[suicidesaints]

http://news.yahoo.com/nurses-fired-r...ws-health.html

So this nurse was fired for not taking a flu shot.

Thoughts on mandatory vaccines? Should it depend on where you work (hospital)?

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

If it's hospital policy and they refuse, then the hospital has every right to terminate them. If the nurses refuses vaccination due to religious beliefs, then they should find work at another hospital that doesn't require vaccinations or find a new line of work.

In this particular case, the nurse had been working there for over 20 years. I'm not sure if this was a new policy or not, but it seems odd that all of a sudden she'd be forced to get a flu shot... unless this is the first time she refused (which would also seem odd)

Do you think that all employers should have the right to require their employees to get a flu shot (if that's the policy they want to have) or do you think it's only applicable because it's a hospital?

Also, what do you think about other vaccines being mandatory? Either from the employee or the government or whomever else?

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Employers should have the right to impose any vaccine/drug testing/lie-detector testing on their employees. If the employees object to it, then employers will just fire them and hire someone willing to be subjected to the tests.

I tend to agree with you in states like Texas (where I live) where it is a "right to work" state, meaning that you can be hired or fired for any reason (besides obvious discrimination, although they don't have to tell you why)... and you also have the right to chose weather or not to work somewhere based on their stipulation... however, you really think that an employer should have the right to impose ANY vaccine? What if they wanted to inject you with something that was untested or possibly unsafe... where is the line drawn?

Also, what about other mandatory vaccines (not employment related) - Do you think the government should be allowed to enforce mandatory vaccines? Does it depend on the circumstance (disease outbreak... something that would affect the rest of the population)

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by ominousnimbus

In her particular line of work I think it's a reasonable requirement, especially if there are no extenuating circumstances regarding her health (religious beliefs certainly don't count in my book). I don't think it should be something all corporations can require of their desk jockeys, though.

It does piss me off to think the flu spreads more widely in this country than it needs to just because so many idiots have arbitrary, stupid reasons not to get vaccinated (be it religion, tinfoil hat conspiracies, or Neo-Luddite thinking in general).

http://www.examiner.com/article/ten-...-a-flu-vaccine

not everyone's reasoning for not getting a flu vaccine is "stupid"

I agree that in her particular line of work, it's more reasonable than in most... but are there not other alternatives. Could she have worn a mask to work? Could she have went for a natural alternative that is proven just as effective?

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

Guys, all hospitals require certain vaccinations and background checks for their workers for the safety of their patients and staff. It's pretty common. To do my clinical, I needed a flu shot, hep b shot, mumps, measles, rubella, tetanus, TB test, and a full background check (and probably more, I don't remember it all haha). Idk, I don't see the big deal... this reminds me, I completely forgot to get another flu shot this season... woops haha

Well, maybe it's not a big deal at a place like a hospital... but it would be a bigger deal if it were at a place like Wal-Mart or somewhere where you are not treating sick patients.

I think the real issue is, when/where is it appropriate to force people to be vaccinated, and was this employee ever previously required to be vaccinated (she worked there for 20+ years)

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

For the most part, it's not sarcasm. Employers should have the right to only employ healthy, virus-free, drug-free, honest employees. Testing would only weed out the undesirables.

I think the person who asked if you were being sarcastic, posed that question because you said that an employer should be able to make their employee take ANY vaccine they deem fit

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

..so chronically ill patients looking for jobs should just piss off? haha hiring someone based on their health is pretty discriminatory

... and people with the Aids virus too

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by jawstheme

Do you think they should have that right?

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Personally, no. But who am I to tell businesses how they should operate?

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Employers should have the right to impose any vaccine/drug testing/lie-detector testing on their employees. If the employees object to it, then employers will just fire them and hire someone willing to be subjected to the tests.

I'm confused

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Personally, I wish employers wouldn't be so strict with employees. It would be great if they didn't force vaccinations and drug testing. But who are we to deny their right to do so?

Well, it's kind of a difficult situation. I think that employers should have the right to hire/fire who they want, and make their own rules. If I am paying someone to perform a job, I expect the job to be done the way I want it done. For example, if I was to hire someone to babysit my (hypothetical) children, I'd want to make sure that they were healthy, sober, safe, etc...

BUT at the same time, people should be able to work without having to compromise their beliefs and values...

I personally don't think you should be forced to be vaccinated to work, but I can see why some employers might deem it necessary. It's just an interesting subject to discuss

Originally Posted by Portugal4142

I work for a health insurance provider (which also has it's own hospitals, etc) and even though I'm just in an office environment, I either have to get the flu shot or wear a mask to work everyday.

