Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[TheVrolok]

I do not know if you are a teacher, or a supervisor, just lazy, used to bossing people around,,,, or just used to someone doing your work for you.

I am not your peon, nor your dog, nor your servant, nor will not do anything you tell me.

Now get off your lazy ass and post "exactly" what you keep referring to in those studies.

I'll make it simple for you. Read everything in the "Conclusions" section. Now, get off your lazy ass and do it. After all, you love to read.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is there any reason to suspect that the data from all the studies on flu vaccines in pregnancy should not apply to high risk pregnancies? Not every scenario is studied (for various reasons), especially if current data can be appropriately extended to other populations.

How about the fact that the CDC, along with the AAFP, AAP, ACNM, ACOG, AMA, ANA, APhA, AWHONN, NFID, NIVS among others all recommend the flu vaccine for all pregnant women?

You need to stop anchoring, it's silly.

He won't read them but expects to be spoon fed. He's like a college student who expects to not have to open their text book but expects the professor to take time and go over everything and reteach in a private little session, including what was on the syllabus but made known it would not be covered in complete and excruciating detail in class. My wife has biology students like that all the time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'll make it simple for you. Read everything in the "Conclusions" section. Now, get off your lazy ass and do it. After all, you love to read.

The joys of health care, eh?

Of course we know how this is playing out.

1) Assume a position.
2) Find situations which violate a stance against it.
3) Post about it.

Now so far it's not entirely wrong. Hopefully there will be some basis for whatever and if so then it's up for debate.

However let's assume that there's nothing which materially backs up the point, neither personal experience based on a causal factor which can be illustrated nor independent conformation by expert sources and such is the case here.

And so

5) Express outrage based on unrelated personal perspective.
6) Move the goalpost.
7) Avoid authoritative sources which refute the assumed position.

Your perspective welcome, however I think I've fairly characterized this thread.

 

[TheVrolok]

The joys of health care, eh?

Of course we know how this is playing out.

1) Assume a position.
2) Find situations which violate a stance against it.
3) Post about it.

Now so far it's not entirely wrong. Hopefully there will be some basis for whatever and if so then it's up for debate.

However let's assume that there's nothing which materially backs up the point, neither personal experience based on a causal factor which can be illustrated nor independent conformation by expert sources and such is the case here.

And so

5) Express outrage based on unrelated personal perspective.
6) Move the goalpost.
7) Avoid authoritative sources which refute the assumed position.

Your perspective welcome, however I think I've fairly characterized this thread.

/thread

 

[DrPizza]

I do not know if you are a teacher, or a supervisor, just lazy, used to bossing people around,,,, or just used to someone doing your work for you.

I am not your peon, nor your dog, nor your servant, nor will not do anything you tell me.

Now get off your lazy ass and post "exactly" what you keep referring to in those studies.

So, since you're having trouble reading these studies, I assume it's safe to presume that the vocabulary is beyond your cognitive ability to comprehend?

Rates of spontaneous abortion, preterm birth, and major birth defects in pregnant women who received live H1N1 vaccine were similar to or lower than published background rates. No concerning patterns of medical conditions in infants were identified.

Shall we explain that sentence for you? It means that there were no patterns that mattered. If at-risk pregnancies had an elevated problem due to the vaccines, that would be a pattern. [/quote]

For the 2009-12 influenza seasons combined, we found no meaningful evidence of increased RR or HR for major birth defects, spontaneous abortion, or small for gestational age infants.

As many as 10 percent of pregnancies are considered high risk

http://www.ucirvinehealth.org/medical-services/maternity/high-risk-pregnancy/

So, if there was an increase in problems for at risk pregnancies, it would have showed up in the data.

The risk for spontaneous abortions (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.36-2.19) and the rate of major malformations (all trimesters: OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.38-1.77; preconception and first trimester exposure: OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.13-2.64) did not vary between the two cohorts. Furthermore, there was no increase in preeclampsia, prematurity, and intrauterine growth retardation in the vaccinated cohort.

Now, if you have questions about "what were the cohorts? What's HR? What's OR? What's CI?" etc., it's because these articles aren't written for academically lazy individuals. In other words, the only way to get the whole gist of what the articles are talking about is to read the whole articles. Thus, the persons being lazy aren't the ones who answered your original premise - they did, but you moved the goalposts. You keep moving the goal posts because YOU'RE the academically lazy individual in this thread..

These research studies came to the same conclusion - no increased risk. Your arguments against them are without merit. The only way to realistically argue against these studies is to point out specific problems that you have with how they did these studies, which would require you to at least skim through the articles.

Or, you can troll by moving the goalposts again.

 

[classy]

I been thinking about this case. Why didn't she take a leave of absence if she wanted to avoid any potential issues if she was a high risk pregnancy?

