California Nurses Association/NNOC Issues Policy on H1N1 Flu Vaccination: Encourage, Don't Mandate

Quote :

"OAKLAND, Calif., Sept. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- As the national H1N1 pandemic arrives, with the vaccine following shortly, the nation's largest professional association and union of registered nurses has issued new nursing practice guidelines to structure its use. The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC) will present this policy as bargaining demands to hospital management, and as guidance to regulators and legislators. Deborah Burger, RN, co-president of CNA/NNOC remarked that. . . ."

Quote :

"'At the heart of this policy is the belief that every RN should be vaccinated against the H1N1 influenza virus, but nurses should maintain their right to decline for personal reasons. . . ."

CNA/NNOC represents 86,000 registered nurses in all 50 states, and is working toward unification with the Massachusetts Nurses Association and United American Nurses to build a new 150,000-member national nurses organization.

http://tinyurl.com/yb2v9se

10/1/2009 1:15:13 PM

and hospitals should maintain their right to fire people who pose health risks to their patients.

10/1/2009 1:18:25 PM

^ Can't really argue with that--unless they're non-military government hospitals. But with a nursing shortage and regular flu season and winter on the way, it might not be a good idea to expand the shortage.

10/1/2009 1:30:35 PM

No one can really argue that.

In other words:

Quote :

"This isn't a tough one."

10/1/2009 1:33:35 PM

Tell it to the 86,000-member CNA/NNOC, douche. I never indicated that private hospitals should somehow lose their right to terminate workers--I simply posed the question as to whether vaccinations should be mandatory.

Pay attention.

10/1/2009 1:38:54 PM

I support the private companies decision to mandate something if they feel they need to. However, they are also opening themselves up for a suit. imo

10/1/2009 2:01:10 PM

I've already had H1N1 so I don't care either way.

10/1/2009 2:40:00 PM

1. Do all of these businesses require people to get "regular" flu shots? If they don't, I don't see why they give a shit about swine flu...and if you don't think they should be required to get regular flu shots, again, I don't think that you should give a shit whether or not they get vaccinated for swine flu.


2. Re: the developmental timeline for the swine flu vaccine, my understanding is that no flu shot goes through a really long term series of R&D...they make a new one every year to cover their best guesses of the common strains for the upcoming season. I doubt this one is fundamentally much different. In other words, we've pretty much got the flu shot thing down...this should just be a "gap-filler" to cover a different strain that's making an appearance outside of regular flu season.


3. In summary, it sounds like much ado about nothing from both sides. My interest in it is mostly academic and philosophical.

10/1/2009 3:21:12 PM

hospitals regularly require healthcare workers to get flu shots.

typical seasonal influenza kills people every year, particularly the very young and the very old and the immuno-compromised.




[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 4:32:22 PM

And yet, multiple checks per day (say, beginning and end of shift, at least) of the health care worker's temperature would be infinitely more effective than flu shots at preventing such transmissions. If someone's temp is rising or too high, make them stay home.

Requiring each one to get the flu shot (H1N1 or regular) is going to do very little. They are not exactly being consistent if they are overly anal about the method that has a small effect, while refusing to take the precautions that would have a real effect.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM. Reason : l]

10/1/2009 4:47:13 PM

This isn't wrapped up w/ a bow guys. If you want to make the argument that health workers should be required to take a vaccine in order to work, you need to address the following:

How safe is the new vaccine? Has it been FDA approved? What is the likelyhood and severity of adverse reaction, as indicated by clinical trials? Please include source

10/1/2009 4:51:21 PM

Quote :

"and hospitals should maintain their right to fire people who pose health risks to their patients. "

Except that is illegal. HIV? Which would you rather get? flu or HIV?

10/3/2009 8:44:01 AM

Quote :

"its no different than any other flu vaccine we've been making year after year for decades."

That's not what the FDA has been saying.

Quote :

"The packaging inserts for H1N1 vaccines on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website say the vaccines can cause Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), a paralysing disorder. GBS was one of the side effects of the swine flu vaccine that reportedly killed 25 people in the US in 1976."

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .]

10/3/2009 9:13:57 AM

there's no conclusive proof to that effect

10/3/2009 9:50:18 AM

I would like to correct something I wrote on the previous page.

I wrote:

Quote :

"Similarly, there are no mandatory vaccines (currently) to my knowledge. You have to have certain vaccines to attend government schools or go to government universities (with waivers and exemptions aplenty for those who really press the issue). Those are not "mandatory." If parents plan to send their kids to private school or homeschool, I am not aware of any vaccinations at all that are required by law."

I've discovered this is not entirely correct.