Not really sure why someone wouldn't get it?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/30/health...ase/index.html

I posted a link above that shows reasons why someone might not want to get a flu shot. There are benefits and drawbacks to everything, and it seems like people should have the right to weigh the options for themselves... especially when concerning their own health... in my eyes, the debate comes in when you are putting other people's health at risk (i.e. working at a hospital)... but where do we draw the line? Would you be okay with the government enforcing mandatory vaccinations if there was a supposed outbreak of some kind?



I also wonder how this relates to the debate on abortion? Obviously, this is a much different issue, but the woman in the initial article was arguing "I have the right to do what I chose... it's my body"

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by jawstheme

But business get to decide how people should live otherwise. As long as the employee isn't effecting the business through their habits I don't see why they should be able to control their private decisions.

The flu shots at the hospital is something where I can see a strong enough interest for business to be justified. You want your employees healthy and available in the winter months as a medical center. Mandatory drug testing annoys me though.

I agree with this.

I don't think an employer should have any right to say what you can and can't do when you are off the clock, as long as you aren't making the business suffer in any way.

If you come to work every day and perform at 100% then who are they to say what I can and can't do at home in my off time.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Portugal4142

Just playing devils advocate (especially because this is the business I'm in), but an employees habit does sometimes affect the business. Employees who are obese, smokers, drug addicts, or subject themselves to unhealthy habits end up costing the business a ton in health insurance costs. Especially with small businesses... no word of lie I've seen 1 single employee cost a small business an extra $14,000 in health insurance premium throughout the year.

I do agree with you guys to a certain extent though... the answer isn't regulating employees outside of when they're working. But those decisions can cost their business.

I understand what you're saying from a business owner's perspective, having to provide health insurance for its employees... but you can only do so much to anticipate/avoid these costs.

You can try to weed out potentially costly employees based on health problems, drug use, obesity, etc... but what about those things that are undetectable

Why should someone not be hired because they use illegal drugs in their off time? Because you can detect it with a drug test? What about someone who chooses to drink in their off time? You aren't going to be able to figure it out with a drug test...

... and the person who uses illegal drugs could very well be the more dependable/better worker than the alcoholic.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by sjb2k1

the amount of extra time not-working that the smokers get here is ridic

this

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by NewAgeofHorus

I don't know why people fucking take lab made substances to fight natural bugs/illnesses.

Our bodies have a natural defense that has worked for thousands and thousands, maybe even millions of years and it can't work against these stupid lab made substances getting in it's way. That's why a lot of people get sick after taking the flu shot because the body isn't used to these unnatural chemicals we are polluting ourselves with and it weakens the immune system. Anything that you but in your body that isn't natural and is a chemical is bad. For every chemical that we pump in our bodies are several natural non-potentially harmless substances we can consume.

But people will forever trust their government so it's pointless.

I think this post may be a little over generalizing, but he has a point. Civilizations have survived for thousands of years without man-made medicines. Sure, lots of pharmaceuticals have helped lots of people... probably far more than they've hurt, but it's like arguing organics vs. pesticides... Nature will take care of you, especially if you respect it and understand it.

edit: Let's say Drug A (a lab made substance) has had positive effects on 10,000 people and only had harmful effects on 100 people, we'd call that a success... BUT the problem is that Drug A could possibly cause the virus it's protecting you from to mutate into something else, which we will then have to come up with Drug B to solve... so on and so forth.

I'm not a "natural healer" and I do take pharmaceuticals from time to time... but I think that natural remedies should be respected more and people shouldn't assume that just because they're "natural" that they are some kind of hippy dippy shit and are not powerful

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by NewAgeofHorus

Yeah, at the beginning of November people in my area started flipping shit and getting flu shots.

All I did was get raw turmeric, organic apple cider vinegar and 5000 IU vitamin d3. I haven't had one cold this season.

People on these boards will laugh at you but the benefits of these things is astronomical. I think there are certain ailments that often times need more than a natural treatment... I mean, modern medicine is incredible but it's also flawed. Prevention is much more effective than treatment, and if you use these natural things as a preventative method, you often times won't ever need anything else.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Life expectancy for the past thousand or so years up until the mid 20th century was only around the early-to-mid 30s.

There are lots of reasons for that... I'll admit that modern medicine is one of those reasons, but we have also evolved and adapted to our surroundings making our life expectancy longer.

We've also found out which things in nature are helpful and which are harmful.

Like I've said numerous times, I'm not advocating the complete abolition of modern medicine. I just think for the most part, if you have a strong immune system (which you can attain by eating the right things, maybe taking some of the natural things that NOAH mentioned) you will probably be able to avoid sickness. I think that prevention is much more effective than treatment, and I don't think that giving yourself a small dosage of the flu is proper prevention... There are several vaccines and pharmaceutical medications that are extremely effective, but there are also some natural ones that are effective as well, and it seems like a lot of them get ignored in favor of just popping a pill/getting a shot