What do you think of this? -- Nurse Fired for Refusing Flu Shot

[Tammyla]

I'm surprised by it. I wonder if it's covered in their contract???

[Delighted3]

I personally am tired of being told that I need to compromise my health or the health of my family for the sake of others or to save people money or to fulfill some government mandate. My family is very healthy. We don't get flu shots or any other vaccines either. That is a choice we have made. One of my children has asthma/food allergies and I have to work hard to keep her healthy especially in flu season. As stated before, vaccinations are somewhat of a crapshoot on how effective they are. I would like the freedom to make the choice that is best for my family.

Joy

[littlebug42]

The hospital that I work for began requiring flu shots this year. You were exempt if you had a documented allergy/doctor's note or a religious objection. We were told well in advance that no flu shot by the deadline stated was equal to voluntary resignation of your job. If anyone at our hospital loses their job over the flu shot, they knew what was going to happen if they didn't do it and I suspect that is the case in the other situations as well. Hospitals are under increasing pressure nationwide to decrease the number of secondary infections and patient safety issues in their facilities. We have been doing a ton of mandatory training this year on just these issues. It is the same reason I have to have a TB test every year to continue employment at the hospital. Personally, since I started working in the hospital, I get the flu shot anyway to try to minimize what I bring home to my kids. It may not be perfect but so far, so good and no flu for me.

[jennynd]

I think the request is reasonable considering they are health professional. I will not want my kids not get cough on or touch by a sick nurse/doctor.

[Joker]

The hospital that I work for began requiring flu shots this year. You were exempt if you had a documented allergy/doctor's note or a religious objection. We were told well in advance that no flu shot by the deadline stated was equal to voluntary resignation of your job. If anyone at our hospital loses their job over the flu shot, they knew what was going to happen if they didn't do it and I suspect that is the case in the other situations as well. Hospitals are under increasing pressure nationwide to decrease the number of secondary infections and patient safety issues in their facilities. We have been doing a ton of mandatory training this year on just these issues. It is the same reason I have to have a TB test every year to continue employment at the hospital. Personally, since I started working in the hospital, I get the flu shot anyway to try to minimize what I bring home to my kids. It may not be perfect but so far, so good and no flu for me.

 

Many are upset by this nurse's firing though because she filed two medical exemptions and a religious exemption. There were also obviously about 1300 who did not receive the 'mandatory' flu shot, but only 8 were fired. It's either mandatory or it's not. If the other 1292 people filed exemptions and were allowed, I would really like to know why those 8 were not.

 

We've never had the flu shot and only had the flu once which was earlier this year. It was horrible but we haven't taken the flu shot again this year. I've gone back and forth with it, but every single person locally that I know who had/has the flu this season received the shot and it's obvioulsy doing nothing. We're taking supplements and washing our hands a lot. I feel better taking our chances with the flu again than I do about getting the vaccine.

[laundrycrisis]

Don't want a vaccination? Don't work in traditional healthcare.

 

Don't want to give up personal sovereignty over your own body ? Then don't work in any industry that strips its employees of their most personal, private liberties and forces them to relinquish decision-making power regarding their own personal health care. Dang straight :(

 

I am already telling our boys to steer clear of the health care field - not because of the flu vaccine specifically, but because of the way the industry in this country violates the personal rights and dignity of its employees, and forces them to be human guinea pigs in their large-scale vaccine trials. It's deeply unethical.

[laundrycrisis]

I think the request is reasonable considering they are health professional. I will not want my kids not get cough on or touch by a sick nurse/doctor.

 

 

Nobody would. But skipping the vaccines does not equal getting sick, or being sick !!!! Health care workers should not go to work when they are sick, period. If parents are worried about their kids being exposed to germs from health care workers, parents should have the right to request that all workers who have contact with their child wash hands and put on a mask and gloves.

 

We do not have the right to require anyone to have foreign materials injected into their bodies. Even if it seems reasonable to 99% of the workers, the 1% that does not want it should have the right to say no without repercussions.

[mom31257]

Personally, I think nurses should have to take extra precautions around the medically fragile all year long, not just during flu season. They should have to wear gloves and masks around them because they could give any kind of illness to those kind of patients. If they did that any way, I don't think the flu shot would be need to be required. It doesn't take care of every strain of flu, so I'd rather the nurse have gloves and a mask than a flu shot that might not work.

