U-M Health System requires masks for certain employees who declined flu vaccine; some St. Joe workers fired
Employees who come into regular contact with patients at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor will have to wear masks if they haven't had vaccines.
Starting today, some University of Michigan Health System employees who refused to get a flu vaccine will be wearing masks while they care for patients.
Refusal to comply with the new policy, which goes into effect at 7 a.m. today, could get employees who have direct contact with patients fired. Volunteers, service-staff and students who haven't gotten a flu shot will also be asked to comply with the new "masks on" requirement when interacting with patients.
Meanwhile, at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Superior Township, several employees who refused vaccines have lost their jobs. All workers were given the choice to receive free flu and pertussis vaccinations by Jan. 10 or face unemployment. Officials said the final numbers aren’t known, but fewer than 25 individuals were fired for refusing to receive one or both vaccines.
Mandatory vaccine programs like those at St. Joe and UMHS are a growing trend nationwide.
Compliance with the vaccine policy at St. Joseph Mercy hospitals was high — 98.3 percent of about 7,010 employees at the health system’s Ann Arbor, Saline and Livingston locations, as well as the Brighton and Canton outpatient facilities, got the vaccines. officials said. The policy went into effect in November.
Typically, only about half of St. Joseph employees got a flu shot when an immunization program was voluntary — despite memos, free vaccination clinics and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation, said Lakshmi Halasyamani, vice president for quality and systems improvement.
Free to employees, vaccines cost St. Joseph Mercy Health System $350,000 this year, compared to $67,000 last year, said Kevin DiCola, communications manager for the health system. Less than 2 percent of employees filled out forms to successfully opt out of the program for medical or other reasons.
Karen Bashista lost her job after declining the flu shot.
“I’ve never had one,” she said. “My mother had a flu vaccine and had a bad reaction to it. I’m typically a very healthy person.”
Bashista said she is very careful about washing her hands and never works sick. She attends a non-denominational Christian church and said while reading the Bible she got the feeling the Holy Spirit told her not to take the vaccine. Before being fired, she filled out the form to decline the vaccine and had a meeting with a hospital epidemiologist.
“Because it’s not a specific doctrine of my church, that’s why they did not accept my letter,” she said she was told.
On paper, misconduct is the official reason given for her firing, she said, a fact the nurse of 38 years said she finds frustrating. She said her evaluations had been positive in seven years at St. Joe, and she was once named outstanding nurse of the year for her unit.
The UMHS policy went into effect in September. About 14,500 of 25,000 employees at UMHS must receive vaccinations for both the flu and pertussis. The policy includes doctors, nurses and others who regularly come in contact with patients. If they decline a flu vaccine, those employees must wear a mask when interacting with patients or face a disciplinary process that could lead to unemployment.
Other employees, such as support services staff, will have to wear masks when they interact with patients if they haven’t been vaccinated for the flu. The same is true for volunteers, vendors or students in clinical settings.
Pertussis is a bacterial infection commonly known as whooping cough. Washtenaw County is at the epicenter of a statewide whooping cough epidemic, with 232 cases reported through Dec. 20, according to health department officials. In 2009, 81 cases were reported.
Thursday, UMHS sent a mass e-mail reminding workers about the policy change that stated over 17,000 employees have complied so far.
“This requirement demonstrates to patients and visitors our strong
 commitment to protecting them from a virus that can cause serious 
illness in the most vulnerable
", the e-mail said..
Juliana Keeping is a health and environment reporter for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
Soo
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.
I think all people who are vaccinated should be required to wear masks, as they are more likely to spread and harbor disease.
Soo
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 4:49 p.m.
Not in children with asthma (2): "The inactivated flu vaccine, Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine." Reference: The American Thoracic Society's 105th International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego
Soo
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 4:49 p.m.
Not in children with asthma: A study 800 children with asthma, where one half were vaccinated and the other half did not receive the influenza vaccine. The two groups were compared with respect to clinic visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations for asthma. CONCLUSION: This study failed to provide evidence that the influenza vaccine prevents pediatric asthma exacerbations. Reference: "Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations." Christly, C. et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Aug;89(8):734-5.
Soo
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
Not in adults: In a review of 48 reports including more than 66,000 adults, "Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6% and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day (0.16) days. It did not change the number of people needing to go to hospital or take time off work." Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1 (2006). Not in the Elderly: In a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, For elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not (significantly) effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia. Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.3 (2006).
