Forced Flu Vaccination by my Employer

[Palinurus]

We were also told that personal/religious beliefs were no longer an excuse to decline the vaccination, and we could face termination if we attempt to do so.

From what I remember, there have been rather substantial changes in legislation recently. After a search on SotT I got the following for you:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/214943-Healthcare-Workers-to-be-Fired-If-They-Refuse-Flu-Shots-Medical-Group-Demands

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234140-US-West-Virginia-Raleigh-County-Parents-Fight-Medical-Fascists-Over-Mandatory-Immunization

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/187709-Sign-the-Universal-Declaration-of-Resistance-to-Mandatory-Vaccination

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/150088-Government-Flu-Shots-From-Recommended-to-Mandatory

You can do your own search would these not be conclusive enough.

It's well worth to continue fighting against, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lilou]

Are you required to take the flu shot at the hospital? Or can you take it at the local drug store? If it doesn't matter where you get it, just purchase the flu shot (to go, tell them you're a nurse and it's for your homebound aunt or whatever) and take your employer the receipt. Tell them you've already had it. Maybe it'll fly. ;)

 

[Bresias]

WOW!!

I'm an RN in a JCAHO accredited hospital in WA state. Every autumn, we are subjected to a "Code Brown" in which all employees of the hospital are REQUIRED to either receive the flu vaccine or submit a formal refusal. "Code Brown" usually means a . . . erm, "mess"in the bed so we all chuckle at the choice of terms. . . but we are free to decide whether or not to receive the vaccine. Those who refuse vaccination fill out a deferment form and that is that. They are not required to wear a mask or other protective equipment. It remains a respected choice.

To my knowledge, those employees who refuse vaccination and still acquire a "flu" like illness are not punished. At least in my mind, personal choice is upheld by JCAHO (Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) as their requirements are upheld in healthcare institutions.

Is your institution JCAHO accredited? I wonder if your leadership team has some issues with concreteness in interpretation? Are they seeking to become accredited? What you describe goes beyond what I've experienced in modern healthcare settings.

 

[mamadrama]

...but we are free to decide whether or not to receive the vaccine. Those who refuse vaccination fill out a deferment form and that is that.

You're lucky, Briseis. I hope it stays that way for you but unfortunately, that is not the trend. I work in a JCAHO accredited hospital and it opted for mandatory flu vaccinations for all staff last year. About 30 people lost their jobs. Though some religious and medical exemptions were allowed, the hospital made it very difficult to get one. For religious exemptions, employees were subjected to a secret and lengthy questionaire, were unable to know the questions in advance and were required to complete the questionaire in front of an HR representative in one sitting. These exemptions were also given with the caveat that if there was a pandemic, they could be rescinded.

I'm really hoping someone or some group tests the legality of this in court one day soon. It's the only way we're going to find out whether we have any health care rights left in this country.

Have you been following the legistlation in WA to require medical providers to sign off on any vaccine exemptions? Just wondering if it reached an outcome.

_http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/02/wa-state-vaccination-exemptions-under-threat-privacy-violations-loom.html

WA State Vaccination Exemptions Under Threat & Privacy Violations Loom Managing Editor's Note: Vaccine exemptions are under scrutiny in Washington State, and your state may be next. You might be a parent who chooses to fully vaccinate your child from the birth dose of Hepatitis B. Perhaps you just don't want your daughter or son to receive the flu shot or the HPV (genital wart) vaccine called Gardasil, despite the child having been given all of his or her other childhood vaccinations with full compliance. You face the same threat at the parent who opts out 100%. The debate is heading toward level of emotion of Roe v. Wade. This is a hornet's nest of politics, medicine, personal rights and a religion-like zealotry. Protect your rights. You might need them tomorrow. Kim

WA State Vaccine Bill Threatens Exemptions & Violates Privacy
By Barbara Loe Fisher

If you are a resident of Washington state, you should know that there is a bill quietly sailing through your state legislature that violates your privacy and threatens your right to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccination. House Bill 1015 and Senate Bill 5005 also discriminates against parents by failing to give them equal protection under the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL 99-660).

The proposed new law will legally require doctors and nurses to personally sign off on all religious or personal belief exemptions to vaccination filed with the state. Parents seeking non-medical exemptions will be required to include a signature from a vaccine provider on the exemption form stating that they have been given vaccine benefit and risk information. Currently Washington state mandatory vaccination laws only require signatures from medical personnel when medical exemptions are filed.