[laundrycrisis]

I'm not sure what kind of science proves that flu shots don't work.

 

 

http://www.scientifi...-the-very-young

 

There is frankly not enough evidence that they do work. That is what has to be proven.

[laundrycrisis]

I would be less skeptical about the flu vaccine mandate if hospitals were not going to get a 2 point or 2 %( can't remember right now which it is) increase in Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement from the Feds if they get their vaccinations rates up to par. Do not be fooled by any health care establishment stating this is to improve patient care or anything like that. It is all about bottom line profit. Force everyone to get a flu shot and we get a kickback. That is all that is behind the mandate.

 

I've always said that if we could follow the money and the stock options of those in gov and on hospital boards, CDC, and other gov. agencies, we would be shocked at how closely tied to Big Pharm it all is. The flu vaccine is the bread and butter of the industry. The more people that can be forced into it, the more money a lot of higher ups make. The health industry is managed a lot like the schools. A lot of higher ups calling the shots based on bottom line while the drs and nurses are wallowing the trenches trying to make it work. I'm frustrated with it. We're screaming for flu shots and we have people dying like flies with diabetes,unhealthy living and eating and not doing jack to right that. But we can make sure everyone has a flu shot. Cause the flu shot will do more for you than eating well, exercising, and staying healthy. We need to change our focus.

 

 

Ding ding ding ! Yes. Follow the money.

[jennynd]

 

 

Nobody would. But skipping the vaccines does not equal getting sick, or being sick !!!! Health care workers should not go to work when they are sick, period. If parents are worried about their kids being exposed to germs from health care workers, parents should have the right to request that all workers who have contact with their child wash hands and put on a mask and gloves.

 

We do not have the right to require anyone to have foreign materials injected into their bodies. Even if is seems reasonable to 99% of the workers, the 1% that does not want it should have the right to say no without repercussions.

You know any sickness, there is a period that is contiguous but no symptoms. And sure the nurse has a choice if she not willing to take the flu shot.. Quit

It is like I work in front of computer all day at work, I can't go to my boss and tell him that since computer is not good for my health, I refuse to use it again,.. Guess what my boss will say? He will ask me go packing.

 

No, not getting flu shot sure doesn't equal being sick. But it sure reduce the probability.

[Ali in OR]

http://www.scientifi...-the-very-young

 

There is frankly not enough evidence that they do work. That is what has to be proven.

 

Not true. I just finished the book The Great Influenza which in addition to covering the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic spends quite a bit of time on scientific advances in medicine in the first part of the 20th century. We have vaccines because the evidence that they work is actually pretty dramatic. As the medical scientists worked desperately to try to understand the causative pathogen in that epidemic, they took the vaccines that they did come up with which helped against the secondary infections that they were designed for (pneumococcus type I and II for instance) but not the flu itself because they didn't know until much later what caused it. They couldn't build a vaccine for something that they couldn't find. The science is pretty clear that vaccines do largely prevent the virus that they are designed to target.

 

This is really a public health issue. For the good of the public at large, it is beneficial to have as many people vaccinated against the flu as possible. People working in the health industry need to support what's good for the public at large over their personal right to decide whether or not to have a flu shot. Studies with control groups show that populations that get flu shots have fewer cases of flu than populations without flu shots (one that I saw last year or the year before looked at an elementary school that required flu shots and compared to schools that didn't--dramatically lower incidence of the flu). The CDC would not recommend flu shots if well-designed scientific studies didn't show a statistically significant advantage to populations that are vaccinated. We just live in an era that doesn't trust science anymore.

[mommaduck]

 

Not true. I just finished the book The Great Influenza which in addition to covering the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic spends quite a bit of time on scientific advances in medicine in the first part of the 20th century. We have vaccines because the evidence that they work is actually pretty dramatic. As the medical scientists worked desperately to try to understand the causative pathogen in that epidemic, they took the vaccines that they did come up with which helped against the secondary infections that they were designed for (pneumococcus type I and II for instance) but not the flu itself because they didn't know until much later what caused it. They couldn't build a vaccine for something that they couldn't find. The science is pretty clear that vaccines do largely prevent the virus that they are designed to target.

