Pregnant nurse: I was fired for refusing flu vaccine

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
(CNN) -- A pregnant nurse tells CNN she was fired from her job after she refused to get a flu shot for fear of miscarrying.

"I'm a healthy person. I take care of my body. For me, the potential risk was not worth it," Dreonna Breton told CNN Sunday. "I'm not gonna be the one percent of people that has a problem."

Breton, 29, worked as a nurse at Horizons Healthcare Services in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, when she was told that all employees were required to get a flu shot. The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention advises that all health care professionals get vaccinated annually.

She told her employers that she would not get the vaccine after she explained that there were very limited studies of the effects on pregnant women.
Breton came to the decision with her family after three miscarriages.

The mother of one submitted letters from her obstetrician and primary care doctor supporting her decision, but she was told that she would be fired on December 17 if she did not receive the vaccine before then.

Horizons Healthcare Services spokesman Alan Peterson told CNN affiliate WPVI that it's unconscionable for a health care worker not to be immunized and that pregnant women are more susceptible to the flu.

The CDC website states that getting a flu shot while pregnant is the best protection for pregnant women and their babies.

"I know that the CDC says to get it, and that's fine, but it was our choice to avoid the flu vaccine and the unknowns that come with that," Breton said.
Breton offered to wear a face mask at work, a practice that is used if employees are exempted for religious reasons. The hospital did not approve, according to Breton.

cont at
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/29/health/pregnant-nurse-flu-vaccine-refusal/
 
Dur! I think the knowns about the risks regarding pregnant women in the healthcare industry and the flu far outweigh improbable unknowns.
 
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this story. I think that you should be vaccinated for the flu as a healthcare professional..I have seen the devastation that the simple flu can cause...and when you are going to be exposed to it why take a chance and then pass it to other patients.

On the other hand, if she had 3 miscarriages I could see her concern about getting it while pregnant. Of course, if I was that worried about my pregnancy and losing it I probably wouldnt work as a nurse in a facility where I would be exposed to the flu as that would be dangerous for the fetus also. Personally, I have been a nurse for 20 years, probably the first 7 of those I never took a flu shot, til the year I got the flu and was deathly ill..I now get it every year.
 
flu vaccines are not all they're cracked up to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ztiAN9k584


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...itish-medical-journal-cochrane_n_2117287.html

check out bad pharma- its a book on all the shit the pharmaceutical industry does to push bunk crap

hepatitis yes but come on- its the flu


how about everyone that visits the hospital should have to be vaccinated first? because they bring in just as much disease as nurses and they are not held to hygiene standards because they are not employee's
 
how about everyone that visits the hospital should have to be vaccinated first? because they bring in just as much disease as nurses and they are not held to hygiene standards because they are not employee's

Most people who go to a hospital aren't interacting with large numbers of sick people. It makes sense in my mind that you'd want the people getting the most exposure to the pathogens to have the best defence. Even though it's certainly not 100% effective, it's better than just transfecting everyone...
 
Since wearing a mask should reduce the chance of infecting others significantly, and the nurse is pregnant and has a legitimate reason to worry about taking the vaccine, and the vaccine is not usually very effective, I support her decision to not get it, and respect her rights to determine what she wants to put in her body.

I must say that I am a bit surprised to see BLers arguing that she should have no choice what to put in her body. (Or, at least I was when this topic came up a while ago.)
Seems to me that the right to put anything you want to inside your body (e.g. drugs) also involves the right NOT to put something in your body - even if scientists can say that there is a 90+% chance that it won't hurt you. Who wants to be the exception? For some people, that risk is unacceptable. Who should decide what risk is acceptable for each person? I can only say that each individual must choose for him/herself.
 
I must say that I am a bit surprised to see BLers arguing that she should have no choice what to put in her body. (Or, at least I was when this topic came up a while ago.)
Seems to me that the right to put anything you want to inside your body (e.g. drugs) also involves the right NOT to put something in your body - even if scientists can say that there is a 90+% chance that it won't hurt you. Who wants to be the exception? For some people, that risk is unacceptable. Who should decide what risk is acceptable for each person? I can only say that each individual must choose for him/herself.

Do you feel the same way about all vaccination mandates, or just those for the flu vaccine? Like, what if we were talking polio or smallpox (do people still get smallpox and polio vaccines?)?

It just seems to me that people can be anti-vaccination up until they see plague and death. Sort of like the people on Herschel's farm were pro-zombie until they were attacked.
 
^ It is true that I feel differently about flu and polio.
If polio were not transmittable if one wore a mask, I might feel better, but without knowing much about it, it sounds friggin scary.
Assuming that polio is transmittable despite wearing a mask ( I actually have no idea), I would support the hospital refusing to employ her further as a nurse, since she could easily infect everyone she came in contact with.
However, I would support her choice not to take the vaccine (even if I didn't agree with it). Meaning, I would feel that she should lose her job (or be transferred, etc), but that she should have the right to decide if she takes the vaccine or not.
 
Good. So she should. A walking disease vector should NOT be working in healthcare.
 
If polio were not transmittable if one wore a mask

Um. Say what now?