First, all day cares, private schools, religious schools, and government schools, along with all universities and colleges, are required to obtain vaccination records for all of their children. It is not just a requirement to enter government schools as I thought.

Second, there are only two legal reasons to avoid vaccination - 1) if a licensed physician determines your unique health conditions make the vaccine inadvisable for you or 2) if the parent/guardian has religious objections to vaccination.

On #2 - a student meets the vaccination requirement to enter any of those institutions if the parent submits a signed "statement of religious belief" that rules out vaccines. It is NOT legal to avoid vaccination simply because you do not believe they are safe.

Information (and the NC law on the subject) found here: http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements/northcarolina.aspx

This is worse than I thought. If you are without prohibitive medical condition, and you don't religiously object to all vaccines, you cannot refuse any of them. Now that's bullshit.

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 3:08 AM. Reason : ;]

10/4/2009 2:45:09 AM

Quote :

"Now that's bullshit."

Fuck yeah, let's go back to the days when polio and mumps were part of every day life!

10/4/2009 4:19:48 AM

I am not advocating that vaccines be banned, or even suggesting that others should not get them.

I just have this radical notion that each parent should have absolute, unquestioned control over what gets injected into their children, except for immediate, serious threats to the child's life - and they have a right to say "yes" or "no" for any reason they please.

10/4/2009 10:37:57 AM

Quote :

"I just have this radical notion that each parent should have absolute, unquestioned control over what gets injected into their children, except for immediate, serious threats to the child's life - and they have a right to say "yes" or "no" for any reason they please"

Which they can. Your kid doesn't have to go to a public school or a private school that requires vaccination or a daycare.

10/5/2009 9:14:32 AM

Quote :

"Which they can. Your kid doesn't have to go to a public school or a private school that requires vaccination or a daycare."

No, they can't.

First, because all public schools, private schools, and day cares are required to keep immunization records. No school or day care in North Carolina can operate legally without immunization records on file for their kids. Without them, you are not allowed to attend. There are only two exceptions - have an odd medical condition where a vaccine would be harmful to you, or have a religious objection to all vaccination.

I said parents should be allowed to reject any vaccine for any reason they wish. They clearly do not have that right. If someone asks me, "Why didn't your child get this vaccination?" and I respond, "I'm not convinced of its safety" - I've just broken the law. The only legal response to that would be having a religious objection.

This means a parent cannot choose to get some vaccines and not others. If you get one, then you clearly do not have a religious objection to them, and thus you must get all of them.

10/5/2009 1:59:09 PM

Your child is not required to go to any daycare, public school, or private school.

10/5/2009 2:41:14 PM

Quote :

"I said parents should be allowed to reject any vaccine for any reason they wish. They clearly do not have that right. If someone asks me, "Why didn't your child get this vaccination?" and I respond, "I'm not convinced of its safety" - I've just broken the law. The only legal response to that would be having a religious objection."

the reason why infectious childhood diseases get eradicated in this country is due to vaccines.

people who then come around and say "oh i don't believe in vaccines" and point to how 'n' number of children who don't get vaccines, also dont get 'x' disease.

well that's because you're relying on the goddamned "HERD IMMUNITY" in this country: so, of course your kid doesnt get sick, because everyone around him or her has been vaccinated.

but then when you go overseas, or you come in contact with someone who's been overseas, your kid all of a sudden contracts Polio or Whooping Cough or Rubella, you'll wonder what the fuck is wrong with your head.

christ already, you fucking "no vaccine" homeschooling people need to be kicked in the reproductive organs.

10/5/2009 3:19:55 PM

i heard obama put mind control in the h1n1 vaccine

10/5/2009 3:22:09 PM

^^To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that he not vaccinate his children and homeschool them instead. My child has every recommended vaccine and is going in for a seasonal flu shot this week. I was saying, he's only required to do it if he admits his children into school or daycare. He's acting like the government is coming into his home and stabbing his children with needles.

10/5/2009 3:26:07 PM

Quote :

"Your child is not required to go to any daycare, public school, or private school."

The requirement to keep immunization records on file applies to ALL schools - including all home schools. I don't know how I can say or document that any more clearly.

How about from the NC Department of Non-Public Education's website: http://www.ncdnpe.org/hhh103.asp

"Requirements:......Maintain at the school disease immunization and annual attendance records for each student; "

Again - what I said before still applies - legally, you are either allowed to take a religious exemption for all vaccines, or receive all vaccines - you are not allowed to pick and choose which to get. The law specifically forbids any parent from evaluating the efficacy and safety of a particular vaccine through their own research, and basing a decision on that.

