Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
Sign in
09-27-2014 09:32 PM
Right, no one should be forced. However, we do require certain professions to do drug testing for their jobs, and if they don't agree, they're not allowed to get or keep those jobs.
Same for nurses. If they don't think the medical profession knows what they're talking about, they shouldn't be in that profession. And if they refuse to get flu shots, they shouldn't be anywhere near patients or anything patients get near, like food prep.
09-27-2014 09:36 PM
On 9/27/2014 mominohio said:I applaud anyone who stands up and doesn't let a company, a government, or any other person dictate what they will choose for their health care options. I've never taken a flu shot, and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. We have a nation full of people who think a woman's body is her business, and she has the right to "choose" but mandate that everyone take a vaccine. It is still a free country (kind of) and NO ONE here should be dictating to or belittling people about their choice to take or not take a flu shot or any other vaccine. They call it the practice of medicine for a reason. It is not foolproof, and we see over and over again that drugs and treatments once thought safe and mainstream are called into question and discarded as time goes on. Science only goes so far. People have gut feelings, intuition, and educated decision making skills that they should employ when making such decisions, not just accepting blanket mandates from a medical profession that revolves around the making of money (insurance companies, drug companies, and all the rest).
Hello, mominohio!
As has been explained before, flu vaccines are not money-makers. No matter what you might find alleged on some websites, they simply are not money-makers. The notion that they are is a myth perpetuated by anti-vaccine groups. The industries you list actually make more financial gain if more of us forgo vaccines and fall ill, especially with the complications that are often associated. You're right, no individual here or on the street should tell another individual what their choice should be. Because none of us knows the others in person, and we aren't their medical team, and we aren’t there to hold their hand when they need support in person. A woman’s choice is a red herring in this discussion, doesn’t apply to the topic of vaccines for public protection.
Also, no human being is perfect no matter what their profession -- I've said that on other threads many times. But that's no reason to denigrate healthcare professionals in the way that seems to have become fashionable. Regarding the mandates, when a person chooses to work in healthcare they also choose to be governed by certain policies -- policies set up for the good of the overwhelming majority.
09-27-2014 09:41 PM
"The practice of" is used in many professions. All it means is they are active in their chosen field. It does not mean they're just taking an unskilled whack at something.
The same holds true for other areas in science and the use of "theory." In that case, "theory" doesn't translate to "we guess it's true." Rather "theory" there means tried and true knowledge.
09-27-2014 09:46 PM
On 9/27/2014 NoelSeven said:"The practice of" is used in many professions. All it means is they are active in their chosen field. It does not mean they're just taking an unskilled whack at something.
The same holds true for other areas in science and the use of "theory." In that case, "theory" doesn't translate to "we guess it's true." Rather "theory" there means tried and true knowledge.
Hi, Noel! Thanks for posting that. It's infuriating to see the term used against medical professionals.
09-27-2014 09:46 PM
On 9/27/2014 mominohio said:I applaud anyone who stands up and doesn't let a company, a government, or any other person dictate what they will choose for their health care options. I've never taken a flu shot, and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. We have a nation full of people who think a woman's body is her business, and she has the right to "choose" but mandate that everyone take a vaccine. It is still a free country (kind of) and NO ONE here should be dictating to or belittling people about their choice to take or not take a flu shot or any other vaccine. They call it the practice of medicine for a reason. It is not foolproof, and we see over and over again that drugs and treatments once thought safe and mainstream are called into question and discarded as time goes on. Science only goes so far. People have gut feelings, intuition, and educated decision making skills that they should employ when making such decisions, not just accepting blanket mandates from a medical profession that revolves around the making of money (insurance companies, drug companies, and all the rest).
...and I applaud hospitals for firing employees who refuse vaccinations or any other testing necessary to keep patients reasonably safe from infections.
09-27-2014 09:52 PM
The OP might like to read the editorial from her newspaper article that started this, here's what they think about it all. [https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/09/25/brigham-nurses-need-flu-shots-mass-should-...
Brigham and Women’s nurses need flu shots
FLU SHOTS save lives, and state rules shouldn’t stand in the way of more widespread vaccination. But a lawsuit filed this week by a nurses’ union against a mandatory vaccination policy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital has exposed a flaw in state regulations, which now make it unnecessarily difficult for hospitals to ensure that front-line medical workers are fully protected. The Massachusetts Nurses Association and the hospital’s management need to settle their differences. In the meantime, though, state regulators should toughen state rules to remove one needless obstacle to vaccination.
Only about 77 percent of the staff at Brigham and Women’s have flu shots, even though the hospital offers them to employees for free. That’s below other major medical institutions, and the hospital recently moved to require the shots of employees. Vaccinating doctors and nurses is especially important because of the many sick patients they see, and because of the high risk of transmitting the disease to other patients. For doctors and nurses, shots protect not only them but also public health at large; without such safeguards, hospitals can accelerate epidemics rather than stop them.