 

This is really a public health issue. For the good of the public at large, it is beneficial to have as many people vaccinated against the flu as possible. People working in the health industry need to support what's good for the public at large over their personal right to decide whether or not to have a flu shot. Studies with control groups show that populations that get flu shots have fewer cases of flu than populations without flu shots (one that I saw last year or the year before looked at an elementary school that required flu shots and compared to schools that didn't--dramatically lower incidence of the flu). The CDC would not recommend flu shots if well-designed scientific studies didn't show a statistically significant advantage to populations that are vaccinated. We just live in an era that doesn't trust science anymore.

 

My understanding is that there was an issue with them vaccinating (at the time it was live vaccination) soldiers and then sending them home for leave before sending them to war and that is how it spread. The vaccine actually CAUSED the epidemic. The vaccination was due to foreign troops having been exposed in foreign areas...it was not something that was an issue here till they vaccinated the soldiers and then released them into the general populace.

[TracyP]

 

This is really a public health issue. For the good of the public at large, it is beneficial to have as many people vaccinated against the flu as possible. People working in the health industry need to support what's good for the public at large over their personal right to decide whether or not to have a flu shot. Studies with control groups show that populations that get flu shots have fewer cases of flu than populations without flu shots (one that I saw last year or the year before looked at an elementary school that required flu shots and compared to schools that didn't--dramatically lower incidence of the flu). The CDC would not recommend flu shots if well-designed scientific studies didn't show a statistically significant advantage to populations that are vaccinated. We just live in an era that doesn't trust science anymore.

 

Scientists have valid questions about the efficacy of the flu vaccine. This is another U of MN study discussing the need for changes in the flu vaccine. The CDC (as noted in the article I linked in a previous post) quietly changed their website from stating that the flu vaccine was 70-90% effective to 50-70% effective after the study from the U of MN came out last year. I assume the CDC did this because they trusted their research. This would be the study that FaithManor linked. I listened to Osterholm (the author of the study) on the radio when this first was released and he said that this was a major failure by vaccine standards.

[readinmom]

Ridiculous. Only called in absent 4 or 5 times in 22 years? Sounds like she was targeted because of pension or higher earning wages.

[laundrycrisis]

Not true. I just finished the book The Great Influenza which in addition to covering the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic spends quite a bit of time on scientific advances in medicine in the first part of the 20th century. We have vaccines because the evidence that they work is actually pretty dramatic. As the medical scientists worked desperately to try to understand the causative pathogen in that epidemic, they took the vaccines that they did come up with which helped against the secondary infections that they were designed for (pneumococcus type I and II for instance) but not the flu itself because they didn't know until much later what caused it. They couldn't build a vaccine for something that they couldn't find. The science is pretty clear that vaccines do largely prevent the virus that they are designed to target.

 

This is really a public health issue. For the good of the public at large, it is beneficial to have as many people vaccinated against the flu as possible. People working in the health industry need to support what's good for the public at large over their personal right to decide whether or not to have a flu shot. Studies with control groups show that populations that get flu shots have fewer cases of flu than populations without flu shots (one that I saw last year or the year before looked at an elementary school that required flu shots and compared to schools that didn't--dramatically lower incidence of the flu). The CDC would not recommend flu shots if well-designed scientific studies didn't show a statistically significant advantage to populations that are vaccinated. We just live in an era that doesn't trust science anymore.

 

 

There is not enough evidence that the flu vacccines consistently work well enough to justify they hype they are being both sold and required with. No matter how big a banner they fly to hype this, just because it's the government/pharma machine is not enough of a reason for me to just trust them and believe. The data that has been reviewed so far is simply not convincing. I look at the science, not the spin.

[Supertechmom]

Okay finally got back and found some of the links discussing hospital reimbursement.

 

 

This is one of the links detailing the either extra payment or withholding of 2% of payment if providers do not comply with Centers of Medicare and Medicaid policies. It’s the most recent copy I could find off of their website but it lists under background the following:

 

“This section of the MMA authorized CMS to pay hospitals that successfully report designated quality measures a higher annual update to their payment rates. Initially, the MMA provided for a 0.4 percentage point reduction in the annual market basket (the measure of inflation in costs of goods and services used by hospitals in treating Medicare patients) update for hospitals that did not successfully report. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 increased that reduction to 2.0 percentage points. In addition to giving hospitals a financial incentive to report the quality of their services, the hospital

reporting program provides CMS with data to help consumers make more informed decisions about their health care. Some of the hospital quality of care information gathered through the program is available to consumers on the Hospital Compare website at: www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov.â€

 

copied/pasted from here

http://www.cms.gov/M...QDAPU200808.pdf

 