Quote :

"people who then come around and say "oh i don't believe in vaccines" and point to how 'n' number of children who don't get vaccines, also dont get 'x' disease. well that's because you're relying on the goddamned "HERD IMMUNITY" in this country: so, of course your kid doesnt get sick, because everyone around him or her has been vaccinated. but then when you go overseas, or you come in contact with someone who's been overseas, your kid all of a sudden contracts Polio or Whooping Cough or Rubella, you'll wonder what the fuck is wrong with your head. christ already, you fucking "no vaccine" homeschooling people need to be kicked in the reproductive organs."

When did I say I was a no-vaccine homeschooling person? I repeatedly used the word "if" to show what the law is in various situations.

Some people are actually interested in protecting the rights, and investigating the principles, of laws that aren't causing them trouble as individuals.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : a]

10/5/2009 3:33:01 PM

Quote :

"Some people are actually interested in protecting the rights, and investigating the principles, of laws that aren't causing them trouble as individuals"

other people are actually interested in protecting the health and life of society at large, and refuse to accept the bizarre notion that one person's ignorance-based liberty can infringe on 100 or 1000 people's health and welfare.

10/5/2009 3:37:17 PM

First, you will have a hard time claiming that people who object at least to some vaccinations are ignorant. While most who reject them do not do proper research and get all their information from alarmist, idiotic websites and videos, there is a substantial number of fully qualified MDs and PhDs who simply find the safety studies corrupted by conflicts of interest and scientifically flawed.

Second - this is America. Not China. "The public good" simply should not be used to force people into medical treatments they believe are unsafe or ineffective. I am vaccinated. I understand that the presence of unvaccinated people around me does increase my risk of contracting even diseases for which I have received immunization. Is my liberty infringed upon? Not at all. The person has not done any positive action to assault my person or property. He has done what he believes is in his own self-interest to protect his own health. Everyone has a right to do that.

Where are all the left-liberals screaming about "my body! my choice!"? They ought to be here. My rights end where another person's body begins. No "right" of mine can justify forcing him to do something he believes is harmful to his health - regardless of whether I believe he is right.

10/5/2009 3:52:14 PM

Well, I'll be damned.

Quote :

"§ 115C-565. Requirements exclusive. No school which complies with this Part shall be subject to any other provision of law relating to education except requirements of law respecting immunization."

http://law.justia.com/northcarolina/codes/chapter_115c/article_39.html

The reasoning behind this is that they define a homeschool as a school run by the parent of one of the students and having not more than 2 families of students together. Based on this definition you still have the potential to expose other children. But Tulip's point *does* stand.

Without finding the general statute that says you must educate your children (I'm pretty sure that's true)

Because you have to educate your child (http://law.justia.com/northcarolina/codes/chapter_115c/gs_115c-378.html) it is unlawful to not immunize your child. I humbly stand corrected.


[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 4:21 PM. Reason : found it!]

10/5/2009 4:19:03 PM

^The religious exception still stands, even for homeschools. You just have to write a letter (to yourself) saying "We, as parents of ____, in compliance with X law, declare a religious objection to vaccination." Or something to that effect. Then, the "school" (your house) keeps it on file.

But hey, I certainly don't blame you - as I thought homeschools and even private schools were exempt from that requirement as lately as page 1, and only wrote on this page to correct myself

10/5/2009 4:23:23 PM

OPINION: Don't force medical pros to get H1N1 vaccine
October 3, 2009 By GEORGE J. ANNAS

George J. Annas is a professor of health law, bioethics and human rights at Boston University School of Public Health, and author of 'The Rights of Patients.'

Quote :