That’s the primary reason nurses are already required to get shots for measles, polio, and other infectious diseases. But state regulations contain an unusual exception for flu shots. The exact meaning of the language is disputed, but it seems to forbid hospitals from requiring staff to get the once-a-year shot. While a religious or medical exemption might be warranted, the language of the regulation requires no explanation at all. That provision has given the union grounds for its suit against the hospital’s new policy.
Of course, just because union officials have a legal leg to stand on doesn’t explain why they’ve chosen to use it. Other unionized hospitals in Massachusetts have reached near-total vaccination, and the union hasn’t offered any clear explanation why it’s digging in at Brigham and Women’s. Whichever underlying tensions may be behind the impasse are for the two sides to address on their own, outside the court system. But state regulations should not stand in the way of hospitals that seek to enact policies that protect public health.
09-27-2014 09:52 PM
On 9/27/2014 dooBdoo said:On 9/27/2014 NoelSeven said:"The practice of" is used in many professions. All it means is they are active in their chosen field. It does not mean they're just taking an unskilled whack at something.
The same holds true for other areas in science and the use of "theory." In that case, "theory" doesn't translate to "we guess it's true." Rather "theory" there means tried and true knowledge.
Hi, Noel! Thanks for posting that. It's infuriating to see the term used against medical professionals.
You're welcome, dBd
There are so many people who don't know the basics of science, it comes up often.
09-27-2014 09:58 PM
I will ask those upset about asking nurses to get shots to consider first the case of Typhoid Mary. Most of us know that story... Mary was a typhoid carrier. She didn't come down seriously ill with typhoid, but she did give it to many others who then died.
If you haven't heard of her, look on Wikipedia or other sources for the history.
Now consider men with AIDS who knowingly went on to have relations with others, passing along a terrible disease. When proven, they are jailed.
Putting a sick person in the care of a nurse, doctor or technician with the flu can be a similar death sentence. I'm assuming no one here would want that for a beloved child, mother or anyone else.
09-27-2014 10:50 PM
On 9/27/2014 terrier3 said:I love near a very old historic cemetery.
There are literally thousands of people buried in 1918 who died from the influenza. There is a family that lost 5 children and the mother in the space of two months. They have a huge monument - they were obviously well off people.
I can only imagine the sorrow in that home in 1918.
Chances of dying from flu is greater than dying from a reaction to the shot.
If you visit the cemeteries in Cades Cove, Gatlingburg, TN it is very noticeable that an outbreak of something killed many of the residents there. It is striking to see the headstones with people that all died within just a couple of months of each other. And they represent all ages...little babies to older individuals. Hard to say what it was, but it could very well have been smallpox.
Communicable disease used to be the leading cause of death in the country for decade after decade, after decade. Hard work by public health officials, medical research, and a country that put a focus on protecting the health of the public changed that. Now, we have people that just because they read something on the internet or some article, they think they know what is best for everyone else.
I maintain today that if smallpox had not been eradicated, we would have no hope of eradicating it in today's environment. And smallpox was eradicated back when the science of vaccination was relatively young, as compared to today. LOL!
09-27-2014 10:53 PM
On 9/27/2014 terrier3 said:On 9/27/2014 mominohio said:I applaud anyone who stands up and doesn't let a company, a government, or any other person dictate what they will choose for their health care options. I've never taken a flu shot, and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. We have a nation full of people who think a woman's body is her business, and she has the right to "choose" but mandate that everyone take a vaccine. It is still a free country (kind of) and NO ONE here should be dictating to or belittling people about their choice to take or not take a flu shot or any other vaccine. They call it the practice of medicine for a reason. It is not foolproof, and we see over and over again that drugs and treatments once thought safe and mainstream are called into question and discarded as time goes on. Science only goes so far. People have gut feelings, intuition, and educated decision making skills that they should employ when making such decisions, not just accepting blanket mandates from a medical profession that revolves around the making of money (insurance companies, drug companies, and all the rest).
...and I applaud hospitals for firing employees who refuse vaccinations or any other testing necessary to keep patients reasonably safe from infections.
So do I.
Many, if not most, people who die from the flu have an underlying medical condition. Autoimmune illness scores high on that list. Being hospitalized during the flu season shouldn't be a death sentence for those at high risk because their nurse was in the early stage of flu when it's very contagious.
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
*You're signing up to receive QVC promotional email.
Find recent orders, do a return or exchange, create a Wish List & more.
Privacy StatementGeneral Terms of Use
QVC is not responsible for the availability, content, security, policies, or practices of the above referenced third-party linked sites nor liable for statements, claims, opinions, or representations contained therein. QVC's Privacy Statement does not apply to these third-party web sites.
© 1995-2025 QVC, Inc. All rights reserved. | QVC, Q and the Q logo are registered service marks of ER Marks, Inc. 888-345-5788