Now from the CDC mandating reporting flu shot

http://www.cdc.gov/n...-Acute-Care.pdf

 

“….More specifically, the rule announced a requirement for acute care hospitals to report HCP influenza vaccination summary data beginning on January 1, 2013. Subsequently, on August 1, 2012, CMS posted a Final Rule in the Federal Register indicating that although the required submission of HCP summary data for the Hospital IQR Program begins with the first quarter of 2013, CMS will accept voluntary submission of data from…â€

 

 

 

 

 

From those two pieces of info, hospitals are mandating the flu vaccine for health care workers (and in my area for anyone working there regardless of patient exposure or even if they are a hospital employee- all students and those in training programs are included). Not one word has been mentioned about patient care. It is to keep their reimbursement high. When questioned by me about the side effects of the flu vaccine and if the hospital would cover me under any policy if I was injured from the vaccine the answer was NO. I must have it to work there. If i get hurt by it, tough. That's not exactly warm fuzzies and we care about the patient at all attitude going on there. The funnier part is the doctors are not being mandated to get it. Many of them either get it or produce documents to exempt or some just laugh and say no. Nothing is done to the drs. But everyone else is in dire straits over it.

 

 

I absolutely do trust science. I no longer trust scientists who are funded and backed and wooed by Big Pharm.. The science is simple enough to understand and follow. The conclusions one can draw are all over the place and very much determined by whom you accept support. Not so much by the science.

[staceyobu]

 

Don't want a vaccination? Don't work in traditional healthcare.

 

 

So, healthcare workers have no right to say what medications are put into their body? Most hospitals won't exempt you from the policy even if you are pregnant. I looked up all the articles I could find on flu shots before flu season last year and didn't find a single one that pointed to flu shots being effective. I would love if someone could find some specifics on flu shot effectiveness.

[Girl Power]

I think it's idiotic to lose your job over something like that. I'm assuming the nurse didn't have any kind of sensitivity to vaccines or else she could have gotten a doctor's note, so why in the world wouldn't she just get the stupid shot? Given that we live in a world where employers are apparently free to fire people they find overly attractive and to choose which medications their insurance won't cover for religious reasons, I think it's very reasonable for an employer to let go someone who is willing to compromise the health of patients because she doesn't want to get a flu shot.

 

 

Totally agree. Sorry, I'm not a big fan of the flu shot and don't get my children vaccinated. But I'm a nurse and my hospital has the same policy. If I refuse, I am terminated. It is their policy, and if I choose to work there I abide by it. That's life. My personal feelings about the flu shot don't matter. If I want a job, I meet their requirements.

 

I'm sure they gave her many warnings and I can't drum up sympathy for someone who throws away a decent job because of a flu shot.

 

Beck

[TranquilMind]

'Supertechmom'

I would be less skeptical about the flu vaccine mandate if hospitals were not going to get a 2 point or 2 %( can't remember right now which it is) increase in Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement from the Feds if they get their vaccinations rates up to par. Do not be fooled by any health care establishment stating this is to improve patient care or anything like that. It is all about bottom line profit. Force everyone to get a flu shot and we get a kickback. That is all that is behind the mandate.

 

EXACTLY! It is always about the money, and almost never about any "benefit" to anyone.

 

I've always said that if we could follow the money and the stock options of those in gov and on hospital boards, CDC, and other gov. agencies, we would be shocked at how closely tied to Big Pharm it all is. The flu vaccine is the bread and butter of the industry. The more people that can be forced into it, the more money a lot of higher ups make. The health industry is managed a lot like the schools. A lot of higher ups calling the shots based on bottom line while the drs and nurses are wallowing the trenches trying to make it work. I'm frustrated with it. We're screaming for flu shots and we have people dying like flies with diabetes,unhealthy living and eating and not doing jack to right that. But we can make sure everyone has a flu shot. Cause the flu shot will do more for you than eating well, exercising, and staying healthy. We need to change our focus.

 

 

Yes, ma'am.

 

I don't even call it health care. Mainstream medicine is about fixing things after they are already broken with surgery or medications. It's actually sick care.

[Girl Power]

So, healthcare workers have no right to say what medications are put into their body? Most hospitals won't exempt you from the policy even if you are pregnant. I looked up all the articles I could find on flu shots before flu season last year and didn't find a single one that pointed to flu shots being effective. I would love if someone could find some specifics on flu shot effectiveness.