"The New York State Health Commissioner's new mandate that all health care workers be vaccinated against both the seasonal and the swine flu this fall could qualify as the major public health blunder of the year, because it is likely to backfire. Flu has been rightly characterized as a 'slippery disease' that can mutate quickly and unpredictably, which means that planning for flu epidemics must be flexible and should be reviewed regularly as evidence of disease spread and severity accumulates. We are already experiencing the beginning of a second wave of swine flu, the 2009 H1N1 influenza. Effective response will require cooperation of the public, and such cooperation (in actions such as getting vaccinated, social distancing and staying home when sick) will happen only if the public trusts its health officials. Surveys have noted an erosion in public trust of government officials, but continued confidence in physicians and nurses. In this context, persuasion based on science, ethics and prudence, not on legal threats, should be the mandatory course of action for public health officials. Physicians and nurses, educated and licensed professionals, dedicated to their patients' health and welfare, do have an ethical obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect their patients. During a threatened flu pandemic, like swine flu, this includes, I think, getting a swine flu vaccination. So why not require vaccination if they refuse? There are at least four reasons. The first is symbolic: The practice of medicine (and nursing) is a voluntary one based on informed choice - and will hopefully remain this way. Forcing physicians and nurses to become unconsenting patients - even for a flu shot - undermines the consensual nature of the health care relationship, and at least suggests that if health care professionals can be forced to take a vaccination for the good of others, perhaps everyone else can, too. The second reason is pragmatic. We are likely to get more physicians and nurses vaccinated in a well-planned and executed voluntary program (including providing the vaccinations at staff meetings, for example), than in a forced program that will draw and energize opposition. Third, if enough physicians and nurses refuse vaccination, the mandate will be unenforceable, since no responsible public health official would try to close a hospital for failure to comply with the mandate in the midst of a flu epidemic. Fourth, the requirement that physicians and nurses be vaccinated as a condition of practicing medicine and nursing in health care settings will predictably confuse the public when clarity is critical. The public will reasonably ask, if physicians and nurses won't voluntarily take the swine flu vaccine, why should I? Do they know something I don't? Why do all other government officials, including President Barack Obama, the secretary of Health and Human Services and the head of the Centers for Disease Control, all recommend that swine flu vaccination be voluntary - at least outside the U.S. military, where troops live in close quarters and a flu epidemic among the troops would substantially limit their ability to perform? Does anyone in authority really know what's going on? And if this new mandate is a response to the threatened swine flu epidemic, why does it apply to the seasonal flu as well - is there some new flu information that New York officials have that no one else has? State Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines is right to note that seasonal flu vaccination rates among health care workers in New York have been too low in the past and need to improve. He is right to note the dedication of New York's health care workers in the context of great uncertainty and possible risk, including the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and SARS. But he is wrong to transform a reasonable professional ethics obligation into what looks like an arbitrary and unnecessary legal obligation. He is treating seasonal flu and swine flu vaccination the same - requiring them both - even though he thinks that H1N1 is the much more important vaccination to get. Public health officials should work with medical and nursing organizations to persuade them to recommend that their members be vaccinated, and state licensing boards should, if they find it appropriate, make the same recommendation, if they also find it appropriate. Medicine, nursing and public health are much stronger, and send a much more effective message to the public, when they work together than when they work at cross purposes. And to the extent that the commissioner wants to protect health care workers themselves, the focus should not be entirely on vaccinations, but should include the health care institution environment, including hospital infection control procedures, adequate supplies of respiratory masks, and reasonable sick leave and worker compensation policies. The ultimate measure of success or failure of a swine flu vaccination program will be in lives saved and lives lost. The most effective way to maximize the numbers of the public being vaccinated is to send the message that physicians and nurses believe this is the most reasonable approach to take to prevent wide-scale death and disease from the swine flu. Legal threats and mandates undercut that public health message and will backfire."

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/opinion-don-t-force-medical-pros-to-get-h1n1-vaccine-1.1496620

10/6/2009 4:50:13 PM

BTW, does anyone know if Obama and his family (and other leaders in Congress and the Cabinet) have been vaccinated for H1N1? Just asking.



Gerald Ford did a photo op getting his swine flu vaccine of the time back in the '70s. Of course, it could've been B12 for all we know.

Oh, and there's this:

Coverage under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act for H1N1 Vaccination

Quote :

"Q3: What is tort liability immunity? A3: Tort liability immunity means that no legal tort claim related to activities described in the declaration that can be pursued in State or U.S. Federal court. The declaration provides legal liability protections for individuals or entities that are involved in the distribution and administration of H1N1 vaccine."

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/publications/pubs-145/Coverage_under_the_PREP_Act_for_H1N1_Vaccination.pdf

As I understand it, this "tort liability immunity" includes H1N1 vaccine manufacturers. If it's so safe, why do they need this immunity?

10/14/2009 7:01:24 AM

because we live in an insanely litigious society and there are already going to be a certain number of baseline GB syndrome and other horrible things that happen to people without the vaccine. However, as soon as someone develops one of these symptoms shortly after getting the vaccine, John Edwards will blame it on the swine flu and sue the living daylights out of them.

10/14/2009 9:02:01 AM

^ Edwards has got another mouth to feed now, you know--he needs the money.

10/14/2009 9:06:46 AM

Fuck idiots who try to free-ride on herd-immunity. They make shit a lot less safe for everyone.

*gets swine flu and then infects a bunch of kids* MAH RIGHTS

10/14/2009 9:10:33 AM

Quote :

"BTW, does anyone know if Obama and his family (and other leaders in Congress and the Cabinet) have been vaccinated for H1N1? Just asking."