 

[TraumaRN]

How about I make this really simple, I don't even need a study.

You know what is potentially dangerous for a pregnant woman who isn't vaccinated against influenza??

BECOMING INFECTED WITH INFLUENZA.

End of discussion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

/thread

Heh, I missed "4"

Perhaps, ???... PROFIT! 😀

 

[Bulk Beef]

Texashiker makes me feel smarter than I really am.

 

[DrPizza]

Texashiker makes me feel smarter than I really am.

The weird thing is, he doesn't seem stupid, except when it comes to a handful of topics. Vaccines being one of them.

 

[JTsyo]

Yet another teacher jumping to conclusions.

Did you read the linked article in the opening post?

The vaccine has not been tested on pregnant women. I am pretty sure the vaccines you give your livestock have been tested and approved. Why should we hold a pregnant woman to a different standard?

And, how many times do I have to say I am not anti-vaccine?

heh comparing CDC with a dailymail article?

 

[Texashiker]

As many as 10 percent of pregnancies are considered high risk

You are basing your opinion on a 10% control group?

In other words, the primary focus of the study was healthy women with a history of normal pregnancies. Only 10% of the study was considered high risk? Is that correct?

I am going to restate my stance.

Do we have a study that focused on high risk pregnancies? Yes or no?

Lets be honest, 10% is a small sampling.

~ EDIT ~

To restate my stance on vaccines - I am pro-vaccination, I have never been opposed to vaccines, never have been, and probably never will be.

My stance on this issue:

Are there enough studies of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies to justify the firing?

Did the employer make reasonable accommodations before firing the nurse.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Lets be honest, 10% is a small sampling.

10% isn't inherently a small sampling. 10% of 10 people would be a small sampling. 10% of every pregnancy on Earth is not a small sampling. That's hundreds of millions of examples, many of whom also presumably got flu shots. You'd think with such a massive sample of pregnant women, both facing complications and not, who receive flu shots, there'd be plenty of examples of flu shots causing problems with the pregnancy. And yet, you seem to be incapable of providing evidence that this is a valid concern. Other people have presented evidence from the CDC and reputable medical journals. You've presented your amateur opinion with absolutely no facts to back you up. You're not going to convince anybody that way.

Do you have any actual data to show that this is a serious concern? Because nobody on Earth is going to believe an anonymous poster on the internet over trained medical professionals and the Center for Disease Control.

 

[Texashiker]

You've presented your amateur opinion with absolutely no facts to back you up. You're not going to convince anybody that way.

You are 100% correct, I am an amateur.But we are a nation built on science.

Once again you are avoiding the main question and ignoring the facts of the case.

Do you have any actual data to show that this is a serious concern? Because nobody on Earth is going to believe an anonymous poster on the internet over trained medical professionals and the Center for Disease Control.

The CDC pages I have looked at do not mention high risk pregnancies.

Show me a CDC page recommending the flu vaccine for high risk women with a history of miscarriages.

 

[glenn1]

Are there enough studies of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies to justify the firing?

Did the employer make reasonable accommodations before firing the nurse.

Let her hire a lawyer and find out; there is absolutely no scientific basis, general moral principle, or legal issue in play here that favors the nurse. Feel free to go lobby Congress if you want to specifically prohibit hospitals from requiring people to get flu shots as a condition of employment; it would be fun watching you have 400+ lawmakers doors slammed in your face.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Other people have already presented evidence; you've presented none. I'm not doing your homework for you; you'll just ignore it, and I have no interest wasting my time on that. But I want you to do a thought experiment for me. There are around 4 million births annually in the USA, and many more pregnancies that do not get carried to term. Assuming that there is a 5-10% chance that a pregnancy is considered high risk, that's at least 200,000 pregnancies every year, minimum, that qualify as high risk. A fair percentage of those women probably get a flu shot. So, given that we're dealing with data from hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of high risk pregnancies over the past decade+ where the woman received a flu shot, don't you think if there were a serious risk of the flu shot jeopardizing the pregnancy, we'd know about it? Don't you think you'd be able to do the quickest Google search in the world and find out that flu shots were found to be responsible for thousands of miscarriages or terminated pregnancies? Why can't you find that data? Don't say because no one has studied it; we have statistics for every facet of the process, from pregnancy rates to miscarriages, abortions, live births, etc. One of two things is possible: either flu vaccines are responsible for a large percentage of complications in pregnancy and the data that shows that is purposefully being kept from the public, or the data doesn't exist because the phenomenon of flu shots causing complications does not happen.

So, what do you think is happening?

 

[Texashiker]

Other people have already presented evidence; you've presented none. I'm not doing your homework for you; you'll just ignore it, and I have no interest wasting my time on that. But I want you to do a thought experiment for me.

