Grand Rapids Hospital Worker Refuses Flu Shot

I've never heard of Christians refusing vaccines because of religious issues. Muzzies and Jews maybe, but not Christians.

Was this just an excuse to get out of it?

Hmmm, I guess it would depend on her denomination. Do Jehovah Witnesses receive vaccinations? I'm not sure.

I have to question though the legitimacy of an employer forcing anyone to take the vaccination. Instead of a safety issue as quoted in the article, one must wonder if it isn't a drug company kick back issue instead.

Ms Angie wrote:

Hmmm, I guess it would depend on her denomination. Do Jehovah Witnesses receive vaccinations? I'm not sure.
I have to question though the legitimacy of an employer forcing anyone to take the vaccination. Instead of a safety issue as quoted in the article, one must wonder if it isn't a drug company kick back issue instead.

I don't think it is in this case, but I know what you mean about drug companies. Can you imagine how many people she could spread it to. If she didn't work with patients, it would be a different story.

joe wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think it is in this case, but I know what you mean about drug companies. Can you imagine how many people she could spread it to. If she didn't work with patients, it would be a different story.

I still think it should be personal choice. As a health care provider she'll wear gloves and a mask. Now I'll give the hospital the right to send her home if they believe she's ill.

What concerns me is where do we draw the line? Think of how many people your local grocery store cashier could spread the flu to, does that mean we should mandate their receiving the shot? Know what I mean?

Some Christians do refuse vaccines. Not Jehovah's Witnesses although they do refuse blood transfusions.

Ms Angie wrote:

<quoted text>
I still think it should be personal choice. As a health care provider she'll wear gloves and a mask. Now I'll give the hospital the right to send her home if they believe she's ill.
What concerns me is where do we draw the line? Think of how many people your local grocery store cashier could spread the flu to, does that mean we should mandate their receiving the shot? Know what I mean?

Yes, I do see your point. This whole shot thing is so confusing. Personally I have not gotten it and don't think I will.

joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I do see your point. This whole shot thing is so confusing. Personally I have not gotten it and don't think I will.

I will not get one. I know, I'm "out there," but in all honesty I believe it's an overuse of medicine and vaccinations that are making germs and diseases stronger. Not to mention the possible side effects and ramifications from the shot that may not present themselves for years.

But really, I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of getting the shot, it's just more I don't think it's right for anyone to be forced, coerced or mandated to have anything injected in to their body.

The article states that employees are required to comply by November 30th; It doesn't say what consequences an employee will face if non-compliant; The article also doesn't mention when they started requiring their employees to get the flu shot nor whether or not, upon hire, if an employee signs any type of agreement that they will comply to such a requirement

The woman states her reasoning for not getting the flu shot is due to "Christian beliefs"...I'd like to know what religion is against the flu shot?...I'd also like to know if this woman has children and if they attend school in which they are required to have certain vaccinations

Just a whole lot of unanswered questions...And I wonder if this is just a trouble-causing woman like that woman in the Servaas case!?

Ms Angie wrote:

Now I'll give the hospital the right to send her home if they believe she's ill.

The problem with that is that people are usually contagious well before they display outward symptoms of sickness.
Gloves/mask or not, would you want to be a patient, already sick and vulnerable, being cared for by someone who has the flu? Would you be okay with someone like that taking care of your loved ones?

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with that is that people are usually contagious well before they display outward symptoms of sickness.
Gloves/mask or not, would you want to be a patient, already sick and vulnerable, being cared for by someone who has the flu? Would you be okay with someone like that taking care of your loved ones?

The thing is the vaccine doesn't make you completely resistant to the virus. Getting the vaccine doesn't guarantee she or others working in the hospital won't get sick. So at any point in your hospital stay you could come in contact with someone ill but not yet displaying symptoms.

Where do we draw the line on forced/mandated health care decisions? It's her body, no matter her profession she should not be forced into having something injected into it.

True, but they have been treating patients for many many years without the flu shot.

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with that is that people are usually contagious well before they display outward symptoms of sickness.
Gloves/mask or not, would you want to be a patient, already sick and vulnerable, being cared for by someone who has the flu? Would you be okay with someone like that taking care of your loved ones?

KCGR wrote:

True, but they have been treating patients for many many years without the flu shot.
<quoted text>

I'd be interested in knowing what you base that on. When I was in nursing school 25 years ago, we were required to get flu shots every year as was the rest of the hospital staff that had direct patient contact.

Ms Angie wrote:

Where do we draw the line on forced/mandated health care decisions? It's her body, no matter her profession she should not be forced into having something injected into it.

