Get Flu Shot or Get Out?

What do you think of these hospitals who fired nurses who didn't get flu shots? Should health care workers be allowed to make this health care decision on an individual basis? Or no?

First off, I don't know anything but what you've stated in this thread regarding the situation, but I'll speculate on a few points:

1. Working in a hospital, you're GOING to get exposed to the flu. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how many hours it'll take and how many times it'll happen.

2. Hospital admins probably don't want their staff to all get sick simultaneously and/or spread the flu to patients, especially those patients who are immunocompromised and/or already sick with something else.

3. They probably exempted anyone with an allergy.

4. The percentage of nurses refusing was probably anticipated to be very low, and thus they would feel that it'd be better to lose a small quantity of staff and hire replacements than deal with the hassle of having them get sick.

Given the above, I think it's reasonable to require it of hospital staff, especially those who interact frequently and directly with patients. If nothing else, it's a matter of patient safety, and hospitals have large liability reasons to take that seriously. A nurse who raises a fuss over getting fired for refusing the flu shot is something they'd much rather deal with than a wrongful death/malpractice suit from the family of an AIDS patient whose nurse had the flu and coughed in their room.

Yeah, it sucks to be the nurse who got fired, but OTOH, unless you're allergic to the flu shot, which would probably get you exempted, what's your reason for refusing?

I have to disagree with the Mandatory policy on several points;
1) There is no such thing as a 100% effective flu vaccine. Every year, the vaccines are based on a "best guess" as to the strains of influenza that "might" be common. Some years, the flu shots are pretty close to useless. In April, 2012, the director of the Center for Immunization Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore admitted, “Our ability to predict which strain will circulate has not been great. We might as well have tossed a coin.” [Ref: Nature Medicine 18, 471 (2012)]
2) Flu shots have very real risks and potential complications.
3) Do you really want big hospital corporations deciding what to inject in their employee's bodies? Do you really find that acceptable?
4) In order to get an exemption, health care employees are being required to prove their medical or religious reasons. Do you, at your job, have to hand over any personal medical information to your boss? Do you have to prove your religion to your boss?

Yes, they should. There's no telling what kind of people they're going to be working with. They might be like me, who has a healthy immune system and is going to be able to fight off the flu (not to mention, I have had my flu shot, so even if I get it, it'll be considerably better).

However, they also might be working with an immunocompromised person who lacks the ability to fight off illnesses. This can be anyone from someone with a hereditary disorder that causes such, to someone who recently had surgery, to someone who's on steroids. Meaning, if they get the flu, it very well could kill them. Is that something you honestly want to be responsible for?

Unless the person has allergies to the shot, it's quite frankly selfish not to get vaccinated. Not only are you helping to protect yourself, you're protecting others. This applies to everyone, not just health field professionals.

Correct me if I'm wrong! But I was under the impression that you could still carry a disease (the flu, chicken pox, whatever) and the vaccinations just protected your system. Regardless of whether they're vaccinated or not, common sense sanitation seems more practical in preventing patient/caregiver disease transfers than requiring vaccinations.

On your clothes/skin, yes. However, if the virus is unable to replicate in your system, then you're not going to be able to spread it.

Essentially, vaccines provide a sample of whatever it is (be it virus or bacteria) to your body so that it can develop antibodies to it. If you get exposed to the item that you're vaccinated against, the white blood cells will immediately attack the item, and usually, you won't get sick since the item won't reproduce enough to be able to be spread.

In many cases, a person is contagious before they even show signs of being sick. The symptoms of being sick simply means that the virus/bacteria has replicated enough to cause issues and the body is fighting back.

I would guess as healthcare becomes mandatory, the employer will be telling the employee what they have to do to work there.

Flu shots, no smoking, drug test etc.

If I had a business of 30 or more employees working full time, there is no way in Hell I'm going to pay for a smokers healthcare.

I'm guessing like most jobs there are steps you need to take to protect yourself and others around you.

If you want to work for the RedCross or the like, or any help type of group and want to go to Africa. I bet it's mandatory to get a few round of shots before they fly you over.

You think the hospitals would have fired those same workers if they didn't want to wear gloves?

Every year I get the flu shot I get a terrible case of the flu. Every year I skip it I just end up with a cold or something mild.. or nothing.

Personally, I am not a fan of vaccines. I don't want to just inject stuff into my body because it "might" help protect me from a virus that I "might" get. I am young and my immune system is strong. I'm confident that I will be able to fight off the seasonal flu if I do happen to get it.

As for people in health care, I understand why its mandatory, but I don't think its right. You aren't a risk unless you actually get sick. So why don't they just require that they take sick days if they do get the flu?

I dunno.. its not illegal to not get the flu shot, so why should they have to get one in order to keep their job? Especially if it isn't actually going to do anything.

Doesn't help that I don't like needles. yuck.

Sure. I agree with it. Your employer can fire you for almost any reason. You have to dress like they want you to dress. Behave like they want you behave. It makes sense to require them to take flu shots. If you don't agree with the work environment, there's the door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaorte

Every year I get the flu shot I get a terrible case of the flu. Every year I skip it I just end up with a cold or something mild.. or nothing.

Personally, I am not a fan of vaccines. I don't want to just inject stuff into my body because it "might" help protect me from a virus that I "might" get. I am young and my immune system is strong. I'm confident that I will be able to fight off the seasonal flu if I do happen to get it.

As for people in health care, I understand why its mandatory, but I don't think its right. You aren't a risk unless you actually get sick. So why don't they just require that they take sick days if they do get the flu?

I dunno.. its not illegal to not get the flu shot, so why should they have to get one in order to keep their job? Especially if it isn't actually going to do anything.

Doesn't help that I don't like needles. yuck.

---

Thanks to vaccines, you no longer have to worry about polio or small pox. Thanks to vaccines, if you get bit by a rabid animal, you'll live and not contract it. Your immune system isn't going to protect you against everything and it's foolish to think it will.

As I stated above, it's very possible to not be sick and still be contagious to other people.

The flu shot does plenty, just because you're one of a minority that gets sick (chances are you already had it when you were vaccinated, depending on when you were vaccinated), doesn't mean it's utterly useless.