Post a link to a CDC page recommending the flu vaccine for high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages and I will read the whole page not only once, but twice.

 

[abj13]

Per the CDC: "Women in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy are at increased risk for hospitalization from influenza. Because vaccinating against influenza before the season begins is critical, and because predicting exactly when the season will begin is impossible, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all women who are or will be pregnant (in any trimester) during influenza season, which in the United States is usually early October through late March"

There is no reason to specify certain pregnancy risk factors because there's no association with the vaccine and adverse effects, as mentioned in the studies over and over. The vaccine is recommended in ALL pregnancies.

 

[Texashiker]

There is no reason to specify certain pregnancy risk factors because there's no association with the vaccine and adverse effects, as mentioned in the studies over and over. The vaccine is recommended in ALL pregnancies.

So you do not have a CDC page that even mentions the flu vaccine specifically for women with a history of high risk pregnancies.

 

[TraumaRN]

The CDC pages I have looked at do not mention high risk pregnancies.

Show me a CDC page recommending the flu vaccine for high risk women with a history of miscarriages.

Here is the deal dude. Your obtuseness is frankly annoying as hell, as is your constant moving the goalposts. Just stop, you've lost this argument long ago.

I've worked as a nurse for almost 7 years. In fact I have my bachelor's of science in nursing. I've worked at two major research health systems. I personally don't work in OB/GYN, rather trauma and emergency nursing, but I do have some knowledge on this situation at hand and with that being said....

A woman with a high risk pregnancy who doesn't get the flu vaccine who then contracts influenza is then at an even higher risk of having complications. There is to my knowledge and a search on the CDC, and the NIH websites no reason to not get a pregnant woman vaccinated. In fact they all say the risk of pregnancy complications is much higher in women who get the flu. So just stop. You won't win this argument, nor will that nurse who was fired.

And about that nurse. She is an idiot and not the sort I want to work with. Unfortunately I do work with a nurse like her at my current job. She managed to get exempted under the 'religious' exemption this year. She is a lover of all sorts of pseudoscientific crap it seems to me. I frankly have no problem with the nurse in question being fired because it is a public health threat. She does not need to be infecting her patients. End of story.

 

[TraumaRN]

So you do not have a CDC page that even mentions the flu vaccine specifically for women with a history of high risk pregnancies.

Do I need to define the word "ALL" for you? Or are you that dense?

The page doesn't exist because the CDC, the NIH, etc say the flu vaccine is recommended for ALL PREGNANCIES

Is that not clear enough for you??

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So you do not have a CDC page that even mentions the flu vaccine specifically for women with a history of high risk pregnancies.

And the DMV doesn't have a page outlining seatbelt laws for college graduates; looks like I'm in the clear.

What do you suppose this phrase "all adult drivers and passengers" means?

 

[Theb]

You guys are trying to store water in a colander in this thread.

 

[Texashiker]

And the DMV doesn't have a page outlining seatbelt laws for college graduates; looks like I'm in the clear.

The DMV does have a listing for seat belts for different size trucks, such as 18 wheelers, or at least they did at one time.

Do I need to define the word "ALL" for you? Or are you that dense?

No, I am not that dense.

So the CDC recommends vaccines for all high risk pregnant women, even if there are no studies to back up those recommendations?

If that sounds logical to you, then womens health is still in the stone age.

There seems to be some confusion here. Why does everyone keep ignoring high risk pregnancies? I keep asking for studies and CDC pages for high risk pregnancies, and everyone keeps posting links to pages for pregnancies and not a single mention of high risk.

Lets get on the same page here. the woman in the opening post had a history of miscarriages. Any study or CDC page linked to should mention history of miscarriages or at least mention high risk.

 

[TraumaRN]

The DMV does have a listing for seat belts for different size trucks, such as 18 wheelers, or at least they did at one time.




No, I am not that dense.

So the CDC recommends vaccines for all high risk pregnant women, even if there are no studies to back up those recommendations?

If that sounds logical to you, then womens health is still in the stone age.

Nice strawman there. Makes you look even more dense, you can't even present a decent counter argument.

The logic says that literally hundreds of thousands of pregnant women around the world receive the flu shot on a yearly basis with no compelling evidence of increased complication rates.

As far as studies, I'm sure someone is studying the issue for the nth time to show that again there is no risk. And that again the risk of NOT getting vaccinated and contracting influenza is far more dangerous than the vaccination itself.

And since you continue to ignore us. I'm going to be clear again.


The flu vaccine is recommended in all pregnancies. Repeat again, ALL PREGNANCIES.

Last I checked that means all pregnancies including high risk pregnancies, because the word ALL means every pregnancy.