10/14/2009 9:17:12 AM

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200907313

10/14/2009 9:19:17 AM

^ Don't his daughters meet this criterion from the list above:

Quote :

"persons between the ages of 6 months through 24 years of age"

10/14/2009 9:25:11 AM

Quote :

"BTW, does anyone know if Obama and his family (and other leaders in Congress and the Cabinet) have been vaccinated for H1N1? Just asking."

The fuck does this have to do with anything? He should lead by example and get it, in my opinion. Am I allowed to disagree with a politician vaguely on my side of the political spectrum, or am I PWNZORED if somebody on my side of the arbitrary American "center-line" is a piece of shit or a hypocrite?

10/14/2009 9:29:35 AM

^

Quote :

"Just asking."

Wow. Seek help.

10/14/2009 9:33:25 AM

Stop posturing. You constantly throw out things that Democrats do as a REPLY to leftists on this board. It's intellectually dishonest, which is about on-par for somebody in your field.

10/14/2009 9:35:10 AM

^ Um. . .okay, McDouche.

Quote :

"Don't his daughters meet this criterion from the list above: 'persons between the ages of 6 months through 24 years of age'"

10/14/2009 9:37:23 AM

Yes his daughters do. Remind me what your point is, again, other than that his family should be immunized?

10/14/2009 9:38:51 AM

^ Because the Obama administration (and many here) are telling everyone to get vaccinated against H1N1--and some here are saying it should be mandatory for some (and maybe they mean all). . .

Sebelius: Americans should get flu vaccination (AP) – 6 days ago

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appealed anew Wednesday for widespread inoculation against a surging swine flu threat, calling the vaccine 'safe and secure.'"

Quote :

"'There's going to be plenty of vaccine,' the secretary said. 'It's rolling off the production lines right now ... ahead of schedule, and that's good news... By the end of October we should have a substantial amount available and begin to vaccinate a wider population of folks.'"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0RhT9WFN0lJEpbW2hqJlc2MClawD9B6D2RG0

Yet, Obama has not publicly taken a vaccination--as one past president did (see pic above)--to help ease fears. And evidently, he has not even had his own family vaccinated--yet. . .

First Daughters Not Vaccinated Against H1N1

http://tinyurl.com/yjxj4hk

It just seems that Obama's in no apparent rush to take the H1N1 vaccine, so why should we be? After all, Obama comes into contact with many more people than any group of hospital nurses or doctors. And I was just asking.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 10:06:40 AM

Quote :

"After all, Obama comes into contact with many more people than any group of hospital nurses or doctors. "

I highly doubt that.

Quote :

"Because the Obama administration (and many here) are telling everyone to get vaccinated against H1N1--and some here are saying it should be mandatory for some (and maybe they mean all). . ."

So you're saying that the criticisms of Palin's family life were valid, in light of her statements about what she stands for?

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 10:21 AM. Reason : ]

10/14/2009 10:19:36 AM

^ You doubt it because you're stupid.







[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 12:11 PM. Reason : And Palin isn't the president. ]

10/14/2009 12:10:29 PM

you are so transparent

10/14/2009 12:14:01 PM

I wonder why hooksaw postures on a message board.

10/14/2009 12:15:03 PM

^^^ haha, you're seriously suggesting that Obama is more at risk/a risk than doctors and nurses in NY who deal with sick people all day? I can guarantee you that the average NY doctor sees WAY MORE people on a weekly basis than Obama does. You are far stupider than I could have imagined, if you don't understand this.

10/14/2009 12:17:54 PM

Healthworkers should be vaccinated against H1N1 and normal flu because they shouldn't risk passing it to patients with immune systems weakened by other diseases. Pretty much everyone else is optional.

For kids the risk is no different from normal flu. If your kid gets it, they should stay home. Vaccinate if you want. Essentially it should be treated the same as normal flu.

So what if Obama doesnt get the vaccine? If he catches it he might be sick and have to stay home for a few days. Who cares.

Once he gets better they can give him the nobel prize for medicine.

10/14/2009 12:18:10 PM

^^^^ and ^^^ WTF are you idiots babbling about? I maintain that Obama comes into contact with more people than most nurses or doctors.

If you'd like to dispute this, be my guest. Otherwise, STFU and GTFO of my thread--you're not required to post here.

^^ I indicated that Obama comes into contact with more people than most nurses or doctors.
And prove it ("average NY doctor sees WAY MORE people on a weekly basis than Obama does").

^ So, your position is that H1N1 vaccinations should be mandatory for health-care workers?


[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 12:18:51 PM

along with normal seasonal flu vaccines, yes.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 12:21:34 PM