Soo
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
Do flu shots work? Not in babies: In a review of more than 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children it was found there was "no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shotwas any more effective than placebo. In children over 2 yrs, it was only effective 33% of the time in preventing the flu. Reference: "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2 (2008).
Soo
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Wow. This is wrong on so many levels. Here's some basic information for you all about flu shots.... What's in the regular flu shot? Egg proteins: including avian contaminant viruses Gelatin: can cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis are usually associated with sensitivity to egg or gelatin Polysorbate 80 (Tween80™): can cause severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Also associated with inferility in female mice. Formaldehyde: known carcinogen Triton X100: a strong detergent Sucrose: table sugar Resin: known to cause allergic reactions Gentamycin: an antibiotic Thimerosal: mercury is still in multidose flu shot vials
Michael Steigmeyer
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 8:28 p.m.
Employees at U-M Health System don't technically "refuse" the flu vaccine. Instead, they are given the choice to decline vaccination based on medical, religious or other reasons. If employees decline to be vaccinated, protective masks are provided to them and required to be worn during face-to-face patient interaction for the duration of flu season. Michael Steigmeyer U-M Health System Public Relations
Soo
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
Do you also require patients that are not vaccinated to wear masks?
marlon glenn
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
Faith in something is almost impossible to argue against. Those who have "faith" in flu shots and the medical industry probably always will. It is not my aim to convert anyone. If you wish to believe in fantasy, by all means, do so. Just as I will not debate those who wish to believe in the tooth fairy. Enjoy your delusion. For those who seek truth about vaccination, it is out there. You may start here: <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/031043_flu_vaccines_quackery.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.naturalnews.com/031043_flu_vaccines_quackery.html</a>.
snapshot
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 12:55 a.m.
I'm all for it! The vulnerable patients should be a priority not he whims and beliefs of the workers who are paid to care for them. Like any other consumer, a patient should not be forced to accept care from a worker who refuses to take all reasonable measures to prevent the spread of a possibly fatal virus or disease, no matter what their beliefs, they are accepting money in return for proper care of the patient. If their belief system prevents taking those precautions, they don't get to take the patients money for the "uncaring" of the patient.
jean
Sun, Jan 23, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
I hope all of you that have condemned me for not getting my flu shot have gotten yours. I have worked in the hospital for many years without getting the flu shot or the flu. It should be my right as an American to choose if I get the flu shot. Many have said if I do not trust the CDC I should not be in this profession, it is not about trust but about risks. Everything comes with risks and it should be my choice if I should take the risk, not hospital administers. The flu shot has been linked to an increases in cancer and Alzheimer. It is made from an egg based product which many are allergic to and can not get the injection. Many of the people I know have had serious reactions to the vaccination . So it has been my choice not to get it, I will wear my mask and be marked as a non-conformer. The people who have gotten the flu vaccine may still get the flu and because they have gotten the flu shot may come to work and infect individuals. There are multiple strains of flu and the vaccine does not protect you from them all. Good hand washing should be the standard and staying home if you are sick.
julieswhimsies
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 4:09 a.m.
I am glad you have never had the flu. I contracted it more than 20 years ago and almost died. I sat in the ER of a major medical center for 3 hours before they decided to isolate me. A major flu epidemic broke out the following week. Who knows how many people I contaminated! The flu is not like a cold, I developed temps of 105 and over, and was hospitalized for 6 weeks from complications. Since the flu shot was developed I have not had it since. I hope your luck holds out.
jean
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
It never was in my job description that I had to have a yearly flu shot. I am more likely to get something from my patients then me giving them something. Patients come in with all types of infectious diseases and I can not refuse to take care of them. I do wear my mask, it just is funny that a co-worker who sounds terrible but had the flu shot doesn't have to wear one. They seem more likely to get a patient sick.
1bit
Sun, Jan 23, 2011 : 8:37 p.m.
No one is saying that you don't have the "right" to deny a getting a flu shot. You still have that option. However, it is not your "right" to potentially kill sick people because of your desire not to be immunized or wear a mask. You have a choice to make - if you don't trust the CDC or your employer then you should find another job. What makes you think you are entitled to write your own job description or the prerequisites for your position?
