You Make An Informed Choice...Then Lose Your Job

[donnay]

Fired: pregnant nurse studies flu vaccine fine print, decides it's too risky

By David Wenner

Dreonna Breton got fired because she refused a mandatory flu shot. A registered nurse, she'€™s pregnant and has a history of miscarriage.

Breton says she became alarmed by notifications such as this, contained in the packaging of a popular flu vaccine: "€œFluzone should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.€"

Similar statements accompany other brands. So do notifications that it's unknown whether flu vaccine can harm an unborn child. Breton says she'€™s had two miscarriages in four pregnancies and refuses to take the chance.

"It would be a false statement to say the flu vaccine is known to be safe during pregnancy,"€ says Breton, 29, of Elizabethtown. "€œI have lost my job, one that I love and am good at, because I chose to do what I believe is best for my baby."

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/mandatory_flu_vaccination_shot.html

 

[Lindsey]

In this case, a condition of her employment was a requirement to be vaccinated. When she refused, regardless of the justification of the action, she opened the door for the employer/employee relationship to be ended. If employers and employees can't agree on terms for employment, shouldn't they each go their own ways and find employees/employers with whom they can come to an agreement of terms?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My wife works in a medical facility. The vaccination rate is a whole lot lower than the 99% at Loyola. Many of the nurses say there is no way they'd get that thing.

This isn't a simple legal case of comply or get lost. You can be exempt. Exemptions are often easier than meets the eye. The scare tactics put out are quite shrewd and deceiving.

 

[donnay]

In this case, a condition of her employment was a requirement to be vaccinated. When she refused, regardless of the justification of the action, she opened the door for the employer/employee relationship to be ended. If employers and employees can't agree on terms for employment, shouldn't they each go their own ways and find employees/employers with whom they can come to an agreement of terms?

She made the point to say she doesn't disagree with vaccines in general, only a few she questions. This was an informed choice and yet she was fired for not complying. The point is, depending on when she was hired, these requirements were not always the way. I have friends that work in the healthcare industry for years and up until a few years ago it was 'voluntary' not 'mandatory.' As many can see the job market isn't booming, so in essence they put people over a barrel with these requirements, IMHO.

 

[tod evans]

I fully support her right to refuse vaccination.

But I also support her employers right to fire her ass for any reason they see fit.

 

[Dr.3D]

I fully support her right to refuse vaccination.

But I also support her employers right to fire her ass for any reason they see fit.

That's the way I see it too.

I also understand there is a serious problem with vaccines.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[donnay]

At my wife's hospital nurses can refuse the flu vaccine; but if you do then you have to wear a mask at all times. Seems fair enough.

I think that is fair. However, I am seeing more stories where many can no longer refuse or get exemptions and I think that is going to be a problem. It's a slippery slope, especially looming in the wings the Obamacare nonsense. The first amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 14 amendment infringements.

 

[amy31416]

I think they should have an experimental hospital (on an island, of course) where none of the nurses or staff are vaccinated for anything. It'd be interesting to see if it could survive one or two measles patients.

 

[XNavyNuke]

I think they should have an experimental hospital (on an island, of course) where none of the nurses or staff are vaccinated for anything. It'd be interesting to see if it could survive one or two measles patients.

Are you saying that the staff should also forgo post-exposure prophylaxis as well as vaccination?
XNN

 

[Acala]

I fully support her right to refuse vaccination.

But I also support her employers right to fire her ass for any reason they see fit.

Exactly.

 

[amy31416]

Are you saying that the staff should also forgo post-exposure prophylaxis as well as vaccination?
XNN

Doesn't some/most post-exposure prophylaxis involve vaccines? If it is to be a "pure" experiment, no vaccines pre or post. Of course there'd have to be mirror island hospitals where the staff is vaccinated, and perhaps one that only has post-exposure prophylaxis as treatment.

It'd be interesting, but probably quite unethical.

 

[James Madison]

Are you saying that the staff should also forgo post-exposure prophylaxis as well as vaccination?
XNN

Why not? There's no such thing as a 'safe vaccine'.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ing-as-a-Safe-Vaccine-and-there-Never-Will-Be

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The employer-employer relationship would (or should) be sacred if all of these relationships were private; however, these mandates apply in public organizations as well as private. We've let the genie out of the bottle with public funding for about everything, so the arguments about declining and firing are often moot with regards to privacy.

 

[amy31416]

Why not? There's no such thing as a 'safe vaccine'.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ing-as-a-Safe-Vaccine-and-there-Never-Will-Be

I have a feeling that the number of volunteers would be quite low.

 

[DamianTV]

In this case, a condition of her employment was a requirement to be vaccinated. When she refused, regardless of the justification of the action, she opened the door for the employer/employee relationship to be ended. If employers and employees can't agree on terms for employment, shouldn't they each go their own ways and find employees/employers with whom they can come to an agreement of terms?

So if I were an Employer, could I force the Terms and Conditions for employment to include Eat Peanuts regardless if an employee had a Peanut Allergy? The demands of the Terms and Conditions in most cases is well beyond the scope of their authority.

Another example, you come over for a beer and watch a movie. Something that would be within the Terms and Conditions of visitation could be to allow you access to the quasi-public areas: Living Room, Kitchen (with express permissions), and Bathroom. Access to my bedroom and the contents of any closed area, Dresser, Desk, etc is considered Off Limits. Thats something Reasonable and a Permission given by the Homeowner to the Visitor, and within their Right to do so.

What would NOT be within those Rights would be to declare in the Terms and Conditions of Visitation would be to first, not make the Visitor aware of the Terms and Conditions that they are agreeing to. Next would be to declare that the Homeowner gets to know what the Visitor has in their Off Limit areas of the Visitors home.

In this case, the Hospital / Employer does NOT have Property Rights to the Unborn Child, and thus can not require a forced vaccination as a Term or Condition for employment as it is beyond the scope of the Rights / Authority of the Hospital / Employer. Their Rights END where the Rights of the Employee begin.

 

[donnay]

 

[Acala]

So if I were an Employer, could I force the Terms and Conditions for employment to include Eat Peanuts regardless if an employee had a Peanut Allergy? The demands of the Terms and Conditions in most cases is well beyond the scope of their authority.

Another example, you come over for a beer and watch a movie. Something that would be within the Terms and Conditions of visitation could be to allow you access to the quasi-public areas: Living Room, Kitchen (with express permissions), and Bathroom. Access to my bedroom and the contents of any closed area, Dresser, Desk, etc is considered Off Limits. Thats something Reasonable and a Permission given by the Homeowner to the Visitor, and within their Right to do so.

What would NOT be within those Rights would be to declare in the Terms and Conditions of Visitation would be to first, not make the Visitor aware of the Terms and Conditions that they are agreeing to. Next would be to declare that the Homeowner gets to know what the Visitor has in their Off Limit areas of the Visitors home.

In this case, the Hospital / Employer does NOT have Property Rights to the Unborn Child, and thus can not require a forced vaccination as a Term or Condition for employment as it is beyond the scope of the Rights / Authority of the Hospital / Employer. Their Rights END where the Rights of the Employee begin.

On my property, I make the rules. If you don't like them, you can either not enter the property or leave when you become aware of them or when they change to something you don't like. It shouldn't matter whether it is my home or my business. I should be able to make it a requirement of employment that you kill yourself so long as I don't use force to make you enter or stay on the property.

While I might agree that the parent has no right to make decisions that harm the unborn child, that doesn't change the right of the business owner to demand certain performance from the employee. The "If you don't like it, leave" rule still applies. You don't get to bring your fetus onto my property and use that as justification for violating my rules. As long as the "exit" door works, that is your only remedy.

 

[Cleaner44]

I fully support her right to refuse vaccination.

But I also support her employers right to fire her ass for any reason they see fit.

+rep

She should find employment where it isn't required to inject something that could harm her baby. She should be glad to separate from an employer that doesn't care about the health of her child.

 

[donnay]

On my property, I make the rules. If you don't like them, you can either not enter the property or leave when you become aware of them or when they change to something you don't like. It shouldn't matter whether it is my home or my business. I should be able to make it a requirement of employment that you kill yourself so long as I don't use force to make you enter or stay on the property.

While I might agree that the parent has no right to make decisions that harm the unborn child, that doesn't change the right of the business owner to demand certain performance from the employee. The "If you don't like it, leave" rule still applies. You don't get to bring your fetus onto my property and use that as justification for violating my rules. As long as the "exit" door works, that is your only remedy.

Of course your scenario works only if liberty is practiced all around. But it is not. Do you tell the SWAT team to leave your property when they force their way onto your property--especially, If they think you have broken some laws?

So for someone to make an informed choice to not vaccinate based on their research, and gets fired simply because she was aware there are no studies done for pregnant women and vaccines--it is okay? Yet someone who has a religious belief can get excused? She didn't lie and she was willing to wear a facial mask and gloves around other patients as so many hospital around the country allow.

This idea that personal property trumps is great so long as EVERYONE plays by the rules.