 

 

Their priority is keeping their patients healthy and, in their view, having staff with direct patient care vaccinated works toward that goal. So, yes, to that end they do have a say.

 

Beck

[TranquilMind]

 

 

I'm sure they gave her many warnings and I can't drum up sympathy for someone who throws away a decent job because of a flu shot.

 

Beck

 

 

That's really easy for you - or any of us- to say from a distance. We don't know what she has seen, what she knows, and how she or family members have reacted to shots in the past. We don't know her allergies. We don't know why this is worth it to her. Maybe it's just about the principle of the thing.

[TranquilMind]

So, healthcare workers have no right to say what medications are put into their body? Most hospitals won't exempt you from the policy even if you are pregnant. I looked up all the articles I could find on flu shots before flu season last year and didn't find a single one that pointed to flu shots being effective. I would love if someone could find some specifics on flu shot effectiveness.

 

 

I've been waiting on this too.

[TranquilMind]

Ridiculous. Only called in absent 4 or 5 times in 22 years? Sounds like she was targeted because of pension or higher earning wages.

 

 

That, most likely, and they also have to bring these pesky individuals who are noncompliant into lockstep.

[TranquilMind]

You know any sickness, there is a period that is contiguous but no symptoms. And sure the nurse has a choice if she not willing to take the flu shot.. Quit

It is like I work in front of computer all day at work, I can't go to my boss and tell him that since computer is not good for my health, I refuse to use it again,.. Guess what my boss will say? He will ask me go packing.

 

No, not getting flu shot sure doesn't equal being sick. But it sure reduce the probability.

 

 

Your company is not forcing you to inject your computer into your body. Sure you have to look at it, but you have options. You can get up and walk away, take breaks. No breaks from the adjuvants inside you.

[Girl Power]

That's really easy for you - or any of us- to say from a distance. We don't know what she has seen, what she knows, and how she or family members have reacted to shots in the past. We don't know her allergies. We don't know why this is worth it to her. Maybe it's just about the principle of the thing.

 

 

If she has a documented reaction, that would have exempted her. As far as principle, only she can decide if taking a principled stand against a vaccine is worth losing a job over.

 

Beck

[TranquilMind]

Many are upset by this nurse's firing though because she filed two medical exemptions and a religious exemption. There were also obviously about 1300 who did not receive the 'mandatory' flu shot, but only 8 were fired. It's either mandatory or it's not. If the other 1292 people filed exemptions and were allowed, I would really like to know why those 8 were not.

 

We've never had the flu shot and only had the flu once which was earlier this year. It was horrible but we haven't taken the flu shot again this year. I've gone back and forth with it, but every single person locally that I know who had/has the flu this season received the shot and it's obvioulsy doing nothing. We're taking supplements and washing our hands a lot. I feel better taking our chances with the flu again than I do about getting the vaccine.

 

 

Oh yes, the medical exemptions....

 

Those require a doctor sign-off indicating that the risks are too high to this patient to gamble on the vaccine. So, this just is irrelevant now?

[TranquilMind]

'mumto2'

We just got our flu shots yesterday. I am pro flu vacine simply because I spent over 100 days in the hospital when pregnant with ds. At least 5 of my assigned nurses came down with and left their shift because of the flu. I never caught it -- I was vacinated.

 

Or maybe you just had a good immune system and the vaccine would have been completely irrelevant to you. You do realize people get the vaccine and then the flu all the time. Others do not get the flu, regardless of status.

[TranquilMind]

'dirty ethel rackham':

If the flu vaccine had a decent track record of actually preventing the flu, then I would have a little more support for this policy. But, the vaccine is formulated, not on exact science, but on educated guesses, guesses that are more often wrong than right. My mom used to get a flu shot. Every year she got the shot, she ended up on the hospital with "flu-like symptoms" that they refused to call the flu, but still treated her as quaranteened. Then, she would cycle in an out of the hospital with nosocomial infections - most often c. diff. Her bouts with c. diff were much more life-threatening than the original "flu" was. Even though all the medical staff went by the party line that all elderly should get flu shots, we convinced her to stop ... she was never hospitalized with the flu after that.

 

Interesting. Yes, it is appalling how the symptoms could not POSSIBLY be the flu even though she obviously has it, all to support some political stance.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Anyway, glad she listened to you. My Mom had a run in with c. dif. once that took months to eradicate, courtesy of a hospital stay.

 

 

 

To say that you should restrict people from working in hospitals who don't have the flu vaccine is ridiculous. It is not a guarantee against transmitting the disease because it is not a guarantee against getting the disease. A bigger problem is health care workers coming to work sick. I can't tell you how many times I had to forbid certain nurses and patient techs from entering my mom's room when they were hacking and coughing. She was the safest when she was in isolation due to the precautions taking by everyone entering the room.

 

 

Yes, so true.

[TranquilMind]

I think firing someone for refusing a vaccine that is only 59% effective is ridiculous. I don't know if I would agree with firing someone even if the vaccine was 95% effective, but at least there would be an argument in my mind. This year I would take the nurse wearing a face mask over the nurse with the flu shot any day.

 

 

Absolutely. Face mask and clean gloves every single time.

[TranquilMind]

This. Exactly ! The false sense of security associated with the flu vaccine is making patients more vulnerable to catching various things from the health care workers.

 

 

Medical theater. Like the security theater in the airport.

[TranquilMind]

If she has a documented reaction, that would have exempted her. As far as principle, only she can decide if taking a principled stand against a vaccine is worth losing a job over.

 

Beck

 

 

Didn't it say she had filed two medical exemptions? Or am I missing something?

[Girl Power]

Didn't it say she had filed two medical exemptions? Or am I missing something?

 

 

She may have submitted a request for medical exemption, but they obviously didn't grant it. Don't know what criteria her hospital uses to grant/deny exemptions. I know at our hospital you need to submit your exemption request far enough in advance for it to be evaluated/reviewed and a decision made prior to the deadline.

 

Beck

[TranquilMind]

She may have submitted a request for medical exemption, but they obviously didn't grant it. Don't know what criteria her hospital uses to grant/deny exemptions. I know at our hospital you need to submit your exemption request far enough in advance for it to be evaluated/reviewed and a decision made prior to the deadline.

 

Beck

 

 

She should win on the religious claim under Title VII anyway. Also, under the First Amendment, the organization is not entitled to decide whether her religious exemption is "legimate" or meets any criteria it might decide to impose to inhibit her exercise of her belief. She obviously does hold a strong belief there, as she had refused the shots for the previous 21 years, I think it said.

[Reya]

The flu vaccine is only about 60% effective in any given year, and just because you've had a shot doesn't make the flu less communicable between a nurses patients through contact.

 

 

"Need to treat" numbers for heart medications are usually 150 or higher. Public health is about total number of incidences, not a single person's risk.

[Reya]

She should win on the religious claim under Title VII anyway. Also, under the First Amendment, the organization is not entitled to decide whether her religious exemption is "legimate" or meets any criteria it might decide to impose to inhibit her exercise of her belief. She obviously does hold a strong belief there, as she had refused the shots for the previous 21 years, I think it said.

 

 

If it's a religious claim.....what is she doing working as a nurse? Religions that reject vaccinations reject all medicine.

 

Anyhow, assuming she really DOES have a religious objection, it doesn't keep her from being disqualified from the job. A Muslim can't expect to be kept on as a pet groomer where 90% of the business is grooming dogs because he won't touch dogs, or to be kept on as a checkout clerk if he refuses to check out any pork products.

[Girl Power]

 

If it's a religious claim.....what is she doing working as a nurse? Religions that reject vaccinations reject all medicine.

 

Anyhow, assuming she really DOES have a religious objection, it doesn't keep her from being disqualified from the job. A Muslim can't expect to be kept on as a pet groomer where 90% of the business is grooming dogs because he won't touch dogs, or to be kept on as a checkout clerk if he refuses to check out any pork products.

 

An employer may also challenge the sincerity of a religious exemption. From the EEOC:

 

" . . . hospitals and health care employers are entitled to scrutinize a health care worker’s beliefs to determine whether it is a sincerely held religious belief entitling that worker to an exemption from a mandatory flu vaccine program. While the EEOC states that employers should “ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely-held religious belief,†if an employer has “an objective basis for questioning the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information".

 

She may have been opposed to the vaccine, but apparently they decided the objection did not fall within what they consider a valid medical or religious exemption.

 

beck

[Girl Power]

She should win on the religious claim under Title VII anyway. Also, under the First Amendment, the organization is not entitled to decide whether her religious exemption is "legimate" or meets any criteria it might decide to impose to inhibit her exercise of her belief. She obviously does hold a strong belief there, as she had refused the shots for the previous 21 years, I think it said.