SonnyDog09
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
I'll say it again, if you work in Healthcare and don't trust the CDC, you probably should not be working in Healthcare. Here is a link to the CDC's paper on Influenza Vaccination of Health-Care Personnel. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5502a1.htm?s_cid=rr5502a1_e" rel='nofollow'>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5502a1.htm?s_cid=rr5502a1_e</a> This quote from the paper puts it best: "Vaccination of HCP(Health Care Personnel) reduces transmission of influenza in health-care settings, staff illness and absenteeism, and influenza-related morbidity and mortality among persons at increased risk for severe influenza illness."
chaz
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.
Yeah so they say. It's all about the money. People believe everything they read!
Deb
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 4:05 p.m.
We are on the front lines daily in providing premium health care. It should be a committment across the board for all of us to keep our patients safe, ourselves safe, and our co-workers and families safe. I applaud our System's decision to mandate these guidelines as strict as they have. When receiving vaccines was voluntary, the rates were simply too low, even during the height of the H1N1 pandemic last year when the vaccine became readily available for all the employees. I had the misfortune of contracting H1N1 during the initial outbreak, it wasn't a walk in the park and it landed me in bed for a week and it took me several weeks to get better again. I was lucky, I was previously healthy and this was considered a mild case. Imagine a patient with an already weakened immune system with other issues going on and contracting this during their hospital stay, it would be devastating.
johnnya2
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
This is ridiculous since they do not require anything of the patients at the hospital. Where do you think the transmission happens? It is not from nurse to patient. Once patient being near another is more likely to cause problems. Sick people go to hospitals. They pass their germs on to other patients who already have suppressed immune systems. The employees have a much stronger immunity already. They are in it daily. In fact the immunization theory would be that they have already built up a defense.
chaz
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
I agree and I think it's funny that no talks about the possibility of healthcare providers getting infected by the patients. Should family and friends of patients be mandated to get flu vaccines or not visit their loved ones? They can bring in lots of germs to the patients.
Deb
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.
It's an urban legend that health care workers have stronger immune systems. We've merely had more exposures. Hospital borne infections are transmitted from many sources, including care provider to patient.
Jack
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
I praise this new policy and it's about time! My son had to be in isolation from Nov- May due to cold and flu season and was only allowed around family members who had the vaccine. He spent much of his short life in the hospital and I can only imagine what would have happened if an employee was not protected, it could have killed him much sooner! It is the responsibility of the hospital management and it's employees to protect their patients who are vulnerable & at risk. If people don't want to get the vaccine then they belong in a different work environment. The patients must always come first, many are in there fighting for their lives!
julieswhimsies
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 4:02 a.m.
Jack, I am so sorry for your loss.
Jake C
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 6:17 a.m.
Ugh, debates about vaccines are pretty much the worst things aside from maybe gun control or abortion debates. Few people on either side are willing to be swayed to the other direction. All we do is come up with arguments about why the other side are 1) freedom-hating nazis, or 2) science-hating morons, or 3) logic-hating religious fundamentalists, or 4) big-pharma shills. I just wish people would pay attention to actual evidence for once and open themselves to other opinions, but maybe that's too much to ask for these days... To be blunt, I believe vaccines aren't perfect. Nor are some of the medicines made today. I also believe that if you aren't willing to get vaccines that are proven safe, you shouldn't work in a hospital. If you distrust the medical industry that much, choose another profession, please.
MichGirl
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 2:38 a.m.
As a nurse, this is a tough one. I see both sides of it. Also wondering, why now? Is this the only, and best solution to this potential issue? Then I'm wondering, who's next, teachers? They are probably more exposed to "whatever is going around" than nurses, if you think about it. I'm hoping someone is "running the numbers" to see if this policy has a significantly improved outcome, such as lower hospital-acquired infections, or ??? I also have some issues with the St. Joe's nurse who was fired for "misconduct". Doesn't sound like she was guilty of misconduct to me. Is exercising your rights or beliefs misconduct? That sounds more like civil liberties. A statement like that on her employment record is pretty harsh and likely to affect her ability to seek future employment. Nice payoff after 20+ years. Hmmmm.
CybeRolf
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 4:55 a.m.
