Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[umbrella39]

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.

... and this is not what she was fired for so sexist not found. Men are fired for not complying, too. Who are you trying to kid here...

 

[zinfamous]

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

From experience with certain sides of my family back home, I know full well that people can be this dumb, even today.

I lean towards TH being honestly, completely, dumb.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

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.

You haven't read the past 15 pages, have you?

 

[Texashiker]

I lean towards TH being honestly, completely, dumb.

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

You were given a study that included high risk pregnancies.

Included, but the primary focus of the study was not high risk.

 

[zinfamous]

Included, but the primary focus of the study was not high risk.

Jesus tapdancing christ. why do you insist on inventing your own standards for everything that doesn't satisfy your reality?

 

[JD50]

Included, but the primary focus of the study was not high risk.

What is the difference?

 

[Texashiker]

Jesus tapdancing christ. why do you insist on inventing your own standards for everything that doesn't satisfy your reality?

Please explain to me where company policy ends and civil rights start.

You are a man of science. Would you accept a study where a certain demographic was accidentally included, and the accidental demographic made up a small minority of the study?

Lets study eagles. But since a few hawks flew into the study, lets just include them and make a blanket statement. Does that sound logical?

 

[JD50]

Please explain to me where company policy ends and civil rights start.

You are a man of science. Would you accept a study where a certain demographic was accidentally included, and the accidental demographic made up a small minority of the study?

Lets study eagles. But since a few hawks flew into the study, lets just include them and make a blanket statement. Does that sound logical?

Lets study pregnant women. A pregnant woman that has had a miscarriage is not actually a pregnant woman?

Hawks are not Eagles.

 

[shira]

Please explain to me where company policy ends and civil rights start.

You are a man of science. Would you accept a study where a certain demographic was accidentally included, and the accidental demographic made up a small minority of the study?

Lets study eagles. But since a few hawks flew into the study, lets just include them and make a blanket statement. Does that sound logical?

How can you possibly be this clueless?

You're correct, comparing hawks against eagles would be invalid. But what you're missing is that if "a few hawks" flew into the study, they'd be excluded from the statistical computations. But if 2000 hawks flew into the study, with sufficient numbers of both vaccinated and unvaccinated hawks, hawks would be compared with hawks. And that comparison would be completely valid.

Can you possibly not understand this simple fact? When the effects of a vaccine on a particular subgroup (such as pregnant women with a history of miscarriages) are analyzed, only the data for that subgroup is analyzed - it isn't mixed with the data for any other subgroup. The fact that the overall study includes many other subgroups just means that many different analyses can be performed, and conclusions for each subgroup derived.

 

[JD50]

Texashiker, what is it, exactly, that you disagree with? They didn't include high risk pregnancies by accident. 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?

 

[mikeymikec]

Please explain to me where company policy ends and civil rights start.

If an organisation had a completely unnecessary policy that discriminated against minorities through no fault/choice of their own, then your thoughts on civil rights might be relevant. In this case, it isn't relevant. The flu vaccine is in existence to save lives and reduce workload by limiting the spread of infection. A pregnant nurse decides for no good reason / any evidence that it might negatively affect her or her unborn child and refuses to have the vaccine. She's risking the lives of her patients if she continued to work without the vaccine.

You are a man of science. Would you accept a study where a certain demographic was accidentally included, and the accidental demographic made up a small minority of the study?

Accidentally included? Are you high? If a form of medication is being generally tested then a decent cross-section of people would be included and their medical histories checked as part of the process. A study into the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine would include many different classes of vulnerable people because those are the ones that a flu vaccine is largely aimed at, which includes pregnant women, people with immunodeficiencies, etc. If any anomalous results are found when the experiment is concluded, then those would be looked into in greater detail.

Lets study eagles. But since a few hawks flew into the study, lets just include them and make a blanket statement. Does that sound logical?

I think this speaks volumes about your understanding of scientific inquiry.

 

[Texashiker]

If an organisation had a completely unnecessary policy that discriminated against minorities through no fault/choice of their own, then your thoughts on civil rights might be relevant. In this case, it isn't relevant.

Are civil rights irrelevant because the woman decided to get pregnant?

The United States has a long history of discriminating against pregnant women. Some states allow the employer to fire pregnant women who have complications and have to take time off.

When are we as a society going to recognize that pregnant women deserve special protection under the law?

 

[nehalem256]

If an organisation had a completely unnecessary policy that discriminated against minorities through no fault/choice of their own, then your thoughts on civil rights might be relevant. In this case, it isn't relevant. The flu vaccine is in existence to save lives and reduce workload by limiting the spread of infection. A pregnant nurse decides for no good reason / any evidence that it might negatively affect her or her unborn child and refuses to have the vaccine. She's risking the lives of her patients if she continued to work without the vaccine.