Nasal secretions, which contain virus particles, are responsible for transmission by direct contact or by contaminated objects. An infected person will frequently touch their nose or conjunctiva, placing virus on the hand. Intimate or non-intimate contact (e.g. shaking hands) will transfer the virus to another person, who will then infect themselves by touching their nose or eyes. When contaminated hands touch other objects, the virus is transferred to them. In one study, 23-59% of objects from homes and day care facilities were shown to harbor influenza viral RNA. Others have shown that infectious influenza virus may be persist on paper currency for several weeks.

Influenza transmission can be reduced by covering your nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing, and by washing hands often with soap and water or alcohol-based hand cleaners. Note that CDC does not recommend the use of face masks for reducing viral spread. It is important to recognize that, in human infections, maximum levels of virus shedding may occur about a day before the peak of symptoms.

http://www.virology.ws/2009/04/29/influenza-virus-transmission/
 
And because this thread piqued my interest:

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommends that doctors and hospitals provide their flu patients with face masks, little is known about the infectiousness of exhaled particles and the effectiveness of masks in preventing their spread.

McDevitt and his colleagues screened 89 volunteers, 37 of whom tested positive for the flu and were asked to provide exhaled breath samples with and without a surgical mask. Among the volunteers, 43% exhaled large influenza-containing particles while not wearing a mask, compared to 11% while wearing a mask; 92% exhaled small influenza-containing particles while not wearing a mask, compared to 78% while wearing a mask. In addition, they found that the flu virus was 8.8 times more numerous in exhaled small particles than in large particles.

M. Patricia Fabian, a research fellow in Exposure, Epidemiology, and Risk also contributed to the study. Lead author of the study was Donald Milton of the University of Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health.

In a previous paper published online January 2, 2013, in Aerosol Science and Technology, McDevitt, Fabian, and colleagues described the air sampler that they designed and built for testing exhalations from influenza patients. Known as the G-II, the device allows researchers to test subjects while they perform various respiratory functions such as talking and coughing, with and without a mask.

More research is needed on how the flu is spread and how to prevent transmission, McDevitt said. “However, the first line of defense against getting the flu is getting the flu vaccine.”

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/face-masks-flu/
 
Um. Say what now?

Maybe you didn't read my whole post? I wrote this:
Assuming that polio is transmittable despite wearing a mask ( I actually have no idea)

So, your quote is saying that wearing a mask won't stop the spread of the flu? Despite the fact that nasal secretions are responsible for the spread of the virus? Doesn't make much sense to me.
 
So, your quote is saying that wearing a mask won't stop the spread of the flu? Despite the fact that nasal secretions are responsible for the spread of the virus? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Masks don't act as a total barrier to viral particles, they only act to reduce the amount of particulate 'spray'. Fine mists (and micron size viral particles) can still pass quite easily through a mask.

Same analogy to using cotton balls to filter IV shots. The pore size is just too big to be effective.
 
Most people who go to a hospital aren't interacting with large numbers of sick people. It makes sense in my mind that you'd want the people getting the most exposure to the pathogens to have the best defence. Even though it's certainly not 100% effective, it's better than just transfecting everyone...

oh so they dont touch the doors and the bed area's and this doesn't get passed around the hospital. infection control is ridiculous in a sense because its impossible to prevent the spread of infections, and its guess work as to how they are spread about. relatives who sneeze repeatedly undo any benefit to having nurses vaccinated against a seasonal disease that is not even that bad in the big scheme of shitty contagious multi drug resistant pathogens

the flu might not be good but sacking someone for not having a possibly effective/possibly ineffective vaccine is bullshit

patients relatives come in and the first thing they do is hold their hand or give them a hug so dont even try to pretend they are not a huge source of infections in hospitals. nurses have a lot of contact with patients but in the uk infection control is a big deal and they are like nazi's so hand hygiene has to be top notch.
 
Good. So she should. A walking disease vector should NOT be working in healthcare.

what do you think doctors are? have you seen how bad their hand hygeine is?

there is no vaccine for VRE and i'm sure there are other diseases for which there are no vaccines
 
Not getting the flu vaccine makes you a "walking disease vector". That is interesting.

You know if patients are so concerned about getting the flu they should've gotten the vaccine, then they would not have a worry about a non vaccinated person coming in contact with them. Especially if these people are in a risk category where the flu could harm them, such as the elderly or those with weakened immune systems.
 
such as the elderly or those with weakened immune systems.

You mean the demographic for whom flu vaccination is most ineffective?

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/misconceptions.htm

"unfortunately, the flu vaccine doesn't always provide adequate protection against the flu. This is more likely to occur among people that have weakened immune systems or people age 65 and older"

And that, people, is why we have mass vaccination programmes - to provide herd immunity for those members of the community who can't be effectively vaccinated. You can give elderly people vaccines and their still susceptible to the disease, so when some narcissistic nurse with her precious sensibilities about being vaccinated comes along and sprays them with flu aerosols they get sick, potentially chronically so, which just puts further burden on the system.

Sure, you're never going to eliminate risk of infection among patients but that's not a reason for making it riskier because so-called health "professionals" refuse to take preventative action.

Sack early, sack often. I have no patience for people who undermine our vaccination system. If you have a problem with getting a jab, find another career path - healthcare isn't for you.
 
Top