Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[Fanatical Meat]

Ha I just remembered I shamed a high school kid into taking the shot instead of the nasal spray. I was at the town vaccination and they were very low on the mists. I believe they wanted to save them for people with allergies and the kid in front of me wanted one because that is what his mother wanted him to have. I told him to be a man and save the my mist dose for somebody who needed it. He was too old to be afraid of mom.
Do you need me to stop by and give you some encouragement TexasHiker?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You say (1) is invalid for drawing conclusions but (2) is valid, even though the exact same women and the exact same analysis is performed. Surely you can see the absurdity of your position.

How much money you willing to bet?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Because the lady was fired for not taking the vaccine.

If there is no scientific study to backup the claim then she should not have been fired.

As I have asked several times in this thread, show me a single study where the primary focus group were high risk women with a history of miscarriages.

As others have pointed out, the vaccine studies seek to include a wide range of people and then look for tenancies within the data that might suggest that people sharing certain characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, gender, medications, environments, medical histories, etc.) might have better or poorer results from the vaccine. Do you really expect (and would you really support) studies that focused on narrow groups? And how many of these narrow studies would we have to run? Is a study needed for left-handed Irishmen with green eyes?

Regardless of the above, I agree that the pregnant nurse has every right to refuse the vaccination. It is her decision to make.

That said, she has to be prepared to accept the consequences of her decision. As with any other employer, the hospital is within its rights to insist that employees do things that are needed to competently and safely do their jobs. People unwilling or unable to do these things can't expect to be employees.

The whole concept of "reasonable accommodation" comes from the Americans with Disabilities Act and IIRC only applies to the physical and mental disabilities identified in the Act.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

The pregnant nurse's decision to not be vaccinated is NOT a disability.

Similarly, she's entitled to decide that even being in the hospital with its attendant exposure to sicknesses poses an unacceptable risk to her pregnancy. She might also conclude that the electromagnetic fields generated by medical equipment is an unacceptable risk to her baby. She can decide for any reason she wants that what the hospital requires is not something she can accept because of her pregnancy.

The hospital is NOT responsible for proving to her satisfaction that she is mistaken, or that their (assumedly legal) requirements of employees are reasonable. It is her decision to either "take them or leave them".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Regardless of the above, I agree that the pregnant nurse has every right to refuse the vaccination. It is her decision to make.

The converse is that every patient has the right to not become ill because their practitioners were negligent and decided to put those who are treated, coworkers, and the institution who employs them at risk.

 

[Ophir]

As others have pointed out, the vaccine studies seek to include a wide range of people and then look for tenancies within the data that might suggest that people sharing certain characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, gender, medications, environments, medical histories, etc.) might have better or poorer results from the vaccine. Do you really expect (and would you really support) studies that focused on narrow groups? And how many of these narrow studies would we have to run? Is a study needed for left-handed Irishmen with green eyes?

Regardless of the above, I agree that the pregnant nurse has every right to refuse the vaccination. It is her decision to make.

That said, she has to be prepared to accept the consequences of her decision. As with any other employer, the hospital is within its rights to insist that employees do things that are needed to competently and safely do their jobs. People unwilling or unable to do these things can't expect to be employees.

The whole concept of "reasonable accommodation" comes from the Americans with Disabilities Act and IIRC only applies to the physical and mental disabilities identified in the Act.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

The pregnant nurse's decision to not be vaccinated is NOT a disability.

Similarly, she's entitled to decide that even being in the hospital with its attendant exposure to sicknesses poses an unacceptable risk to her pregnancy. She might also conclude that the electromagnetic fields generated by medical equipment is an unacceptable risk to her baby. She can decide for any reason she wants that what the hospital requires is not something she can accept because of her pregnancy.

The hospital is NOT responsible for proving to her satisfaction that she is mistaken, or that their (assumedly legal) requirements of employees are reasonable. It is her decision to either "take them or leave them".

You can try to lay it out and explain it as simply, clearly, and definitively as possible, but he will still ignore it. Texashiker appears to be completely incapable of cognitive dissonance. Thus, he will argue with you in circles ad infinitum. This has been shown time and again.

I sincerely think he's not trolling... just a brutally clear example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you need me to stop by and give you some encouragement TexasHiker?

All the encouragement in the world is not going to help.

Do you really expect (and would you really support) studies that focused on narrow groups?

