a few studies of recent interest... there's plenty more to post, but everyone knows you aren't here to actually to understand the subject.

Did you read the linked article in the opening post?

 

[abj13]

Did you read the linked article in the opening post?

Did you even bother to read my post? If not, don't make snide comments when you are clueless.

But since you ignored reading anything in my post, explain to me how there's no studies reviewing the usage of vaccines in pregnancy when:

Moro PL, Museru OI, Broder K, Cragan J, Zheteyeva Y, Tepper N, Revzina N, Lewis P, Arana J, Barash F, Kissin D, Vellozzi C.Safety of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Live Attenuated Monovalent Vaccine in Pregnant Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;122(6):1271-8.

Chambers CD, Johnson D, Xu R, Luo Y, Louik C, Mitchell AA, Schatz M, Jones KL; OTIS Collaborative Research Group.Risks and safety of pandemic h1n1 influenza vaccine in pregnancy: birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, and small for gestational age infants. Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5026-32.

Oppermann M, Fritzsche J, Weber-Schoendorfer C, Keller-Stanislawski B, Allignol A, Meister R, Schaefer C.Vaccine. A(H1N1)v2009: a controlled observational prospective cohort study on vaccine safety in pregnancy.2012 Jun 22;30(30):4445-52.

Or even simple reading for fearmongerers like yourself can even start with dumbed-down versions from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/pregnant/flushot_pregnant_factsheet.pdf

Just exactly who were you before you were previously banned?

 

[stormkroe]

Because otherwise she represents a significantly increased risk of transmitting a serious viral infection to a vulnerable population.

Thread got long before I could post so sorry for the old quote, but is there any peer reviewed or 3rd party studies that prove a flu vaccination significantly reduces your risk of contracting a flu infection? The vaccine is only for 3 or 4 strains out of 100+, targeting strains with the highest estimated prevalence.
It also tweets my BS meter when literally EVERY person who gets sick after getting the shot is told the same line of 'you were already sick, the shot won't present side effects for 1 to 2 weeks'. It would go a long way to building trust if they would just admit that, yes, injecting something with formaldehyde and mercury in it can cause fast, unwanted side effects.
The studies though, I would be interested in them.

 

[abj13]

Thread got long before I could post so sorry for the old quote, but is there any peer reviewed or 3rd party studies that prove a flu vaccination significantly reduces your risk of contracting a flu infection? The vaccine is only for 3 or 4 strains out of 100+, targeting strains with the highest estimated prevalence.
It also tweets my BS meter when literally EVERY person who gets sick after getting the shot is told the same line of 'you were already sick, the shot won't present side effects for 1 to 2 weeks'. It would go a long way to building trust if they would just admit that, yes, injecting something with formaldehyde and mercury in it can cause fast, unwanted side effects.
The studies though, I would be interested in them.

There are many. Here's two good meta-analysis on the subject, one in children, one in adults:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032844

Abstract
BACKGROUND :
No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.
METHODS:
We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups).
FINDINGS:
We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51-67] in adults aged 18-65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2-17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69-91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8-17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational stuhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22895945 was 69% (range 60-93).
INTERPRETATION:
Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22895945

Abstract
BACKGROUND :
The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age.
OBJECTIVES:
To appraise all comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in healthy children, assess vaccine efficacy (prevention of confirmed influenza) and effectiveness (prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI)) and document adverse events associated with influenza vaccines.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, OLD MEDLINE (1950 to 1965), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (1974 to November 2011), Biological Abstracts (1969 to September 2007), and Science Citation Index (1974 to September 2007).
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies of any influenza vaccine in healthy children under 16 years of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Four review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 75 studies with about 300,000 observations. We included 17 RCTs, 19 cohort studies and 11 case-control studies in the analysis of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence from RCTs shows that six children under the age of six need to be vaccinated with live attenuated vaccine to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). We could find no usable data for those aged two years or younger.Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo. Twenty-eight children over the age of six need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). Eight need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza-like-illness (ILI). We could find no evidence of effect on secondary cases, lower respiratory tract disease, drug prescriptions, otitis media and its consequences and socioeconomic impact. We found weak single-study evidence of effect on school absenteeism by children and caring parents from work. Variability in study design and presentation of data was such that a meta-analysis of safety outcome data was not feasible. Extensive evidence of reporting bias of safety outcomes from trials of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) impeded meaningful analysis. One specific brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine is associated with cataplexy and narcolepsy in children and there is sparse evidence of serious harms (such as febrile convulsions) in specific situations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age. There was a difference between vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, partly due to differing datasets, settings and viral circulation patterns. No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasising the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. In specific cases, influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. The degree of scrutiny needed to identify all global cases of potential harms is beyond the resources of this review. This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.

