Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[nehalem256]

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.

Its good to know that mandating medical procedures on pregnant women is now allowed :thumbsup:

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.

"'should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed" doesn't seem particularly unclear to me.

The manufacturer of the vaccine seems to be saying that you shouldn't give the vaccine to pregnant women unless advised by a physician due to some other medical issues.

 

[Fatdog]

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?

Did you not read anything in the last 15 pages?

 

[shira]

But not a single study on the flu vaccine and high risk pregnancies?

Why are you just ignoring all of the posts - made by me and others - that demonstrate that this position of yours is just utterly wrong?

A single study that addresses N subgroups is identical to N studies that each address a different subgroup.

 

[mikeymikec]

Public health trumps individual rights.

Is that the sound of you conceding the civil rights argument?

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?

Surely that's up to the employer? Someone already made a point about nursing staff preferring roles that aren't directly patient-facing, so those roles are in greater demand already, what are the chances of availability going to be?

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

Your point here entirely lacks substance and you've ignored a load of posts pointing out why. Probably half the posts in this thread raise valid reasons why you're wrong but you ignore them.

Whether the employer, employee, and/or employee's doctor did their homework to address the concerns of the employee is in question AFAIK, but that's about the only issue I see here.

 

[JD50]

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?

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?

 

[JD50]

Why are you just ignoring all of the posts - made by me and others - that demonstrate that this position of yours is just utterly wrong?

A single study that addresses N subgroups is identical to N studies that each address a different subgroup.

Exactly

 

[Texashiker]

Why are you just ignoring all of the posts - made by me and others - that demonstrate that this position of yours is just utterly wrong?

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

the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). This southeastern species received nearly $38 million in conservation funding.

And not a single study where the primary focus group was high risk pregnancies?

 

[Moonbeam]

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



And not a single study where the primary focus group was high risk pregnancies?

You should see what Bush spent to kill pregnant women in Iraq.

 

[mikeymikec]

"'should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed" doesn't seem particularly unclear to me.

What does "only if clearly needed?" mean exactly? Flu vaccines are given to pregnant women because they're at increased risk of infection, so that sounds like "clearly needed" scenario, doesn't it? Or perhaps does it mean "use this only if she's the last fertile woman on the planet, there's a flu epidemic and we've got nothing to lose"?

Or perhaps, and somewhat more likely, that there is a potential complication for pregnant women with something specific in their medical history?

If a medical professional prescribed a form of medication specifically for me and and the paperwork mentioned a warning for a condition I've been diagnosed with, I would follow that up, not make an ill-informed snap judgement. While it is a reasonable assumption that the medical professional had taken my medical history into account and correctly decided that the warning did not include someone with my history, it's not necessarily guaranteed.

In my experience, it is pretty common for forms of medication to list side-effect symptoms that are exactly what the medication is meant to address. If patients go around making snap judgements about the suitability of their medication based on things like that, there would be a lot less people in the world.

 

[MrPickins]

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?

It's Texashiker's way.

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

And not a single study where the primary focus group was high risk pregnancies?

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

Do you enjoy reveling in your ignorance?

 

[mikeymikec]

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

And not a single study where the primary focus group was high risk pregnancies?

Wow, I haven't heard the equivalent of the stereotypical elderly-lady argument of "Well, it just goes to show, they can put a man on the moon but they can't... <insert something utterly unrelated here>!", in a long time!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Good lord, what an inane thread. Sometimes (OK, usually) TexasHiker threads really make me scratch my head in wonder . . .

 

[glenn1]

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?

Just answer the question.

Supreme Court has already ruled on the "civil rights" issue you raised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

And yes, a uniform could be a condition of employement. Up to and including a bikini (e.g. Hooters restaurants).

 

[Texashiker]

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

Do you enjoy reveling in your ignorance?

Wow, I haven't heard the equivalent of the stereotypical elderly-lady argument of "Well, it just goes to show, they can put a man on the moon but they can't... <insert something utterly unrelated here>!", in a long time!

Just not willing to admit we as a society are not doing enough to study womens health?

http://sadhillnews.com/2010/11/05/700000-to-study-cow-burps-awarded-to-university-of-new-hampshire

The Department of Agriculture awarded the University of New Hampshire $700,000 this year investigating methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

$700,000 spent on cow burps, and how much was spent on studying the flu vaccine in high risk pregnancies?

 

[MrPickins]

Just not willing to admit we as a society are not doing enough to study womens health?

You found me out.

I fucking hate women, especially pregnant ones. Which is why I'm glad they were excluded from the studies referenced in this thread.

 

[shira]

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

And not a single study where the primary focus group was high risk pregnancies?