Considering all of the changes a womans body goes through while pregnant, yes, I expect several studies of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

You can try to lay it out and explain it as simply, clearly, and definitively as possible, but he will still ignore it. Texashiker appears to be completely incapable of cognitive dissonance. Thus, he will argue with you in circles ad infinitum. This has been shown time and again.

Have you ever been around a pregnant woman? Ever been around a woman who lost a child to miscarriage and nobody seems to be able to explain why?

Lets be honest, a large segment of womens health is still a mystery to modern medicine.

 

[TraumaRN]

Have you ever been around a pregnant woman? Ever been around a woman who lost a child to miscarriage and nobody seems to be able to explain why?

Lets be honest, a large segment of womens health is still a mystery to modern medicine.

I'm going to stop you right there. First off you claimed earlier to be an amateur. And while you ignored repeated requests from me to disclaim what kind of work you do, at this point I have no problem telling this board the kind of work I do. And frankly, how many pregnant women have you seen? How many women have you been around who have miscarried? Better yet have you ever been at the bedside of a woman who is having a miscarriage??? I have. Do not act like you are coming from some position as great defender of women's rights. I've seen more pregnant women, more miscarriages then you could ever imagine and will continue to do so as long as I work in the emergency department. I've done more to help women, and men with their health concerns then you ever could. So please, stop trying to take some position of moral authority on women's health. Or anyone's health for that matter.

Moreover, your statement about a large segment of women's health being a mystery is a honestly an appeal to emotional ignorance. There is such a vast amount of things we don't know about human beings, male and female. Honestly we hardly know what we don't know in many regards to both sexes.

 

[Texashiker]

Moreover, your statement about a large segment of women's health being a mystery is a honestly an appeal to emotional ignorance.

That is a flat out lie and you know it.

There is such a vast amount of things we don't know about human beings, male and female. Honestly we hardly know what we don't know in many regards to both sexes.

And womens health is a "very" neglected field.

Modern medicine says if it hurts, cut it out. Dont worry about treatment, because chances are there are none.

 

[werepossum]

As others have pointed out, the vaccine studies seek to include a wide range of people and then look for tenancies within the data that might suggest that people sharing certain characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, gender, medications, environments, medical histories, etc.) might have better or poorer results from the vaccine. Do you really expect (and would you really support) studies that focused on narrow groups? And how many of these narrow studies would we have to run? Is a study needed for left-handed Irishmen with green eyes?

Regardless of the above, I agree that the pregnant nurse has every right to refuse the vaccination. It is her decision to make.

That said, she has to be prepared to accept the consequences of her decision. As with any other employer, the hospital is within its rights to insist that employees do things that are needed to competently and safely do their jobs. People unwilling or unable to do these things can't expect to be employees.

The whole concept of "reasonable accommodation" comes from the Americans with Disabilities Act and IIRC only applies to the physical and mental disabilities identified in the Act.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

The pregnant nurse's decision to not be vaccinated is NOT a disability.

Similarly, she's entitled to decide that even being in the hospital with its attendant exposure to sicknesses poses an unacceptable risk to her pregnancy. She might also conclude that the electromagnetic fields generated by medical equipment is an unacceptable risk to her baby. She can decide for any reason she wants that what the hospital requires is not something she can accept because of her pregnancy.

The hospital is NOT responsible for proving to her satisfaction that she is mistaken, or that their (assumedly legal) requirements of employees are reasonable. It is her decision to either "take them or leave them".

Well said. I can see both sides - I can certainly understand why she might be reluctant to take the flu shot, but with them being in the business (partially) of telling people (even pregnant women) to take the flu shot which is perfectly safe I can certainly understand why her employer would not wish to make that accommodation.

Unless she has previously had a miscarriage she associates in particular with a flu shot, she needs to look at hard facts. The risks to pregnant women (as determined by complication rates) is apparently not statistically significant; I suspect the risk to her baby if she contracts flu would be measurably greater.

My sister-in-law worked for awhile in a Michael Dunn Center with a good many long term patients who as children developed severe complications immediately after receiving a vaccination, most usually moderately severe brain damage from runaway fever but also MS-like problems. It's easy to say they are connected and they likely usually are - although the culprit may well be a bacterium that hitch-hiked in on the needle or some other extremely unlikely event made possible only by the very large number of people vaccinated. But people who see this as a reason to avoid vaccinations miss the larger point that the extremely small chance of adverse effects is offset by the much-reduced chance of adverse effects from the disease being vaccinated against. It's like not wearing a seatbelt because someone once got strangled by one.

 

[TraumaRN]

That is a flat out lie and you know it.