 

Her attorney may be arguing the Title VII defense, but the lawyers will have to battle this out. His position that "religious belief" is legally broad to include any "strongly held belief" seems tenuous at best. He commented, "believing flu shots are bad should suffice".

 

Her hospital only this year instituted the mandatory policy. Although the vaccine was offered in previous years, she could and did decline without detriment. Her reasons for doing so, however, did not necessariliy fall under a proper medical or religious exemption.

 

beck

[Katy]

Before anyone strays too far into the legitimate belief argument... Many people who are pro life (or even pro choice because of libertarian beliefs but who think abortion is morally wrong even if it should be legal) are against vaccination because SOME vaccine viruses are cultured in fetal stem cell lines. So lots of mainline denominations and lots of Catholic nurses are adamently against some vaccines, and since it is difficult to determine all of the orgins of any vaccine they reject many outright.

 

Here's some articles on that:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0044.html

 

Vatican condemns vaccines using fetal tissues: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=38498

[WishboneDawn]

Ok talked to dh about it and he said if they want to fire people for refusing the flu shot, that's the companies decision. However, the whole thing doesn't do much good when you have visitors coming and going that are sick or haven't had their flu shot and not putting on masks.

 

The nurses are the ones with consistent contact with the medically frail and are often the the ones acting as a buffer between those patients and the general public. They have a different role.

 

To argue that a hosital can't controls all risk and so shouldn't bother controlling any risk is a little troubling anyway.

[mumto2]

 

 

Or maybe you just had a good immune system and the vaccine would have been completely irrelevant to you. You do realize people get the vaccine and then the flu all the time. Others do not get the flu, regardless of status.

 

I probably do have a good immunity to the flu because I have received the flu shoot most years since I was a teenager. In general my immune system is not the best which is why I get the shots.

 

Whatever protected my son and I while pregnant I am grateful. Lots of peoples prayers helped too. But layingin that bed waiting to see if I was going to miscarry because my caregivers had the flu was terrifying. Ds would not have been a flu related death in anyones eyes but ours. Also because of the flu dh and I requested no visitors other than him for the flu season. I was also very bored.

[jillian]

Every single person I know who got the flu shot (or the mist) got the flu this year....every single one. We don't do it. DD is immune suppressed. Dh has to get it for work but only the dead injection. I know people who get the mist and they don' tknow it's a live vaccine. They don't know that they shed it for days afterwards. They don't know that while good on them they get the vaccine they could endanger us or still get people sick because they are shedding the flu virus out their noses and they go back to work, or to the grocery store. They don't inform people that the mist is live in many many cases.

[Hannah C.]

Maybe instead of getting fired for refusing flu shot, they should get fired for coming to work obviously sick with the flu. The hospital wouldn't allow dh to work with a broken hand because he couldn't do his job. If you have the flu, not only are you spreading all of your germs all over the place, you won't be able to do your job. He's allowed 3 days sick, then a doctors note. Whether or not you get the flu shot, you shouldn't come to work sick. It would be more out of your paycheck if you get sick a lot, but at least you would be keeping your germs at home.

 

 

Going by common human nature, it seems MUCH more likely to me that administration is forcing their employees to work sick instead of the employees choosing to come to work sick because they like it so much. Honestly, I really don't want to be at work when I'm sick, do you?

 

And if someone is coming to work sick because they can't afford NOT to work, the solution is NOT to fire that person. This goes for any job, IMHO.

[Mommyof4ks]

The article said this nurse was working in the critical care unit. That is not a place to bring the flu to IMO, so the vaccine should be required. My son had cancer, and the flu was a huge issue along with othe diseases that kept us at home much of the time during treamtent, because quite frankly people are selfish. Firing this nurse seems odd though, because surely they could have found another place for her to work. Did the nurse refuse to switch positions? That would be a whole different thing then, because at that point she would have cared more about working in that position than she did about her patients. Obviously we do not know the who story just from an article on yahoo, but there must be more to this story. Most hospitals do not fire nurses for no good reason. Good nurses are priceless, and it seems the hospital would have tried to move her to keep her if she is good. Just my .02 after spending time with some wonderful nurses during my son's treatment who cared a great deal for their patients and would want to do whatever they could to keep them safe.