If this bill becomes law, it will put doctors, nurses and other medical personnel in the legal position of acting as inquisitors of religious beliefs held by fellow citizens, which is an invasion of privacy and a de facto violation of First Amendment rights. Americans associated with the medical profession will have the power to sit in judgment of, or interfere with, the free exercise of religious, spiritual or conscientious beliefs of other Americans. It will also make it easier for doctors to punish parents making selective vaccine choices by denying their children medical care, which is the official policy of many U.S. pediatricians.

The ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking means that you, as an individual or the legal guardian of an individual, have the human right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of a medical intervention and make a voluntary decision without being harassed or coerced by anyone. The informed consent principle protects individuals in every society from exploitation by those in positions of power in medicine, government and industry.

The proposed Washington state bill makes it easier for doctors and other medical personnel to violate an individual’s informed consent rights and discriminate against those filing vaccine exemptions, who may hold different beliefs and values. Informed consent is especially important when it comes to vaccination because doctors and nurses cannot predict ahead of time who will be injured by vaccines. More than $2 billion dollars has been awarded by the U.S. Court of Claims to compensate vaccine victims, mostly children, whose doctors did not know they would suffer brain inflammation, immune dysregulation and become permanently disabled or even die after vaccination.....

 

[Ca.]

I cannot wear a mask during my shift - it is too hard to communicate and do my job, and the masks are uncomfortable and hard on sensitive skin.

May I suggest you think about this option when you're not so angry about the situation? Is wearing a mask in a hospital such a bad thing? You do work where all the sick people are?

Could you search on the net for a more comfortable mask that's hypo-allergenic? I'm betting if you went for the mask option like you really want to wear a mask, they'll tell you to stop before too long?

i agree with Guardins thoughts this is a practice that has dividends in the field as a health care provider, and is considered preventive care for self preservation in a clinical setting.

You don't want to bring any bugs, or disease home, such as TB, staff infection, common colds, flu strains, pathogen's, any and all viral effections caused by aerosol dispersion, due to coughing, or sneezing just to name few of the many conditions that could cause you trouble.

Also in these setting's people's personal hygiene, and habits is not as well thought of due to a lack of knowledge, or proper hygiene education, and even complacency, often seen in third world setting's.

What is also odd, is that coworkers complacency ( just plain laziness ) in follwing guideline's to establish a constancy within the ranks like they just don't get that your a unit, or a team, and depend on each other to maintain integrity within the ranks of the profession for the safety of each other in mind. So that was always something i would moitor, (not control) but keep my eyes open.

But i believe your aware of this choice, if its not protocol in your setting already.

Oh yeah, nix the shot at all cost if your able.

Infection control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection_control

Infection control is the discipline concerned with preventing nosocomial or healthcare-associated infection, a practical (rather than academic) sub-discipline of epidemiology. It is an essential, though often under-recognized and under-supported, part of the infrastructure of health care. Infection control and hospital epidemiology are akin to public health practice, practiced within the confines of a particular health-care delivery system rather than directed at society as a whole.
Infection control addresses factors related to the spread of infections within the health-care setting (whether patient-to-patient, from patients to staff and from staff to patients, or among-staff), including prevention (via hand hygiene/hand washing, cleaning/disinfection/sterilization, vaccination, surveillance), monitoring/investigation of demonstrated or suspected spread of infection within a particular health-care setting (surveillance and outbreak investigation), and management (interruption of outbreaks). It is on this basis that the common title being adopted within health care is "Infection Prevention & Control."

 

[Bresias]

...but we are free to decide whether or not to receive the vaccine. Those who refuse vaccination fill out a deferment form and that is that.

You're lucky, Briseis. I hope it stays that way for you but unfortunately, that is not the trend. I work in a JCAHO accredited hospital and it opted for mandatory flu vaccinations for all staff last year. About 30 people lost their jobs. Though some religious and medical exemptions were allowed, the hospital made it very difficult to get one. For religious exemptions, employees were subjected to a secret and lengthy questionaire, were unable to know the questions in advance and were required to complete the questionaire in front of an HR representative in one sitting. These exemptions were also given with the caveat that if there was a pandemic, they could be rescinded.

I'm really hoping someone or some group tests the legality of this in court one day soon. It's the only way we're going to find out whether we have any health care rights left in this country.

Have you been following the legistlation in WA to require medical providers to sign off on any vaccine exemptions? Just wondering if it reached an outcome.

_http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/02/wa-state-vaccination-exemptions-under-threat-privacy-violations-loom.html

Thanks Black Swan. I had NO idea :(

Honestly, my knee-jerk reaction when I read the OP was to wonder what COUNTRY the OP was writing from LOL and next, to reject the idea outright. NO. WAY. I know the truth is often stranger than fiction, but . . .

I found this article in a Google search: _http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Mandatory-flu-shots-or-your-job-Hospitals-get-813091.php and have been sitting here in shock since.

From the article:

"But there is a code of ethics that requires health-care workers to put the interests of patients above their own interests," Sauer said. "They care for people who are vulnerable and weak. It's a duty to not expose people, to not make them sicker."

I've been a nurse for over 20 years. There is no such "code of ethics" that requires health-care workers to put a patient's "interests" above their own. I worked in psychiatry for most of that time and took mandatory classes every year to beef up on de-escalation techniques, how to escape the violence clutches of a patient trying to assault you, that kind of stuff. In every case, when it was clear it was either "you or them", our training included techniques to save ourselves FIRST. If a patient has their hands around your neck, and you can't break their grip on you, stomp on their feet or worst case scenario, put a knee in their crotch. This is very graphic and thankfully I was not directly involved, but we had a patient expire after he hemmorrhaged from a lung cancer. He exsanguinated, and no one did CPR, the amount of blood pouring and spattering was too dangerous.

By Cassie Sauer's logic above, we should have been in there bagging and doing chest compressions while getting covered in the most toxic biohazard a human body can produce. So, um, NO.

It's such a manipulative, specious use of logic that it's practically evil.

For me, I get the flu shot, I don't want to get the flu or give it to anyone else. I comply because getting the flu shot is the right thing to do IMHO.

Here's another gem from the same article:

Timothy Dellit, the medical director for infection control at Harborview, agreed with Barton's (a local secretary/treasurer for 1199, a huge nurse's union) views. He said no evidence supports that masks prevent in-hospital flu transmissions, but said they may encourage people to get a shot.

It's great to know what our corporate level "colleagues" REALLY think of our intelligence. Sheesh.

Apparently, getting compliance is THAT important. What I'd like to see is the impact of forced vaccination compliance on the rate of flu cases in the community. Can this even be scientifically determined?

I know people in general can be short sighted and selfish, and unreasonably so. But forced compliance is just draconian. Beyond the beyonds.

 

[curious_richard]

There is no such "code of ethics" that requires health-care workers to put a patient's "interests" above their own. ... In every case, when it was clear it was either "you or them", our training included techniques to save ourselves FIRST.

I took my EMT classes a few years ago (Emergency Medical Technician, an ambulance person with medical training). Our teachers and our textbooks made it clear that the very first two important things were BSI and "scene safety". BSI means "body substance isolation", using gloves and masks as needed to prevent blood, saliva, or other substances from exposing us to any disease the patient may carry. And "scene safety" meant that we were NOT to get into any unsafe situation. Our safety is more important than "saving the patient". No heroic acts.

It was very clear that our safety was a higher priority than the patient's.

For me, I get the flu shot, I don't want to get the flu or give it to anyone else. I comply because getting the flu shot is the right thing to do IMHO.

Huh? Do you really think the flu shot will actually protect you? Really?! Okay, maybe you are one of the few that actually benefits from it.

I can say from personal experience that the "flu shot" actually causes the flu, and makes everything worse. And my extensive reading tells me that the way to avoid the flu and colds is to add vitamins C and D and replace the garbage carbohydrate diet with a more reasonable paleo diet.

I have an extensive history of flu, colds, and infections, and adding reasonable amounts of vitamin C and D (aprox 4-6 grams and 10,.000 IU per day) has helped considerably. And after reducing carbs to a reasonable level, about 20 to 30 grams per day, I have had NOT ONE flu, cold, or other infection attack.

 

[anneofmi]

I am a registered nurse in Michigan and the hospital I work for informed us there will be no exemptions for the flu vaccine in 2013. I will not take the shot because I do not want neurotoxic materials injected into my bloodstream where they can travel and pass the blood brain barrier and cause brain and organ damage. Dr. Rebecca Carley has an article called, "Vaccination: The True Weapons of Mass Destruction." This article talks about the immune system and how vaccination bypasses the immune system of the gut by injecting materials into the bloodstream. Very informative.

 

[Guardian]

Has anyone tried going on the offensive in these forced flu shot situations?

I'm thinking that maybe a lawyer could draft a document that the employer must sign stating that they will assume any and all costs associated with any side effects caused by the required vaccination? Should anyone become ill or disabled by the vaccine, immediately, or at a future date, the employer who required the vaccine is liable.