And womens health is a "very" neglected field.

Modern medicine says if it hurts, cut it out. Dont worry about treatment, because chances are there are none.

Your complete and utter lack of any sort of understanding of modern medicine is so clear here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Moreover, I'm not lying. In 1950 you'd be absolutely correct, but it is not at all the case nowadays.

What are your qualifications to make such a statement? What kind of work do you do? You seem to keep ignoring that.

Moreover my statement about while we know about great deal about modern medicine, there is still a vast swath of male, female and overarching human health health that we don't know about, especially on a molecular/genetic level.

And perhaps it is true in Texas where you live where it's clear that the oppression of women continues unabated, but certainly not true in vast chunks of the rest of the developed world.

 

[Texashiker]

What are your qualifications to make such a statement?

Seeing my wife go to doctor after doctor with endometriosis and fibroid tumors, and seeing doctor after doctor, including specialist, tell her there are no real treatments besides surgery.

This went on for about 8 years. We tried birth control pills, mirena,,, and a few other things doctors recommended.

But in the end, besides surgery, modern medicine has no answer for common everyday womens health problems.

If doctors can not treat endometriosis and fibroid tumors, why aren't we doing massive number of studies on womens health, including flu. The truth is, if a woman has a miscarriage, so what, she can get pregnant in a few months.

Women are treated like cattle. It makes me sick to see so little regard for human compassion and human health.

 

[TraumaRN]

Seeing my wife go to doctor after doctor with endometriosis and fibroid tumors, and seeing doctor after doctor, including specialist, tell her there are no real treatments besides surgery.

This went on for about 8 years. We tried birth control pills, mirena,,, and a few other things doctors recommended.

But in the end, besides surgery, modern medicine has no answer for common everyday womens health problems.

If doctors can not treat endometriosis and fibroid tumors, why aren't we doing massive number of studies on womens health, including flu. The truth is, if a woman has a miscarriage, so what, she can get pregnant in a few months.

Women are treated like cattle. It makes me sick to see so little regard for human compassion and human health.

Here's a thought, move from the state that actively oppresses women, especially in regards to their health.

Secondly, your experience doesn't count for much. Fibroids, ovarian cysts, endometriosis are not simple problems whatsoever. They are complex medical problems with no clear or simple answers. Uterine ablation is a new approach to endometriosis that is far less invasive and works for many women.

But to make such blanket statements that we can't treat simple women's health issues is flat wrong. We can. Same for all human health, many of the truly simple things we can do really really well. But so much of medicine is complex, difficult and not at all easy to treat. I've worked for years as a nurse, I have my bachelor's degree and numerous educational certifications, medicine is not so simple as you wish it to be.

Moreover, if you think you can help then join the field, we could use the help, but otherwise, sit down and shut up about things you clearly know next to nothing about.

 

[chiza]

Seeing my wife go to doctor after doctor with endometriosis and fibroid tumors, and seeing doctor after doctor, including specialist, tell her there are no real treatments besides surgery.

This went on for about 8 years. We tried birth control pills, mirena,,, and a few other things doctors recommended.

But in the end, besides surgery, modern medicine has no answer for common everyday womens health problems.

If doctors can not treat endometriosis and fibroid tumors, why aren't we doing massive number of studies on womens health, including flu. The truth is, if a woman has a miscarriage, so what, she can get pregnant in a few months.

Women are treated like cattle. It makes me sick to see so little regard for human compassion and human health.

What's wrong with surgery? There are surgical options with both endometriosis and fibroids that don't involve removing organs (maybe part of them). I'm guessing since you saw a bunch of doctors they already went over all your options.

I'm sorry that happened to your wife, but research is being done on many things in women's health. There are proven things that work for those conditions but your wife just didn't respond to it. All bodies aren't made the same. Just because there's no answer yet doesn't mean there isn't anything being done about it.

If it makes you feel any better, there are a lot of diseases that are NOT in women's health that cause significant stress and discomfort for patients and we don't have cures for them.

 

[MrPickins]

Women are treated like cattle. It makes me sick to see so little regard for human compassion and human health.

This coming from a guy who supported shutting down women's clinics across the state via TX SB5.

 

[Texashiker]

Here's a thought, move from the state that actively oppresses women, especially in regards to their health.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Rather than discuss the issue of womens health you turn to politics and blame the state.

This coming from a guy who supported shutting down women's clinics across the state via TX SB5.

Your argument supports my stance.

Womens health is opposed at every corner. Women are being forced to go to a backalley clinic rather than a real clinic ran by doctors who can take care of their patients at local hospitals.