I work at a school where flu immunizations are encouraged and provided free. All schools should do that, children are particularly vulnerable to the flu; if I was a parent at a school I would insist on it. The "misconduct" the nurse was fired for is a contract-defined issue, too bad about that; I wouldn't want my children to be treated by her, no matter how caring or pious she may be.
julieswhimsies
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 4:41 a.m.
If I were a teacher, I would absolutely have the vaccine. However, I have had a serious case of flu with temps of up to 105. Where did I end up?...waiting for 3 hours in the ER. That was the beginning of a rather size-able epidemic in the Indiana hospital where I was treated. I was not isolated immediately, and no one wore masks, and the flu shot was available only to the elderly and infirm. I do agree with you on one point. That nurse should not have been fired. She should have been given the option to wear a mask, as they are doing at the UM. Perhaps the refusal to have the injection was not the whole story?...
hiker1546
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 12:25 a.m.
Did anyone stop to think about what would happen if ALL hospital staff chose to not get vaccinated? And say there was a huge outbreak of the virus which affected alot of people in the hospital service area, including the hospital staff. Then just WHO would care for all the people requiring hospitalization if the hospital staff was all sick too? The requirement that all staff get vaccinated makes sense to me.
LarryJ
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 9:56 p.m.
People are free to make wacky choices about their own care. But to me, it's a "no-brainer" that hospital employees should be required to utilize scientifically proven approaches to maximize the safety for the patients they serve. That includes getting the flu shot.
aareader
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 9:42 p.m.
If you are a healthcare worker then you should be aware of the obvious problems that might occur. It might make one wonder if they do care about their patients and/or what other things they may not be doing? It is a simple trust issue. One might ask them if their immune system was weakened and there were workers attending to them that may be ill is it ok if they did not wear masks???? Healthcare workers have chosen their profession and, as noted in other posts, if they do not want to comply with obvious beneficial protections then they should seek employment elsewhere. "Free to employees, vaccines cost St. Joseph Mercy Health System $350,000 this year, compared to $67,000 last year, said Kevin DiCola, communications manager for the health system. Less than 2 percent of employees filled out forms to successfully opt out of the program for medical or other reasons." The 350K cost is a good investment when compared the potential cost a negligent or malpractice lawsuit. Btw I will take a "nanny state" anytime it can protect its citizens from others that may cause unwarranted harm. Most regulations do not happen because there was nothing better to do that day.
julieswhimsies
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
Yeah, I think healthcare workers who aren't vaccinated should wear masks. I also think that they should wash their hands as they move from patient to patient. When I've had the misfortune of waiting for hours in the U of M ER, I witnessed docs and nurses moving from patient to patient without washing hands. When anyone walks in my little cubicle, I ask them to wash their hands in front of me. Masks? Big deal.
marlon glenn
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 8:56 p.m.
There are risks and complications to any "vaccination". Pharmaceutical companies have immunity from liability for a reason. The drugs are dangerous. There have been thousands who have died from vaccines and the flu vaccine in particular. Those damaged have no legal recourse. This is fact. The mainstream media will not report this as they are heavily funded by drug companies via advertising. It is impossible to create a vaccine using a previous year's strain and expect protection against a mutated strain from a new year. This is all about making money and has nothing to do with "health" or "safety". Why is so much money paid for advertising? It works. People will believe pretty much anything if it is "packaged" correctly.
CybeRolf
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 5:12 a.m.
I am not funded by any drug company. Vaccines have saved millions of people, far more than the thousands you claim, without support, that have died. Cite your "facts." Who funds your "packaging," or do you scare people as a "public service?"
Sara Bassett
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 12:25 a.m.
Every source that I've seen has held that flu vaccinations are safe. Flu itself DOES kill many people every year.
loves_fall
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.
Want to cite your sources for the thousands of deaths from the flu vaccine?
Bob
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
I'm bothered by "condition of employment". That's fine if the condition is in place when one accepts the job. This one was not. Therefore, employees who prefer not to have the shot should have the same recourse that those who have medical conditions have. Seems to me that even a bad labor attorney could clean up with this one.
CybeRolf
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 5:07 a.m.
I know a good labor attorney who wouldn't touch that case with a latex-covered ten foot pole. Are there bad labor attorneys who would?
trespass
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.