These are complex subjects, but overall the peer-reviewed literature when you look at the combined analysis shows there is a benefit. In children, the issue is even more complex...

 

[Brovane]

Did you even bother to read my post? If not, don't make snide comments when you are clueless.

But since you ignored reading anything in my post, explain to me how there's no studies reviewing the usage of vaccines in pregnancy when:



Or even simple reading for fearmongerers like yourself can even start with dumbed-down versions from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/pregnant/flushot_pregnant_factsheet.pdf

Just exactly who were you before you were previously banned?

I think the issue is that the manufacturer put some CYA language on the outside of the packaging.

But she became alarmed after the packaging for a number of major brands of the vaccine warned it 'should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed,' and other notifications highlighted that it's unclear whether the shot can harm an unborn child.

She being a pregnant woman with two miscarriages in the past 18-months took a look at that and decided it wasn't worth the risk. Even myself reading that would be little confused because on the one hand I have the CDC saying the shots are perfectly safe and I have this packaging saying it should only be taken if clearly needed. It seems like the FDA and the CDC maybe should have a little discussion on what should be on the outside of the packaging because it seems a little contradicting. Basically from reading the article it seems like this woman's mother instincts kicked in and decided no way she was getting that shot because nobody could tell her 100% certain it wouldn't affect the her un-born child and with two miscarriages she wasn't taking the chance. Looking on the outside in we will see that as not a logical decision but to her it was what needed to be done to protect that child.

 

[abj13]

I think the issue is that the manufacturer put some CYA language on the outside of the packaging.

She being a pregnant woman with two miscarriages in the past 18-months took a look at that and decided it wasn't worth the risk. Even myself reading that would be little confused because on the one hand I have the CDC saying the shots are perfectly safe and I have this packaging saying it should only be taken if clearly needed. It seems like the FDA and the CDC maybe should have a little discussion on what should be on the outside of the packaging because it seems a little contradicting. Basically from reading the article it seems like this woman's mother instincts kicked in and decided no way she was getting that shot because nobody could tell her 100% certain it wouldn't affect the her un-born child and with two miscarriages she wasn't taking the chance. Looking on the outside in we will see that as not a logical decision but to her it was what needed to be done to protect that child.

Well that's the issue, it is CYA. The packaging insert is intended to merely be a form of legal documentation to achieve FDA approval, is NOT a reflection of medical practice. This is what people are confused about. For example, if you actually read the inserts for many medications used in children, they aren't approved for many of the treatments in pediatrics. But they are used all the time without significant complications.

True medical practice comes down to physician practice which is guided by evidence and recommendations from expert opinion. If someone is going to use a medication, they cite the study that best reflects the usage of the medication, not the insert printed to achieve FDA approval.

In addition, medical inserts aren't "updated on the fly," they don't include recent or up-to-date information. They are not comprehensive reviews, intended to show ALL studies on a medication. That is simply impossible to do for certain medications (just think about all the studies on aspirin... you'd have literally pages and pages of references if you had to). If you read the influenza inserts, they don't include many studies from the past 5-10 years. Here's a great discussion about the role of medication inserts if you are interested, which covers the legal aspects too: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1214572/

 

[umbrella39]

Has anybody looked to see if this poster was someone formerly banned? Sounds a lot like that idiot Riporin.

I've called Tex Riprorin several times since he showed up...

 

[Brovane]

Well that's the issue, it is CYA. The packaging insert is intended to merely be a form of legal documentation to achieve FDA approval, is NOT a reflection of medical practice. This is what people are confused about. For example, if you actually read the inserts for many medications used in children, they aren't approved for many of the treatments in pediatrics. But they are used all the time without significant complications.