She doesn't have to work in health care. She doesn't have to work in that particular hospital. My POV on that is that since she made the choice to enter that profession and work where she does, she gets to be told she needs a flu shot and can either comply or find other employment. She voluntarily exposes herself to congatagion of various types every time she goes to work, but has a problem with taking this step to protect herself and her patients? Someone isn't thinking this through rationally.

if it was an explicit condition of employment, then why was she hired in the first place? if the policy didn't exist at the time of hiring, but added later then provisions must be made to protect her job 1)if she is a practicing member of a relevant, duly sanctioned religious denomination and 2)if she is required to take a leave of absence during the term of the flu season.

getting paid for that time off is another matter.

appears in her handbook, that she ws permitshe is supposed to read it.

Do they require all visitors to provide vaccination proof prior to entering the hospital? Visitors are more likely to spread the virus just mathematically.

bobolinq wrote:

if it was an explicit condition of employment, then why was she hired in the first place?

Were you aware or made aware of every policy and procedure at your place of work when you agreed to work there? If not, do you believe that you are exempt from adhering to those policies and procedures that you weren't aware of?
Requiring employees who are involved in direct patient contact is a fairly routine practice in the health care field so it's hard for me to belive that this lady was unaware.
Refusing on the basis of her Christian beliefs? I'd be very interested to hear which specific belief she is claiming exempts her from a flu shot.

I never worked in the health care field, but I do work with employees and have several I am in charge of. Now every employee is given an employee handbook, say the clause that these vacinations are required every year. Now, out of the blue (possibly, as I don't have any idea how long this employee was there) they are suddenly enforcing this rule. If this employee has been there for several years and never received this vacination, how can they enforce it now. I guess it would depend on how the employee manual is worded also, but if they didn't enforce it before how can they now? I believe this vacination is for the annual flu vaccine too and not the H1N1. Or is the employer just enforcing it now because of the hoopla over the H1N1? Just questions I have.

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
Were you aware or made aware of every policy and procedure at your place of work when you agreed to work there? If not, do you believe that you are exempt from adhering to those policies and procedures that you weren't aware of?
Requiring employees who are involved in direct patient contact is a fairly routine practice in the health care field so it's hard for me to belive that this lady was unaware.
Refusing on the basis of her Christian beliefs? I'd be very interested to hear which specific belief she is claiming exempts her from a flu shot.

KCGR wrote:

I do work with employees and have several I am in charge of. Now every employee is given an employee handbook,

Before or after they are hired? You seem to keep missing the point that in the health care field, requiring direct care staff to get a flu shot is a fairly routine practice and has been for quite some time. Is it mandatory for all hospitals? No, but it is highly encouraged by all and mandatory for quite a few. If nurse-lady has a problem with getting a flu shot, maybe she should seek employment at a facility that doesn't require it? Nobody is forcing her to get the flu shot, she can decline and go work somewhere else. Her choice. I don't believe for a second that this requirement is 'out of the blue'.
You can't get into nursing school without being re-vaccinated for most childhood stuff if you can't show a postitive titer on a blood test.

No that is the point. If it is mandatory. If it is mandatory and specified than it should be followed at all times. Being encouraged is not mandatory nor a reason for firing if you do not take it. However, if said person has been an employee for several years and the hospital did not follow the guidelines of their own rules in the past, and now insist that all personal be vacinated every year until this year, then the hospital has a problem. Do you see where I am coming from?

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think you know where I am coming from.

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
Before or after they are hired? You seem to keep missing the point that in the health care field, requiring direct care staff to get a flu shot is a fairly routine practice and has been for quite some time. Is it mandatory for all hospitals? No, but it is highly encouraged by all and mandatory for quite a few. If nurse-lady has a problem with getting a flu shot, maybe she should seek employment at a facility that doesn't require it? Nobody is forcing her to get the flu shot, she can decline and go work somewhere else. Her choice. I don't believe for a second that this requirement is 'out of the blue'.
You can't get into nursing school without being re-vaccinated for most childhood stuff if you can't show a postitive titer on a blood test.

KCGR wrote:

No that is the point. If it is mandatory. If it is mandatory and specified than it should be followed at all times. Being encouraged is not mandatory nor a reason for firing if you do not take it. However, if said person has been an employee for several years and the hospital did not follow the guidelines of their own rules in the past, and now insist that all personal be vacinated every year until this year, then the hospital has a problem. Do you see where I am coming from?
I understand what you are saying, I just don't think you know where I am coming from.
<quoted text>

Actually, I do see where you're coming from but I don't agree that it's wrong for them to change the policy if that is what happened. An amployer does have the right to change their policies as they see fit. Employees have the right to either comply or find another job.
Same goes for enforcing an existing policy; the fact that a policy may not have been explicitly enforced in the past doesn't mean the policy was not in effect in the past or prevent them from explicitly enforcing it when they so choose.