Health care providers may have HIV, MRSA, hepatitis B or C, or many other potentially dangerous pathogens. Does the hospital force a surgeon who has hepatitis C to get Interferon therapy? Does the hospital force a nurse that is colonized with MRSA to not have patient contact? There are many more serious diseases among our health care professionals that the hospital does not fire them for.
loves_fall
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
"People need to ask themselves, thinking logically and not based on fear, how many patients have died in hospitals from contracting the flu or any other viruses from doctors and nurses, compared to the number of deaths and injuries each year from vaccines and prescription drugs?" @ G. Orwell: Do you have a concrete number on how many people have died in hospitals from contracting the flu from healthcare providers? Or on how many people have died directly as a result of a flu vaccination? If not, I'm not sure how people can think logically on that -- wild estimates based on perception and not science don't make for logical thinking. People are notoriously bad at estimating risk. From what I know of the H1N1 scare in the 50's, there were 25 extra deaths over normal annual levels and 400 additional hospitalizations with 24% of the population receiving a vaccination (Wikipedia). Small numbers. Flu/pneumonia, on the other hand, is the 8th leading cause of death. The elderly are vulnerable but also the least likely to benefit from vaccination. That means that even vaccinated, they are more likely to contract flu. The best way to protect grandma is to prevent her from being exposed unnecessarily in the first place. Also, don't forget that the number of people saved by prescription drugs and vaccines is annually much greater than the number harmed, or else they wouldn't be approved. There's a reason our life expectancy has increased despite the fact that we all take more drugs now than we ever did, and it's not our healthy American diets. It sounds like you're making the case that patient deaths caused by contracting flu from healthcare providers should be ignored because more patients die from other medical errors? Just because more people die of different types of errors doesn't mean that ANY preventable death is OK. Hospitals are working on reducing preventable deaths in many areas. Mandating flu shots is just another approach to this problem.
loves_fall
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
@G: I'm not sure why you would think that vaccines are more dangerous than other drugs. The point that book makes is that the processes for drug approvals don't catch all patients. Some are excluded because in drug testing, companies need to prove efficacy. To do that, they want to control who enters the study so that results can be associated with use of the drug. Some other people are hard to recruit for participation, including women and minorities. These are known issues. The FDA even states that "all potential adverse events cannot be anticipated" until the vaccine or drug is approved and begins to be used in the general population. That's a risk we take because there is evidence that in general, the benefits outweigh the risks. The flu vaccine has been used for years and has been found to be safe and well tolerated by the vast majority of people. There's no evidence that it poses a legitimate threat to employees or puts them an an unacceptable level of risk. There is evidence that it helps reduce flu infections and complications/admissions from flu. Healthcare providers face a lot of risky things at work -- violent patients, patients with communicable diseases (including flu), sharps, etc. People face risks just driving to and from work, or driving in the name of work (e.g., the survival flight crash). There is nothing about a vaccine that makes them any more risky than any of these things that healthcare providers take on every day in routine work.
G. Orwell
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
@loves What I am saying is that the number of patients dying from catching the flu from hospital workers is very small, if any, compared to people dying and being injured from prescription drugs and vaccines. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to force hospital workers to take the vaccines. No need and it endangers the worker. Columbia University Press - "The risk of prescription drugs" <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14692-0/the-risks-of-prescription-drugs" rel='nofollow'>http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14692-0/the-risks-of-prescription-drugs</a> If prescription drugs are so dangerous, don't you think vaccines are just as dangerous or more.
G. Orwell
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.
@rusty, "It's hard to believe anyone finds this controversial. What's next, complaining that hospitals make surgeons wash their hands?" Washing your hands compared to injecting unknown and potentially harmful substances like mercury and formaldehyde, is not a fair comparison. Apparently, many people that have read your post do not seem to be able to understand this since you received so many positive votes. People need to ask themselves, thinking logically and not based on fear, how many patients have died in hospitals from contracting the flu or any other viruses from doctors and nurses, compared to the number of deaths and injuries each year from vaccines and prescription drugs? Prescriptions drugs alone kill 110,000 people a year. Add in the vaccines and the number of people damaged, you are probably looking at 200,000-400,000 people a year. Not to mention long term side effects.