True medical practice comes down to physician practice which is guided by evidence and recommendations from expert opinion. If someone is going to use a medication, they cite the study that best reflects the usage of the medication, not the insert printed to achieve FDA approval.

In addition, medical inserts aren't "updated on the fly," they don't include recent or up-to-date information. They are not comprehensive reviews, intended to show ALL studies on a medication. That is simply impossible to do for certain medications (just think about all the studies on aspirin... you'd have literally pages and pages of references if you had to). If you read the influenza inserts, they don't include many studies from the past 5-10 years. Here's a great discussion about the role of medication inserts if you are interested, which covers the legal aspects too: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1214572/

Which leads me back to the original premise is you have a confused lady who is pregnant after going through 2 miscarriages that maybe no medical doctor was able to explain why she miscarried. In this case she gave the CYA information more credence than it really deserved and probably she doesn't really trust MD a lot after 2 unexplained miscarriages. So she is misguided into thinking she is protecting her unborn fetus by refusing a Flu Vaccine shot. However that fact that she is misguided is perfectly understandable considering the trauma that she has been through. She is now thinking she is the victim even more because protecting her child has gotten her dismissed from her job so the medical establishment has really know just pilled it on for this woman. Sometimes people need to take a step back and try to see things from the other person's point of view before plunging ahead with what they think is the best policy.

 

[Argo]

When my wife was pregnant they gave her a special flu vaccine that was safe for pregnant women. Was that not available in this scenario, or was the nurse opposed to any type of flu vaccine?

Anyhow, I totally support her decision to avoid the vaccine (support, but not necessarily agree). And I totally support hospital's right to fire her.

 

[Sonikku]

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

Vaccine has not been tested on pregnant women.

Woman had previous miscarriages.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ED-refuses-flu-shot-protect-unborn-child.html

How can a company fire someone for not taking a tested vaccine?

Simple. Many states now have the good sense to have something called "right to work" that basically allows business owners to actually retain actual control over their company in regrades to who they fire and why. Except for ripping on gays and/or African Americans. No company should have the power to fire someone for that.

 

[Sunburn74]

Well its a bit aggressive. You'd think they'd accept worsening underlying anxiety as a valid reason. Very surprising.

 

[mikeymikec]

Of course not. If she didn't want to get the vaccine because of her pregnancy concerns and history of miscarriages she shouldn't put patients at risk. My question was whether the hospital had some temporary role she could fill during her pregnancy that did not involve patient contact.

Perhaps, but probably not. She was there to do a job, which someone else has to do because she's not. Someone else on this thread already talked about too many nurses going for non-directly-patient-facing roles.

The hand washing thing is a straw man though. There is not even a remote possibility that hand washing would cause a miscarriage.

When anxiety is severe enough to be classed as some kind of disorder, it's based on irrational fear. Hence hand-washing is not a straw man, because if you have an irrational fear of something, that fear has quite a bit of power over you. Her taking the vaccine while having a lot of anxiety about it could cause a miscarriage even though it wasn't the contents of the vaccine that caused it (e.g. a placebo could have done the same thing).

 

[Sunburn74]

Nonetheless anxiety is a medical condition and if part of the management is "no flu shots" then that is treatmemt the hospital should respect. Its no different than a back injury where the doctor writes "no heavy lifting"

 

[ch33zw1z]

Nonetheless anxiety is a medical condition and if part of the management is "no flu shots" then that is treatmemt the hospital should respect. Its no different than a back injury where the doctor writes "no heavy lifting"

It's different from a back injury. You won't spread influenza because you have a back injury.

They totally respected her decision. The hospital didn't hold her down and force her to have the flu shot. She was warned it would result in termination, that's their policy.

 

[Texashiker]

Simple. Many states now have the good sense to have something called "right to work" that basically allows business owners to actually retain actual control over their company in regrades to who they fire and why. Except for ripping on gays and/or African Americans. No company should have the power to fire someone for that.

So firing gays, flat chested women, anyone who is pregnant, anyone who is not blonde hair and blue eyed is ok?

Black? Dont even bother applying for the job.

Is that the type of employment control you mention?

Or even simple reading for fearmongerers like yourself can even start with dumbed-down versions from the CDC:

Why do people think I am fearmongering, or anti-vaccine?

This is a civil rights issue.