[nmoira]

Going by common human nature, it seems MUCH more likely to me that administration is forcing their employees to work sick instead of the employees choosing to come to work sick because they like it so much. Honestly, I really don't want to be at work when I'm sick, do you?

 

And if someone is coming to work sick because they can't afford NOT to work, the solution is NOT to fire that person. This goes for any job, IMHO.

 

Have you had influenza? I can't imagine working while sick with it or passing as "well" enough to work.

 

FWIW, a person with influenze is contagious at least a day before any symptoms appear.

[somo_chickenlady]

Reality of it is, the vaccine is a crap shoot. They *guess* which strains may be an issue any given flu season.

 

I had this discussion when I worked in health care, b/c I refuse the shot. I asked, "What happens when the strain going through the LTC *isn't* one included in the shot?" *crickets*

 

They had no answer. They would suspend ppl who didn't get the shot if there was a flu outbreak, but had no protocol for when the strain wasn't included in the shot. Makes loads of sense.

 

What also kills me, having worked front line, is there's always loads of signs up, telling visitors not to visit if they're unwell...yet, if a staff member calls in sick, they get threatened w/being fired for not showing up. Visitors go home, you're sick, staff, unless you're dying, you'd better be there.

 

Yup, loads of sense. *eyeroll*

 

I was a CNA on a Med/Surg floor of a children's hospital, and even though I was OCD diligent with my handwashing, to the point where my hands were RAW, and always wore a mask when I needed to, I still got SOOOO sick all the time, and I DID end up getting fired b/c of it. :cursing:

 

The one and only time I got the flu shot, when I worked there, I still got the flu and in turn passed it on to DH and DS. We were all VERY sick for so long (part of why I got fired...we were only allowed to call in sick 4 times per year, and my bout of flu caused me to call in on three shifts). I have never had the flu otherwise, and I now refuse to get the flu shot again. I also think it is ridiculous to fire someone over a vaccine that has such a proven low rate of effectiveness. Just b/c you get the vaccine doesn't mean you still won't get and pass on the flu. Definitely a false sense of security, IMO.

[LucyStoner]

My husband works in a non-profit hospital. You get vaccinated unless you have a medical reason not to. It's not optional and frankly I don't think it should be.

[TranquilMind]

 

If it's a religious claim.....what is she doing working as a nurse? Religions that reject vaccinations reject all medicine.

 

Anyhow, assuming she really DOES have a religious objection, it doesn't keep her from being disqualified from the job. A Muslim can't expect to be kept on as a pet groomer where 90% of the business is grooming dogs because he won't touch dogs, or to be kept on as a checkout clerk if he refuses to check out any pork products.

 

This is not accurate. One can have a sincerely held religious belief that does not line up with a particular religious group, as we all know. Flip side to the marginalization of Christianity.

 

Your examples don't make sense. This woman is totally qualified as a nurse and can and does do the entire job, unlike your dog groomer or checkout clerk (?).

 

She is simply asking that nothing be injected into HER body. It doesn't hinder, affect, or diminish her work skills in the least.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

Her hospital only this year instituted the mandatory policy. Although the vaccine was offered in previous years, she could and did decline without detriment. Her reasons for doing so, however, did not necessariliy fall under a proper medical or religious exemption.

 

beck

 

How so? You haven't seen either the medical or the religious exemption. If she has a medical exemption that a doctor signed off on, that's it. If she filed a proper religious exemption as required by statutory law in the state of Indiana, that should be the end. The court will have to rule on it.

 

Now, given the incredible inequity of power between the medical establishment and one single individual's civil rights, we know who will probably win.

 

But, ever the optimist, I hope a court rules correctly.

[TranquilMind]

I probably do have a good immunity to the flu because I have received the flu shoot most years since I was a teenager. In general my immune system is not the best which is why I get the shots.

 

Whatever protected my son and I while pregnant I am grateful. Lots of peoples prayers helped too. But layingin that bed waiting to see if I was going to miscarry because my caregivers had the flu was terrifying. Ds would not have been a flu related death in anyones eyes but ours. Also because of the flu dh and I requested no visitors other than him for the flu season. I was also very bored.

 

I'm glad it all worked out for you.

 

I wouldn't give all the credit to a flu shot though. If it did work - and evidence that they do work is sketchy - that's great. Otherwise, your immune system did the job. Maybe God simply protected you and your baby - we certainly hope so when we pray.