Olive
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
I'm curious about your statistics. Are the prescription drug deaths you cite due to incorrect drugs being prescribed, incorrect dosage being prescribed, incorrect dosages taken by patients, drugs given solely in medical facilities, etc? What are your sources? Also, what's your source for vaccine-related deaths/illness/injury? Just want to learn a little more.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
It's fine for random people on the internet to hold opinions (i.e. that vaccines are dangerous) totally contrary to all available medical evidence. I'd hope that those who work in hospitals wouldn't do the same.
AlwaysLate
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
I don't need no stinking vaccines! I get a purer form of all diseases by spending quality time with my children!
scooter dog
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
Wow,Lose your job over a couple of shots Thats really sick.
CybeRolf
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 5:02 a.m.
Wow, get sick and maybe die because the person you trusted with your health didn't get a proven vaccination? That's really, really sick
loves_fall
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
According to the CDC, "Most healthy adults may be able to infect others beginning 1 day before symptoms develop and up to 5-7 days after becoming sick." That means a few things to hospitals and health care workers: (1) If 5-20% of people get the flu as CDC estimates, even if many are kids or older adults, some proportion of that group is of working age. If health care workers aren't vaccinated, and if 200,000+ people are coming to the hospital for the flu (increased exposure to the flu virus = increased chance of getting the flu), there's a good chance that a noticeable amount of employees are going to get the flu an be out for 5-7 days. That costs the hospital in terms of hours lost, and means that providers may not be available to care of patients. (2) If employees aren't out sick for the full 5-7 days (and how many are?), and if they can transmit the disease before they even know they're sick, and if they see a lot of sick patients, they are in a great position to spread the disease to people who are most vulnerable. Your average young-to middle-aged adult might be able to handle the flu with no problem, but there are a lot of people out there for whom a bad flu might be the last straw for their immune system. I don't know if anyone remembers the poll done during H1N1 season, but there was a strong expectation from the public that their healthcare providers be vaccinated (<a href="http://bit.ly/FluPoll)" rel='nofollow'>http://bit.ly/FluPoll)</a>. Ultimately, I think patients should be able to come to a hospital for care and not be at risk of contracting diseases from their care providers. Flu obviously isn't the only risk out there, but I think requiring vaccines for those healthy enough to have them is one right step among many. The evidence we have says that vaccines are safe and effective, and healthcare providers need to consider what's best for the patients who come to them for care.
keppi
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
I am a registered nurse, and my spouse is a high ranking individual in the St. Joe's administrative system. I was quite angered to hear that, in terms of this new policy, physicians are NOT required to provide documented proof of vaccination, their word that it was done is apparently good enough. Anyone at St Joe's care to explain the rationale for this, or care to explain what puts doctors on a higher strata level above all others who provide direct patient care? For those physicians who have personal issues with being vaccinated (as many nurses and other employees have voiced) it seems it would be quite easy to falsly claim they were immunized and go about their business having direct contact with patients who assume their caregiver has done what was required to protect them.
Meg
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
In most hospitals, physicians are not direct hospital employees, but are employed by groups affiliated with the hospital and have privileges there. I don't know if this is the case at St Joe's, but in Seattle, where the mandatory flu vaccine for nurses is old news, this is why most physicians did not have to show evidence.
Sarah Rigg
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
I wouldn't be afraid of a health worker wearing a mask- there ARE some legitimate reasons for refusing the flu vaccine, like being allergic to eggs. I'd just assume a worker in a mask had a legit medical reason for not getting the shot. And as for Jake's link about the "harm" of vaccines, I didn't even click on it, because Joseph Mercola is well known as a quack whose views are WELL outside the medical mainstream, and who has been ordered multiple times by the FDA to stop make illegal claims about the products he sells on his website.
loves_fall
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
Direct ingestion of neurotoxins certainly hasn't stopped too many people from drinking alcohol. :) It's also possible (and IMO likely) that the risks of side effects of vaccines are more overstated than the risks of the vaccines themselves.
Joe
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
Sara look at the graphs of diseases and there numbers and then look at when the vaccine for that disease became available. It is all the proof you need to tell you that the benefits of vaccines are greatly over stated. The only thing you know for sure about receiving a vaccine is that you will get neuro-toxins shot directly into your body.
PittsfieldTwp
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
People are willing to lose their jobs over a flu vacine. Their jobs...in this economy. This states an education gap. Either these employees are not fully aware of how save and beneficial these shots are, or the rest of us are in the dark and need to be made aware.
Joe
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
What will they try next ? People are catching on to vaccines and big pharma. It would seem to me that anyone who gets the flu vaccine should have to wear a mask for a at least a couple of weeks because once they receive the shot one thing is for sure they are a carrier of the flu bug.
A2RN
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 8:01 p.m.
That is why the vaccination programs were started in the early fall, before flu season begins.
loves_fall
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
Actually, the flu in flu shots is killed and can't cause infection. The nasal spray contains live, weakened viruses, and per CDC "cannot cause flu illness. The weakened viruses are cold-adapted, which means they are designed to only cause infection at the cooler temperatures found within the nose. The viruses cannot infect the lungs or other areas where warmer temperatures exist."
zdoggy00
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
Per the Washtenaw County Website, half of those infected with pertussis were vaccinated. It is clear that the health care workers who are refusing the vaccine have a much clearer understanding of what is going on than the administrators that are forcing this vaccine on them. "In 2009, of the Washtenaw pertussis cases aged 0 to 4 year olds, 50% had no pertussis vaccine. Similarly, 53% of 5 to 9 year olds were unvaccinated against pertussis. In the 10 to 17 year-old group, 69% had received 5 doses of pertussis vaccine but only one of the children had received the adolescent booster of Tdap. In some families, older children were vaccinated against pertussis and the younger ones were not. In almost all of these situations, the vaccinated children did not become symptomatic." <a href="http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/public_health/news/2010-news-stories/pertussis-whooping-cough-cases-at-all-time-high" rel='nofollow'>http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/public_health/news/2010-news-stories/pertussis-whooping-cough-cases-at-all-time-high</a> So I guess having health care workers who are unknowingly infected around patients is preferable to having them symptomatic so they know when to stay home? I apologize in advance for applying logic and facts in a discussion about vaccines.
theodynus
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 7:22 p.m.
You're missing some very basic info there. Without an understanding of the baseline Tdap vaccination rate, the statistics you cited are meaningless. Look at this chart: <a href="http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/nis/nis_iap2.asp?fmt=v&rpt=tab09_24mo_iap&qtr=Q1/2009-Q4/2009" rel='nofollow'>http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/nis/nis_iap2.asp?fmt=v&rpt=tab09_24mo_iap&qtr=Q1/2009-Q4/2009</a> Of children age 24 months, somewhere between 85-95% of them have gotten then Tdap vaccine. Yet the 5-15% of kids who haven't been vaccinated make up OVER HALF OF ALL CASES OF PERTUSSIS. That means they are at roughly 4 to 5 times the risk of infection as someone who received the vaccination! This is why vaccination is important.
Meg
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
What the quote you posted actually shows is the need for Tdap. Also, this does not compare the rate of infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. If your argument is that vaccines are not 100% effective -- well, stop the presses. Everyone else figured that out decades ago. That doesn't mean they're without value.
Brad
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.
Scarlet letter? That's ridiculous. I was at a UMHS facility yesterday and interacted with two people wearing masks and saw a few others. Let me assure you that people were NOT running away from them screaming, nor did I seen any overt "discrimination" by the patients.
Meg
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
Hospitals routinely require rubella vaccination for staff working with pregnant women. They require PPD testing annually to check for TB. How is this different? This is a significant risk for patients. Patients are who we care for.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.
It's hard to believe anyone finds this controversial. What's next, complaining that hospitals make surgeons wash their hands?
rusty shackelford
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.
I was being a tad hyperbolic to make a point--that's just my nature-- but it is hardly "totally unrelated to the issue" as "alan" claims. The issue is the prevention of the spread of viruses to people who are already in a weakened state. If someone is legitimately allergic to the vaccine or something, that's an understandable cause for exemption. But aside from that, what argument is there against this, aside from anti-vaccine claims that have been repeatedly debunked?
alan
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
Totally unrelated to the issue.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
While I like the mandate let's be fair: handwashing is not that invasive. It's the requirements for other immunities or vaccinations where there has been little controversy that is the better comparison.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
Cash: who are we to tell them how to do their jobs?
Cash
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
Rusty, that's perfect!
Ignatz
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.
I would hope that by helping people they would not expose them to possible life threatening illnesses.
Jake
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
Why would someone who (intelligently) refuses to get a flu shot work at a medical facility? Let's count just a few of the reasons. 1) The enjoy helping people 2) They like the fast-paced environment 3) It is a field with fairly stable job prospects.
Lady Audrey
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
Just because it is an exciting field of work with job security does not give employees the right to risk the health of very sick patients because they are reading nonsense on the internet about vaccinations. I wonder if polio was rampant today whether these same people would refuse to protect themselves.
Cash
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
While all of that satisfies the employee, it does not provide support to the goals of the employer....to serve their patients. I'd hope a reason to choose health care profession would be to help the sick in every way possible. I'm guessing there are health care workers out there who chose the profession for that reason.
Ignatz
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 12:50 p.m.
I think it's great that those who provide health care go to the extent to better ensure that the staff most in contact with patients do not worsen the patient's condition. As Cash points out, one can work elsewhere. I do wonder why those without a medical condition who refuse immunizations would choose to work in western medicine.
Cash
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.
Health care is a business and a very competitive one. If they don't protect their customers, they aren't performing well. No one is required to get a flu shot. They can choose to work somewhere else.
Jake
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 11:56 a.m.
This is a radical travesty of basic freedom. This "scarlet letter" approach to literally branding people with the good sense -- yes, good sense, intelligence, critical thought capacity -- to NOT get the useless-at-best, literally toxic "flu vaccine" is truly grotesque. I have worked for years in the medical journalism field and my "opinion" is based on hearing many doctors and professionals speak on this subject and speak to me personally, off the record of course, due to pressures brought to bear by corporate and policy-making forces.
julieswhimsies
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.
Toxic? You've heard "many" doctors speak on this subject, and ALL of them refuse to go on the record?! At best, they are cowards...at worst...quacks. I almost died from the flu 25 years ago, before the vaccine. I spent 6 weeks in the hospital...some of it on life support. I get my flu shot every year, and have never had a reaction, nor do I personally know of anyone who has had a reaction and/or died. I am willing to go on the record and say that. I have not had the flu since the vaccine was introduced, and I thank God for that!
CybeRolf
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
Jake, surely you joke. Where is your evidence, sensible, intelligent, and critically evaluated that vaccines are useless-at-best, literally toxic? Plenty of published research in authoritative medical journals prove them to be safe and effective. Do these unnamed "doctors" promote quackery like homeopathy at the same time they dispute science that has saved millions? Hospitals have plenty of people suffering from preventable disease, not people suffering from reactions to vaccinations.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
No, it's just good medicine. We require lots of hygienic procedures of medical professionals that we don't at other jobs.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
Let's see: 1) "useless". What? 2) anecdotes mixed with conspiracy theory. Nice. 3) farther down a mercola link - that's pretty discrediting. 4) as pointed out by others below, this is not radical at all.
trespass
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.
It's good to try to get a high rate of vaccination but we all have a right to refuse medical care. Should someone lose their job because of it? We have heard of employers firing workers because they won't quit smoking. Does an employer need to tell employees all these rules before they invest 20 years and vest their pension at a company? Did St. Joe's fire any unionized nurses because of this? What does their union think about the policy? Did any doctors lose their jobs? Do we know that masks will prevent the spread of flu or whooping cough? Masks are pretty bad at preventing many infectious diseases. Unless there is good evidence that they are effective, wearing masks may be akin to whering a scarlett letter. Patients may discriminate against anyone wearing a mask. We really are moving in the direction of a "nanny state".
CybeRolf
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 4:15 a.m.
Your point about whether masks prevent the spread of disease is well-taken; it was not discussed in the article or asserted by the hospitals. That being said, I will certainly discriminate against a "health care professional" who refuses vaccination (a proven medical treatment that saves millions of lives a year). I won't send my kids to school taught by "teachers" who can't read, I won't take a cab driven by somebody without a driver's license, I won't eat in a restaurant that can't pass a sanitation inspection, and I surely won't hire a "nanny" on the list of child molesters. There are certain professional standards that should be enforced, and certifications that need to be set.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
"Should someone lose their job because of it?" In short, yes--barring some kind of extreme circumstance like allergy to the vaccine or something. Hospitals have very frail people in them. People who work there have an obligation to keep the environment as hygienic as possible, and that includes preventing viruses from spreading to the greatest extent possible.