So your assertion is that vaccine manufacturers are in the habit of putting warnings on their products for shits and giggles?

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.
/QUOTE]

 

[Fatdog]

Please explain to me where company policy ends and civil rights start.

Let's start with an easy one. You do understand a job is not a civil right. Correct?

Your whole thread is based on this, but no where in the Constitution is there a right to a job listed.

 

[mikeymikec]

Are civil rights irrelevant because the woman decided to get pregnant?

No, they're irrelevant because no country I'm aware of declares a civil right to risk the lives of your patients.

She had the freedom to refuse the vaccine. Her employer had the right to fire her for risking the lives of her patients through the choice she freely made.

So your assertion is that vaccine manufacturers are in the habit of putting warnings on their products for shits and giggles?

The article doesn't say where that line of inquiry went. Details are rather important. If my doctor prescribed a drug for me and there was a warning on it that was relevant to my situation, I would follow that up to my satisfaction and with the facts available I would make a decision about what to do next.

 

[MrPickins]

Are civil rights irrelevant because the woman decided to get pregnant?

The United States has a long history of discriminating against pregnant women. Some states allow the employer to fire pregnant women who have complications and have to take time off.

When are we as a society going to recognize that pregnant women deserve special protection under the law?

I'll just place this here. :whiste:

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

 

[Texashiker]

No, they're irrelevant because no country I'm aware of declares a civil right to risk the lives of your patients.

Civil rights are supposed to protect the rights of the individual and the rights of the many equally.

Besides the vaccine, what else can an employer force an employee to inject into their bodies? Maybe start the day off with a few shots of whiskey? Maybe force that Muslim employee to wear a bikini and drink wine at lunch?

I'll just place this here. :whiste:

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

Just answer the question.

 

[mikeymikec]

Texashiker, you ignored Fatdog's question.

Civil rights are supposed to protect the rights of the individual and the rights of the many equally.

Show me where it's stated in US law that individuals are allowed to risk the lives of others.

Besides the vaccine, what else can an employer force an employee to inject into their bodies? Maybe start the day off with a few shots of whiskey? Maybe force that Muslim employee to wear a bikini and drink wine at lunch?

Judging by your response, MrPickins's post is right on the mark, IMO.

 

[Soundmanred]

LOL, you guys have already run about 6 miles trying to get into the end zone.
Hint: there isn't one.

 

[MrPickins]

Just answer the question.

Nah, I'll ignore the questions, just as you do.

LOL, you guys have already run about 6 miles trying to get into the end zone.
Hint: there isn't one.

I gotta do something while compiling. And this is amusing.

 

[JD50]

Civil rights are supposed to protect the rights of the individual and the rights of the many equally.

Besides the vaccine, what else can an employer force an employee to inject into their bodies? Maybe start the day off with a few shots of whiskey? Maybe force that Muslim employee to wear a bikini and drink wine at lunch?

Can you explain the similarities between the bold and vaccines in this context?

 

[mikeymikec]

LOL, you guys have already run about 6 miles trying to get into the end zone.
Hint: there isn't one.

This thread is already 15 pages longer than it ought to have been, in this case I'm mildly curious to know how far someone will go in an argument despite every point they've made being shot down.

 

[JD50]

Included, but the primary focus of the study was not high risk.

Again, what's the difference?

 

[JD50]

Texashiker, what is it, exactly, that you disagree with? They didn't include high risk pregnancies by accident. 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?

Bump

 

[Texashiker]

Show me where it's stated in US law that individuals are allowed to risk the lives of others.

Texashiker, what is it, exactly, that you disagree with? They didn't include high risk pregnancies by accident. 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?

Public health trumps individual rights.

However, could the employer provide the woman with a job where she does not work face-to-face with the public for the duration of the pregnancy?

Lets be honest, pregnant women are treated like cattle. The united States has a long history of not caring, firing, decriminalizing,,, and everything else against pregnant women.

In this case there is an employer who has based his opinion on speculation that is not backed up by a single scientific study.

How many studies do we have on stuff like owls, bald eagles, mice, cattle, breast implants,,,? But not a single study on the flu vaccine and high risk pregnancies?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2013/11/01/endangered-species-act-2012/

$263 million for trout.
$307 million to acquire conservation-critical habitats.
$38 million for a woodpecker
22.2 million for Steller sea lions

How much money was spent studying the flu vaccine in high risk pregnancies?

A woodpecker deserves more attention than a woman?