Why are you confusing research on pregnant women with research on vaccines?

If someone wanted to understand why women in general have miscarriages - from all causes, and how to prevent them - then there would be studies where the ONLY focus group would be high-risk women.

But you're confusing the above type of study with a vaccine study. Vaccine studies aren't trying to understand anything about high-risk pregnant women other than how they react to a single vaccine. So the SOLE methodology is to observe the negative health events of both vaccinated and un-vaccinated people over time. There's absolutely nothing else that a vaccine study is trying to determine, so no "special" study for any subgroup is required.

 

[glenn1]

Just not willing to admit we as a society are not doing enough to study womens health?

http://sadhillnews.com/2010/11/05/700000-to-study-cow-burps-awarded-to-university-of-new-hampshire

$700,000 spent on cow burps, and how much was spent on studying the flu vaccine in high risk pregnancies?

You're right we should spend more on women's health studies. It is also completely irrelevant to the fact that the nurse deserves to be fired and is actually making her pregnancy more risky and not less by refusing vaccination.

 

[Texashiker]

Why are you confusing research on pregnant women with research on vaccines?

Citing health concerns the woman in the opening post was fired for not taking a vaccine.

Not a single study has been done on the effects of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

But we can spend hundreds of millions studying animals?

 

[TraumaRN]

Just not willing to admit we as a society are not doing enough to study womens health?

http://sadhillnews.com/2010/11/05/700000-to-study-cow-burps-awarded-to-university-of-new-hampshire


$700,000 spent on cow burps, and how much was spent on studying the flu vaccine in high risk pregnancies?

Enough with the bullshit one sided argument. If you can find how much was spent on cow burps then you can just as easily find how much money was spent on women's health reasearch. And stop acting like you care about womens rights you clearly don't. It is so clear that you don't because you continue to ignore my calls for what you've done for women's health besides supporting their oppression in your home state.

 

[Texashiker]

Enough with the bullshit one sided argument.

Yea, this argument is kinda one sided, as you have nothing to backup your argument.

If you can find how much was spent on cow burps then you can just as easily find how much money was spent on women's health reasearch.

How much was spent studying high risk pregnancies?

This is not about womens health in general. We are talking about a specific high risk demographic.

If this was an woodpecker we were talking about, the government would be shoveling money into the studies. But because this is about pregnant women, nobody gives a rats ass.

 

[shira]

Citing health concerns the woman in the opening post was fired for not taking a vaccine.

Not a single study has been done on the effects of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

But we can spend hundreds of millions studying animals?

Why don't you describe for us how a "study on the effects of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies" would proceed? Explain to us how it would be different from including thousands of high-risk pregnant women in a "regular" vaccine study.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The National Institutes of Health spent $3,857,000,000 this year on research related to women's health. That is budgeted to increase by $13M next year. http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

Ironically, but for the existence of this stupid thread, I have no doubt TH would be indignant that so much money was being spent.

 

[shira]

The National Institutes of Health spent $3,857,000,000 this year on research related to women's health. That is budgeted to increase by $13M next year. http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

Ironically, but for the existence of this stupid thread, I have no doubt TH would be indignant that so much money was being spent.

Prediction: He'll just repeat the same question he's repeated 100 times in this thread. He won't make any attempt at a rational response. He'll just argue that if $5 million is spent on a frog, then $5 million needs to be spent on "vaccines for high-risk pregnant women."

It's totally mindless. And what's frightening is the possibility that he truly looks at the world this way.

 

[TraumaRN]

Yea, this argument is kinda one sided, as you have nothing to backup your argument.



How much was spent studying high risk pregnancies?

This is not about womens health in general. We are talking about a specific high risk demographic.

If this was an woodpecker we were talking about, the government would be shoveling money into the studies. But because this is about pregnant women, nobody gives a rats ass.

I've got plenty to backup my argument, you've got nothing. We've all posted numerous studies that you continue to ignore. I refuse to repost the numerous studies because you continue to ignore it. The evidence is there, you simply will continue to ignore them.

Moreover you started the bullshit about cow burp studies so you find me the numerous studies that RIGHT NOW are being done on high risk pregnancies. You find the dollar amounts. You started this, you still have the burden of proof to prove your claim about women's health and high risk pregnancy spending, so put up or shut the fuck up.

 

[JD50]

Citing health concerns the woman in the opening post was fired for not taking a vaccine.

Not a single study has been done on the effects of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies.

But we can spend hundreds of millions studying animals?

Yes, there has. They were included in the study of the effects of the flu vaccine on pregnant women. Why do you keep repeating this?