When the employer demands you take the vaccination, don't refuse. Instead demand they sign the document which guarantees they will assume ALL liability for any damages caused to you by the vaccination.

That should put their panties in a twist for awhile, and you haven't "refused" the vaccine, you are just making the very reasonable demand that they assume responsibility for the effects of the vaccine you're being required to take.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense?

 

[Guardian]

If it doesn't matter where you get it, just purchase the flu shot (to go, tell them you're a nurse and it's for your homebound aunt or whatever) and take your employer the receipt. Tell them you've already had it.

I REALLY like how you think! "Oh, I already had my flu shot hon, here's the receipt"

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

I REALLY like how you think! "Oh, I already had my flu shot hon, here's the receipt"

That's really great if that's all it takes to get you off the hook.
In my country (Belgium), you would need something signed by the doctor who administered the shot. And even doctors who are against vaccines won't help (by saying you've had it when you in fact haven't, for example). They're too scared to lose the right to practice. I've looked into the matter (I'm working in a school and there were talks about forced vaccinations last year) and refusal to be vaccinated gives the employer the right to fire you (it's considered a force majeure). Period.
They have the law with them. It's just your obligation as an employee to comply with all exams and vaccinations an employer wants to impose.
Here they don't care about any document about them assuming any liability, it's either get vaccinated or get fired...

 

[Guardian]

They have the law with them. It's just your obligation as an employee to comply with all exams and vaccinations an employer wants to impose.
Here they don't care about any document about them assuming any liability, it's either get vaccinated or get fired...

Geezzz...that sucks! I'm so sorry.

In the US, however, it is VERY different. "Liability" is a HUGE issue due to insurance and a variety of other issues.

The basic principle of US law which would apply seems to be pretty clear? Your employer must assume all risks associated with any task you are required to perform as part of your employment.

The various vaccines they use all have a longgggg list of acknowledged "side effects" ...as well as a bunch of problems they don't yet acknowledge.

A person is ordered, as a condition of employment, to accept these chemicals in their body, hence the employer should be legally responsible for any and all problems that arise.

It seems to me that if the employer refuses to acknowledge their responsibly for any "side effects" and/or any physical or emotional issues caused by the vaccine, the employee has a completely different reason to refuse the vaccine until the employer agrees to accept full liability for the vaccination they are requiring?

 

[Mike]

Geezzz...that sucks! I'm so sorry.

In the US, however, it is VERY different. "Liability" is a HUGE issue due to insurance and a variety of other issues.

The basic principle of US law which would apply seems to be pretty clear? Your employer must assume all risks associated with any task you are required to perform as part of your employment.

The various vaccines they use all have a longgggg list of acknowledged "side effects" ...as well as a bunch of problems they don't yet acknowledge.

A person is ordered, as a condition of employment, to accept these chemicals in their body, hence the employer should be legally responsible for any and all problems that arise.

It seems to me that if the employer refuses to acknowledge their responsibly for any "side effects" and/or any physical or emotional issues caused by the vaccine, the employee has a completely different reason to refuse the vaccine until the employer agrees to accept full liability for the vaccination they are requiring?

Makes sense to me Guardian. The forced vaccination topic and people being fired for not wanting them gets me worked up. They force people to get them and at least some of the drug companies that make them (like in the case of the swine flu vaccine) have immunity from lawsuits.

 

[Guardian]

Makes sense to me Guardian. The forced vaccination topic and people being fired for not wanting them gets me worked up. They force people to get them and at least some of the drug companies that make them (like in the case of the swine flu vaccine) have immunity from lawsuits.

Exactly, so it is certainly reasonable to insist that your employer assume legal responsibility for the longgggg list of possible side effects. You'd have to document all the stuff that's happened to people using the particular vaccine(s) you're being forced to take...but I don't think that would be very difficult to do.

 

[Lilou]

It is fairly easy to outsmart the system here. In the case of child vaccinations for school, one could simply supply the school with a date for each vaccination. Since the school does not call and verify anything, who's to know?

When my kids transferred to the states, all I gave them were dates and said they were given overseas. No other questions were asked. I suppose, some of these loop holes will close as time goes on. And then of course, they may even attach nanochips, that allow them to know if you've had your meds or not.

In the case of needing a doc's signature...I'm afraid I'd have to sign it myself before I'd take a vaccine. I guess since I worked in the medical field for so long...I have no doubt that it would pass unnoticed, especially if you voiced no protest.