Woman did not want to take vaccine so she was fired. Was that reasonable accommodation?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I also disagree with her being forced to take an untested vaccine. If the vaccine is that important, then get the offical FDA stamp of approval.

It is approved, and the CDC recommends it. The VAERS program continually monitors and requires reporting of adverse events. Vaccines are among the most closely monitored medications which have ever existed and there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests it's harmful. On the other hand if she contracts the flu and spreads it she is a definite threat. "Reasonable accommodation" applies to medical conditions that keep someone from working, not because someone stamps their foot.

 

[Texashiker]

It is approved, and the CDC recommends it. The VAERS program continually monitors and requires reporting of adverse events. Vaccines are among the most closely monitored medications which have ever existed and there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests it's harmful. On the other hand if she contracts the flu and spreads it she is a definite threat.

I know all of this.

"Reasonable accommodation" applies to medical conditions that keep someone from working, not because someone stamps their foot.

Oh bull crap that is not true.

There have been cases of reasonable accommodation where the employee went through a sex change.

 

[mikeymikec]

Why do people think I am fearmongering, or anti-vaccine?

The points you've made have been shot down in flames, yet you continue to beat a "this is a civil rights issue, people shouldn't have to take vaccines if they don't want to" drum, even though that point as already been countered as well. A logical conclusion is that you're strongly anti-vaccine (even though you say you aren't), because there's little else that people here can relate to you being.

It's kind of like the recent thread where you spent 5 pages arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because "they spread HIV through anal sex", then eventually you gave up that line because it was pointed out that surely marriage encourages monogamy (as well as many other points, "what about lesbian couples?", most of which you continue to ignore), so people assume that you're falling back on the "it's still

Spoiler

icky

immoral", at which point there's little left to argue. People there assumed you must be religious because where else would you have got your opinions from.

You say you like to discuss things, but you don't. You like to state your opinion and ideally have everyone agree with you, and if they don't and counter with solid arguments you just ignore what they have to say. Sometimes you come out with classic lines like "well, that's my opinion!", as if that justifies your ignorant viewpoints.

There really isn't any point in you continuing to "contribute" to this thread unless you concede some points and/or bring something new to the discussion.

I know all of this.

And yet you haven't conceded that the vaccines obviously are thoroughly tested, therefore blowing away most (if not all) of your argument!

 

[Texashiker]

There really isn't any point in you continuing to "contribute" to this thread unless you concede some points and/or bring something new to the discussion.

When it comes to civil rights I will not "concede."

The employer should have moved her into a position where she did not pose a threat to the public or other workers.

Maybe even send her home with unpaid leave.

Lay her off, let her draw unemployment, then rehire her after she had the baby.

Anything besides firing her.

In one of the welding shops I worked at we had a welder break his arm. What did the shop foreman do? Let the welder push a broom until his arm healed.

 

[mikeymikec]

When it comes to civil rights I will not "concede.".

So you're conceding your other point regarding untested vaccines then?

 

[Texashiker]

So you're conceding your other point regarding untested vaccines then?

That is 50/50.

Should she take "a" flu vaccine? Sure, especially working in healthcare.

But taking an untested vaccine is where the hangup is at. Could her employer have provided a vaccine that should could have taken that was tested?

Would you give your children an untested vaccine? Would you yourself take an untested vaccine?

Given the same situation as the nurse, I am not sure I would give my kids or myself a vaccine that came with a warning label.

 

[glenn1]

When it comes to civil rights I will not "concede."

Protecting you from all your imaginary fears about GMO foods, vaccines, and other science-y stuff is not a civil rights issue, it's a "you're a loon" issue. Healthcare professionals don't have a civil right to exponentially raise the risks of their patients contracting communicable diseases for completely irrational and scientifically falsifiable reasons. I think you should move to Amish country so you can live out your perfect life where you don't need to be subjected to those "risks."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I know all of this.

You did? Then you are lying. I can deal with that.

Oh bull crap that is not true.

I thought we were talking about medical purposes. You mean stamping your foot.

But taking an untested vaccine is where the hangup is at.

You are lying again. The vaccine went through all proper testing, and the "thing you know all about" ensures that the safety of vaccines is under constant and continued scrutiny.

I'll be interested in your "expert" rebuttal.