Karl`s PC Help Forums

New York State--health care workers required to take swine flu vaccination
scholar - 4-10-2009 at 22:39

Normally, health care workers are encouraged to take the seasonal flu vaccincation, but only about 40% do so. This year, it is a requirement in the state of New York--but some workers are refusing to do so. They may lose their jobs over it.

For some, it is a matter of principle--they don't think the state has the right to dictate what they do with respect to their personal health care. One worker has never had a flu vaccination in the 15 years she has been a health care worker, and she has never gotten flu either--not even once. No one could truly say she would have done better with a vaccination previously, when she has a perfect record.

What do you think? Should they be required to take the vaccination? Should they be fired if they don't?

waffler - 5-10-2009 at 04:12

Vaccinations should be up to the individual . What would happen if an employee had the shot then died due to an allergic reaction from the drug .

LSemmens - 5-10-2009 at 13:35

The issue behind all vaccinations is prevention. We have seen the demise of many horrific diseases owing to vaccination programs, polio, anyone?
A person may never develop the disease, but, if unvaccinated, may become a carrier who might infect others. If you were sincerely worried about an allergic reaction to a particular treatment, then, I'd be asking why you were working in an area where you run a risk of contracting such a disease, anyway.

scholar - 6-10-2009 at 18:05

There are two methods of innoculation. The older method involves injecting some dead virus. The newer method, some of which is now ready for distribution in the U.S., is nasal spray--the person inhales LIVE VIRUS into their nose. scared_stiff scared_stiff scared_stiff Pregnant women and people with a compromised immune system have been told not to use the inhalant method.

Does this inspire full confidence in the rest of you?shocked_yellow

LSemmens - 7-10-2009 at 12:55

It would depend upon how much you trust the medical system that permits such delivery methods. You'd certainly make a good reporter for one of those "National Enquirer" type rags!

giron - 7-10-2009 at 12:59

Originally posted by LSemmens
You'd certainly make a good reporter for one of those "National Enquirer" type rags!

At least he'd be gainfully employed. ;)

Redwolf5150 - 7-10-2009 at 13:34

So now you're an M.D. or at least knowledgeable enough in medicine to question a method of drug delivery that's been used for several years now?

If you are so against modern medicine, I'm sure there are still cultures that use witch doctors.

And why isn't this in the U.S. health care forum? Again you skirt the rules to beat your drums of protest. Beyond tiresome, IMHO.

My mind is now officially boggled!

scholar - 7-10-2009 at 14:30

Originally posted by Redwolf5150
So now you're an M.D. or at least knowledgeable enough in medicine to question a method of drug delivery that's been used for several years now?
Yes, I am knowledgeable enough to distinguish between the two innoculation methods. The medical authorities themselves do so when they say that pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems should not be given the live virus. So, I agree with them in doing so.

Why do they make the distinction? Because the live virus can multiply. They don't want to risk using it with those who are pregnant, or who have compromised immune systems.

What, then, about people who have compromised immune systems, but DON'T KNOW IT? Those who aren't aware their immune systems are compromised could get in "the wrong line" and inhale the live virus by mistake.

Logically, with a choice between using a dead-virus innoculation method that is considered safe for everyone, or a live-virus innoculation system that is considered safe for some (but not for everyone), why would we use the safe-for-some method?

I would suppose the answer is that some people are adverse to the pain from a shot. But, if live virus delivery isn't safe for everyone, is that a sufficient reason?

Mary2 - 7-10-2009 at 14:39

This certainly should be in US Healthcare.

Perhaps a mod could move it?

scholar - 7-10-2009 at 15:07

The practice in New York does not extend to the United States. It is a local issue, not a national one.

Mary2 - 7-10-2009 at 15:23

It's not a world-wide issue scholar. Quite particularly local to an area of America and about healthcare. hth

LSemmens - 8-10-2009 at 13:44

Just a quick question scholar, would you recommend driving a car?

The reason that I ask is that many people are injured or die from the effects of motor vehicles daily. Are you as worried about that as the possible side effects of medication that has be tested and shown to effective in nearly all cases. If it were demonstrated that, of people who attend hospital, some die, would you avoid hospitals?