Would you yourself go to a fly by night doctor? I would not see a doctor that did not have local admitting privileges. I can ask no more or less than that for my wife.

What's wrong with surgery?

Whats wrong with finding a cure or a non-invasive procedure?

 

[JD50]

Considering all of the changes a womans body goes through while pregnant, yes, I expect several studies of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

.

Once again, this has already been done.

 

[Texashiker]

Once again, this has already been done.

Prove it.

 

[MrPickins]

Your argument supports my stance.

Womens health is opposed at every corner. Women are being forced to go to a backalley clinic rather than a real clinic ran by doctors who can take care of their patients at local hospitals.

Would you yourself go to a fly by night doctor? I would not see a doctor that did not have local admitting privileges. I can ask no more or less than that for my wife.

Do you live in bizzaro world? You realize that not having admitting privileges does not make for a bad doctor? I'd be willing to bet your family MD doesn't have them.

SB5 forced the closing of a ton of reputable clinics, pushing women to these back-alley doctors (or a coat hanger).

In either case, I'm not going to debate you on this tangent. I just wanted others to see your hypocrisy.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you live in bizzaro world? You realize that not having admitting privileges does not make for a bad doctor? I'd be willing to bet your family MD doesn't have them.

You would lose that bet.

 

[JD50]

Prove it.

It's already been explained to you multiple times.

Can you explain the difference between a study of pregnant women that includes high risk pregnancies, and a study of only high risk pregnancies? If the first study doesn't show any adverse affects, why do you feel the need for the second study?

 

[MrPickins]

You would lose that bet.

Way to ignore the meat of the post. Your style of debate is sorely lacking.

At least you're good for a laugh.

Everyone gather around and look at the anti-intellectual piney woods redneck.:whiste:

 

[TraumaRN]

You should be ashamed of yourself. Rather than discuss the issue of womens health you turn to politics and blame the state.




Your argument supports my stance.

Womens health is opposed at every corner. Women are being forced to go to a backalley clinic rather than a real clinic ran by doctors who can take care of their patients at local hospitals.

Would you yourself go to a fly by night doctor? I would not see a doctor that did not have local admitting privileges. I can ask no more or less than that for my wife.




Whats wrong with finding a cure or a non-invasive procedure?

I have no reason to be ashamed, and it isn't political. There is and continues to be oppression towards women in your state, mostly by men who wish to oppress women. And you yourself support said oppression. So really I'm not the one who should be ashamed of anything. If anything I've spent days of my life helping women with their health care problems, and spent more than a few hours of my life actively fighting for women's right either by protesting, writing my congress person etc.

Moreover for your wife's condition there are non invasive procedures that do work for some women. Unfortunately your wife was not one of them. Uterine ablation is a minimally invasive procedure that works, and cures, many women that don't wish to have any more children. Hysterectomy just as little as 10 or 15 years ago used to be the only curative agent for that disease process, so progress is certainly being made, albeit slowly as it is a very complex disease process.

Regarding the whole admitting privileges bullshit argument. I work in a hospital. Specifically I've worked in the ER my entire career, and I can tell having admitting privileges or not DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT, speak to the skill level of any physician.

Technically speaking NONE of the ER physicians I work with have admitting privileges at my hospital. They are more like a go between, because they have to find an accepting doctor who'll take on the actual admission. Sure they 'admit' the patient's but their duty of care ends once they leave the ER.

Moreover most family physicians like my personal doctor don't have admitting privileges because simply they don't want them. In the case of my doctor, he wants to keep more normal hours and wants to spend as much time with his patients as possible, so he doesn't admit to the hospital. Simple as that.

The idea of 'admitting privileges' is such a conflated BS argument. It holds no water. It is no metric of how a doctor actually practices and frankly is a political line from the side of the republican/christian right to further oppress women.

 

[Theb]

Do you live in bizzaro world? You realize that not having admitting privileges does not make for a bad doctor? I'd be willing to bet your family MD doesn't have them.

SB5 forced the closing of a ton of reputable clinics, pushing women to these back-alley doctors (or a coat hanger).

In either case, I'm not going to debate you on this tangent. I just wanted others to see your hypocrisy.

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.

 

[Screech]

This is both one of the greatest ownage threads this year and one of the most hilarious troll threads this year. Texashiker: you are rapidly reaching a lower rung on perceived intelligence than the altTrolls in this forum. Think about what that means, man!

 

[fskimospy]

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?