Nanker Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I think some of these recent analogies are missing the point because they talking about required precautions that are meant to protect the employee. The required flu shot is for the protection of the patients. A percentage of patients seen by these workers will not be able to get the flu shot because of allergic reaction, a bad immune system, age, etc... To expose them to healthcare workers who choose not to get the flu shot is an unnecessary and irresponsible risk. It's the same reason vaccination is a prerequisite for attending schools and working at jobs in both the public and private sectors. The safety of the patients takes precedence over the personal choice of the healthcare workers. The employees always have the choice to quit if they don't want to live by the terms of employment. I think your imagining that a "health care" worker is automatically a carrier of H1N1 if they don't get their immunization shot(s) is hyperbole. Patients are more apt to get the flu by coming into contact with sick people in the waiting rooms of a Dr.'s office or an ER, or perhaps riding on the bus, or in their own workplace, or - heaven forbid - their church. Here's a scarier thought. What if that "health care" worker that doesn't get their shot(s) has HIV? Ooooooooooh! They should be avoided at all costs - shouldn't they? Maybe they should be put into a colony like lepers and epileptics used to be. You know - like the internment camps that FDR put the Japanese Americans in during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Actually, it wasn't a big problem in 1919...because most care for illness was provided in the home. There was no worry about ER's being understaffed and overcrowded...because there basically weren't ERs, not as we know them today. Modern society is actually a lot more fragile in the context of a severe epidemic than it was 90 years ago. We have a lot more "basic services" now that didn't exist (or were minimal) back then. And in a few American cities 90 years ago, even THOSE services collapsed. Personally...I'd prefer garbage men have H1N1 vaccinations mandated before health care workers... Good points Tom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Here's a stupid thought. Could people's opposition to getting the flu shot be that they don't want to be guinea pigs for the vaccine? Ya... I know it stupid and may not of course even be the case (already tested I presume). Then it has to be personal freedom... Which I can understand... But, why go into the health profession if one is not going put oneself over the people you are caring for. Don't you think some of one's personal freedoms and personal fear of the gov't should be checked at the door when working in this system? Should service to others come first. Some nurse saying no to the shot, isn't that like a firefighter unwilling to go into a burning building? What faith do they even have in the system that they are working in? Why are they even they? This debate is not about the indivdual. I have a hunch who the unions may protect here. Again, IMO NYS has every right to say: "The door swings both ways." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I think your imagining that a "health care" worker is automatically a carrier of H1N1 if they don't get their immunization shot(s) is hyperbole. Patients are more apt to get the flu by coming into contact with sick people in the waiting rooms of a Dr.'s office or an ER, or perhaps riding on the bus, or in their own workplace, or - heaven forbid - their church. Here's a scarier thought. What if that "health care" worker that doesn't get their shot(s) has HIV? Ooooooooooh! They should be avoided at all costs - shouldn't they? Maybe they should be put into a colony like lepers and epileptics used to be. You know - like the internment camps that FDR put the Japanese Americans in during WWII. The healthcare worker comes into contact with all of them, every day. The healthcare worker is bleeding and spitting on the open wounds of others now? Pretty sure HIV is a bit more difficult to contract than just breathing like the flu. Don't be a retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 The healthcare worker comes into contact with all of them, every day. The healthcare worker is bleeding and spitting on the open wounds of others now? Pretty sure HIV is a bit more difficult to contract than just breathing like the flu. Don't be a retard. Then substitute Hep B for HIV. Would have been a better example anyway. Man the amount of ignorance surrounding something as simple as vaccination policy is stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Then substitute Hep B for HIV. Would have been a better example anyway. Man the amount of ignorance surrounding something as simple as vaccination policy is stunning. First, I don't think you can discount patient safety as a valid reason for requiring vaccinations by healtcare workers. You can lump it all under 'integrity of the healthcare system' if you like, but the actual reason for doing it is to try to limit the spread of disease. Not sure what you're getting at with the Hep B thing. Healthcare workers (any everyone else for that matter) should be vaccinated against Hep B. A worker with Hep B should not be interacting with patients unless the risk of infection can be eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Then substitute Hep B for HIV. Would have been a better example anyway. Man the amount of ignorance surrounding something as simple as vaccination policy is stunning. I am not sure you stated your case clearly. I for one don't think it is wrong to fire somebody over not taking the vaccine... Of course if they are able to and don't have any conditions that prohibit them from getting the vaccine. Do you believe it should be choice?... I take you don't by the way you are responding. Now, if somebody takes the vaccine and gets seriously messed up from it... I also think that NYS (or whoever is mandating the shot) should also take part of the blame... Doubly so if the person openingly objected or questioned the policy. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be all about a "blame game." Yet, people have to look out for their best interests and if something negative happens to them... Who is looking out for their best interest? We live in an age of complicated systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 First, I don't think you can discount patient safety as a valid reason for requiring vaccinations by healtcare workers. You can lump it all under 'integrity of the healthcare system' if you like, but the actual reason for doing it is to try to limit the spread of disease. Not sure what you're getting at with the Hep B thing. Healthcare workers (any everyone else for that matter) should be vaccinated against Hep B. A worker with Hep B should not be interacting with patients unless the risk of infection can be eliminated. I am a stupid lock and dam operator and potential first responder (CPR yearly and Standard First Aid every 3 years is mandated by my employer)... I was even told that I HAD to get a Hep B shot(s) years ago (almost 20 years) when I started. On another note... Do you you need anything else years later after the initial shot(s)? I also had the Hep A when I first went to Mexico. Hep B is bloodborne and A is waterborne... Right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 First, I don't think you can discount patient safety as a valid reason for requiring vaccinations by healtcare workers. You can lump it all under 'integrity of the healthcare system' if you like, but the actual reason for doing it is to try to limit the spread of disease. Yes you can, because 1) the people who are treated by health care workers are either already sick or are exposed well before they get to the health care worker, and 2) vaccinations are a public health tool intended to prevent the establishment of a resivoir of infection, not an individual health tool intended to prevent infection. That's why they work rather poorly until a significant percentage of a given population is innoculated. Giving health care workers a flu shot does almost nothing to prevent the spread of the flu. How many people do you think, in an average flu season (or even a bad one) get the flu directly from their doctors? You're more likely to get it in the waiting room. Not sure what you're getting at with the Hep B thing. Healthcare workers (any everyone else for that matter) should be vaccinated against Hep B. A worker with Hep B should not be interacting with patients unless the risk of infection can be eliminated. That it's a better example than HIV, because it's far more easily transmissible. HIV was a stupid example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Yes you can, because 1) the people who are treated by health care workers are either already sick or are exposed well before they get to the health care worker, and 2) vaccinations are a public health tool intended to prevent the establishment of a resivoir of infection, not an individual health tool intended to prevent infection. That's why they work rather poorly until a significant percentage of a given population is innoculated. Giving health care workers a flu shot does almost nothing to prevent the spread of the flu. How many people do you think, in an average flu season (or even a bad one) get the flu directly from their doctors? You're more likely to get it in the waiting room. That it's a better example than HIV, because it's far more easily transmissible. HIV was a stupid example. Ya... But what PR message does it send to the rest of the populace if the healthcare workers don't even need it. I know it it may not be stupid, if they are not getting it... Why should I risk taking the shot? I know all your arguments Tom and this is illogical... But many people think that. See what I am getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 1) the people who are treated by health care workers are either already sick or are exposed well before they get to the health care worker They might not already have to what you're vaccinating the healthcare workers against. A cancer patient who cannot be vaccinated might not have the flu until Nurse Ratchet comes in and breathes all over him. Individual cases can fall outside of the larger view and still be valid reasons for vaccination. 2) vaccinations are a public health tool intended to prevent the establishment of a resivoir of infection, not an individual health tool intended to prevent infection. That's why they work rather poorly until a significant percentage of a given population is innoculated. Giving health care workers a flu shot does almost nothing to prevent the spread of the flu. How many people do you think, in an average flu season (or even a bad one) get the flu directly from their doctors? You're more likely to get it in the waiting room. The macro view would be irrational to disagree with because it's true. That it's a better example than HIV, because it's far more easily transmissible. HIV was a stupid example. Stupid because it's harder to transmit. His argument with Hep B is still a bad one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Nurse Ratchet... You are gonna get the conservative's panties in an uproar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Oh... What about: Nurse Diesel !@#$in' run!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Ya... But what PR message does it send to the rest of the populace if the healthcare workers don't even need it. I know it it may not be stupid, if they are not getting it... Why should I risk taking the shot? I know all your arguments Tom and this is illogical... But many people think that. See what I am getting at? Yes, I know what you're getting at - the fact that there's only about twenty people in this country that know what "public health" actually means (as opposed to "individual health care"). It's why the health care system - and the various health care bills - are so !@#$ed up in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 They might not already have to what you're vaccinating the healthcare workers against. A cancer patient who cannot be vaccinated might not have the flu until Nurse Ratchet comes in and breathes all over him. Individual cases can fall outside of the larger view and still be valid reasons for vaccination. Except that Nurse Ratchet isn't treating patients when she's home with the flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Except that Nurse Ratchet isn't treating patients when she's home with the flu. Assuming she stays home I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Assuming she stays home I guess. Yep. My sister is a nurse and was hobbling around on a torn ACL this past winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts