We cannot override medical ethics and the law on this. thats my point and the ethical and legal position is very difficult
I have tired to explain why compulsory or coerced vaccinations are illegal and unethical and some of the reasoning behind this
Except in the Westminster system you are proven quite wrong.
By enacting emergency legislation which allows for exactly these sorts of decisions to be made, we've saved many thousands of lives... And no "slippery slope defence" mitigates against that.
The application of human rights and discrimination law often involves balancing the rights and interests of different people.
Your argument regarding consent in this case is entirely contrary to that of arguing for social equity in another thread, IIRC. The overall safety of the community far outweighs issues of bodily autonomy. As you certainly know, there are different requirements for informed consent depending on the procedure. This is not a transvaginal ultrasound or a complex surgery.
No one is forcing them. They are free to leave.
Timely news- San Francisco introduced a vaccine mandate for police. Police union and news said that 30% of all officers might quit, causing a crisis as hundreds of officers leave. As of today, there are just 39 who've refused. Yesterday there were 40 but one of them just died of covid.
Interesting aside- in the same force, 260 applications for religious exemption were apparently dismissed as being fraudulent. I wonder how many of the 40 39 who're suspended are in that group- ie police officers that just got caught lying or fabricating evidence to try and get out of a jam?
The overall safety of the community far outweighs issues of bodily autonomy.
Really? A very difficult argument to prove. Used in Typhoid carriers and TB carriers but never otherwise
want to show your reasoning? You would have to show that the potential harm to the population is worth the restrictions on liberty
informed consent is an absolute in all occasions
My arguement on this is entirely cosistent with my positions elsewhere aand informed by study to a high level, reading the relevant documantation much thought and 40 years experience.
I know its hard to understand why what on the face of it looks like a simple and obvious solution but when you look below the surface its much more complex and has a lot of secondary effects
(part of) the BMA position
“However, as we argued ahead of today’s announcement, there is an important distinction between believing every healthcare worker should be vaccinated and advocating mandatory vaccinations for all NHS staff. Doing this comes with its own practical and also ethical implications – such as the right for anyone to make their own private healthcare decisions - and we hope that as Government progresses with plans to make the Covid jab compulsory for NHS staff, these are carefully considered and taken into account.”
also this
“Mandatory vaccination for NHS staff is an incredibly complex issue that raises many ethical, legal and practical questions. Therefore, it is only right that any Government proposals are put out to a proper consultation, during which time staff and representatives are given an opportunity to contribute.
This is worth a read as well
I am not just making this stuff up - its central to medical ethics and the BMa and others are very concerned about this
Yes, they're legal arguments. We've potentially set a precedent and the Queensland Human Rights Commission has backed it. Time will tell whether it will be challenged. Bit in five years time I expect it will be considered irrelevant and the UK will still be considered to have been a Covid basket case.
tj - nobody is really saying there aren't legal and ethical issues, but the BMA statement is somewhat more tempered in its tone than your claims. "...an incredibly complex issue that raises many ethical, legal and practical questions..." v's "...against all law and ethics...", "...would automatically be unfair dismissal...", "...the person doing the vaccination would be guilty of assault..."
Its not just legal arguments - its moral and ethical and sometimes that tops the law
It will not be seen as irrelevant in five years time - it will be in all the ethics textbooks for lessons around compulsory or coerced medication
UK will still be seen as a covid basket case for sure
of course the BMA is more tempered. they don't want to upset the government
Many folk on this thread have completely ignored the ethical and moral issues or dismissed them
If someone gives a medication without proper consent then yes =- that is assult
Disagreeing with you or believing that you're exaggerating the case doesn't equate to ignoring your point of view.
I'm a strong believer in the importance of ethics, but it's not black and white. There's a point where action must prevail.
I've just been talking to a senior nurse that said she'd really rather have not taken a vaccine, doesn't normally have the flu vaccine, etc, etc, but bowed to the inevitable. Tough. But she recognised on balance it's a good decision.
Really? A very difficult argument to prove. Used in Typhoid carriers and TB carriers but never otherwise
want to show your reasoning? You would have to show that the potential harm to the population is worth the restrictions on liberty
How important is your liberty though? You are already not completely free, you subscribe to loads of rules about what you can and can't do. This is called the social contract. Your liberty exists within certain constraints, and you aren't free to pick and choose. Many many rules exist to protect people from themselves and others from their potentially damaging actions. What's the difference here?
Would you rather be treated by a highly skilled, highly dedicated, highly experienced nurse who is unvaccinated but has Covid antibodies in their system, and therefore no different to a vaccinated nurse
I'd rather not be treated by a belligerent moron regardless of how 'dedicated' they happened to be. I would think, and I would sincerely hope, that the number of anti-vax "healthcare professionals" were vanishingly small and the ones that are I wouldn't want anywhere near me regardless of what antibodies they may or may not have.
its moral and ethical and sometimes that tops the law
Does it? When? Can you cite us a court case which has been thrown out on the grounds of "well, we don't like it"?
You've been wanging on for several pages now about morals and ethics and consent and coercion but it's nonsense. The law generally hangs on "what did we do last time?" and morals don't come into it, more's the pity.
Requiring (say) a nurse to take basic steps to protect themselves and their vulnerable patients shouldn't be a great leap, any more than mandating helmets on a building site. People don't get admitted to hospital because they're really healthy. Would you think it reasonable for a surgeon not to wear scrubs because they believed it was an infringement of their human rights to be coerced into putting gloves on?
Because, you know what, I'm bored of this anti-vax apologist rhetoric now (not directed at you TJ but just generally), because it just shouldn't be a discussion in the modern world. If it were some revolutionary new weird procedure then I'd be arguing with the best of them, but it's 200-year old proven science and it boils down to a pinprick in your arm vs potentially infecting and killing people you love. The answer to "ooh but we don't know about long-term effects" is "yes we do," we have a metric ****ton of data going back to Jenner in the 1700s. It is a ridiculous argument.
You can't scream about your right to choice and then whine when everyone else is also choosing. Someone doesn't want a vaccination, fine. I don't want those people anywhere near me touching things I'm touching and breathing the same air, is that not equally fine? Where are my "moral and ethical" rights not to be interacting with wilful plague rats?
I’ve just been talking to a senior nurse [who] recognised on balance it’s a good decision.
On balance? The counterargument from a senior healthcare professional being what?
Erm, sarcasm font wasn't working there. She claims she'd like more testing to have been done on the vaccines first.
@cougar your point re. Surgeons does have relevance. There was at least one surgeon fired (US I think) for not maintaining appropriate hygiene standards.
Erm, sarcasm font wasn’t working there.
Ah. Text, sorry.
She claims she’d like more testing to have been done on the vaccines first.
1) They've been subject to the same testing as any other medicinal product. It's faster to market because more people have been working on it due to it being an emergency response, not because corners have been cut. If two people dig a hole in half the time it'd take one person, is it any less of a hole?
2) We know how vaccines work, we've been doing this for a long time now.
3) We shouldn't be having to explain any of this to a "senior nurse." I find that scarier than any vaccine.
Does it? When?
Lots of examples from history
How about the suffragettes? Or how about the recent court case with folk glueing themselves onto airplanes to stop deportations - found not guilty despite the obvious act against the law because the jury bought the moral argument
You’ve been wanging on for several pages now about morals and ethics and consent and coercion but it’s nonsense
Really? then why do all healthcare workers have to obey a code of ethics then? sometimes this code of ethics requires you to act outside the law.
I'll give you one example Cannabis users ( for symptom control) in hospitals. Our code of conduct duty to protect their privacy outweighs our duty to report a crime - and that has actually been backed in court. So reporting a crime would get us into serious trouble with our regulatory bodies
I have personally seen this 3 times and also read the legal stuff around it.
... 4) How much testing has been done on Covid? Which would she prefer?
I'll give you another one cougar. giving girls under 16 contraceptives. Its illegal for them to be having sex but healthcare workers still given them contraception and do not report the lawbreaking
thats our ethical code trumping the law
How about the suffragettes?
Dude, that was 120 years ago.
found not guilty despite the obvious act against the law
Which law were they breaking?
--
Really? then why do all healthcare workers have to obey a code of ethics then?
Because the idea of unethical healthcare is somewhat scary.
sometimes this code of ethics requires you to act outside the law.
How? When did you last break the law in pursuit of your career?
I wholly agree with you that ethics should trump the law, where I'm tripping up on is the notion that it actually does. As a deliberately emotive example, why do people have to fly to the continent to employ the services of Dignitas? We treat animals better than that.
Cannabis users ( for symptom control) in hospitals. Our code of conduct duty to protect their privacy outweighs our duty to report a crime
You're not breaking the law there though, are you. Unless you're rocking up to work with a bag of joints? This is far from my sphere of knowledge and a huge can of thread derailment worms that I don't reallywant to open but AFAIK, CBD was legal now.
I’ll give you another one cougar. giving girls under 16 contraceptives. Its illegal for them to be having sex but healthcare workers still given them contraception and do not report the lawbreaking
thats our ethical code trumping the law
Again, no it isn't. You haven't broken any laws, these aren't mutually exclusive. You don't even know that an offense has been / is going to be committed, they could be asking for contraception to boast to their mates.
Kinda curious though, where the line is here. Totally with you in giving 15-year olds contraception without question but is "under 16" a catch-all? How would you deal with a 12-year old wanting birth control? An 8-year old asking for condoms? Genuine question, it sounds like a minefield.
But it's not as straightforward as you are stating @tjagain - I have been involved in mass programme of vaccination where by what you have written >75% of trust staff were coerced into flu vaccines by offer of extra annual leave as higher uptake meant greater winter pressures money for trust. It nearly broke us in occ health as we had significant increased uptake, and as usual no warning from the trust it was coming.
Should I self-report to the NMC?
By what you have written I've not given vaccines under informed consent due to coercion. Anyone coming to me, raising their sleeve and offering their arm for jab is consenting to a vaccine - as someone wrote above, I don't know the back story just they are presenting to me for vaccination.
I'm non-NHS now and conflicted about mandatory covid jabs, but like EPP workers needing regular bloods or evidence of vaccinations to maintain status to work, such as surgeons and dialysis nurses, there are some roles it can be mandated, and even grandfather rights can expire therefore contracts/ roles can change without new contract being issued.
>75% of trust staff were coerced into flu vaccines by offer of extra annual leave
Sounds like the word you're looking for there is "rewarded."
Is the uptick in work, albeit seemingly badly signposted / prepared for, for vaccination not offset by a downfall in poorly people? Again, genuine question, I'm not arguing: however badly handled it may have been by the trust, how does a surprise flu vaccination programme balance against treating influenza-infected patients?
Regarding informed consent for adolescents there is Gillick Competence (named for a legal precedent) and Fraser guidelines (contraception specific).
I've helped developed specific health procedures relating to these to guide staff. Essentially, the clinician is able to assess the decision making competence of a 12+ year old.
In Tj's examples above there were balanced judgements made about the greater good, it's far too simplistic to say ethics trumps law. Precisely what is suggested from mass vaccination and mandatory vaccination.
@cougar - from my poor recall, the evidence at that time showed limited benefit to individuals /workforce / organisation from having vaccine, however increased winter pressure money significantly beneficial to organisation.
You could be right in your definition of it being a benefit, and is certainly how I would try to persuade the non-enthusiastic, it benefits them/ their family having it, as well as patients. There was robust discussion at the time about the method used to promote uptake, especially around nervous neighbouring trusts.
Thank you.
But any "limited benefit" is still a net benefit, right?
The objective of (well telegraphed) vaccine mandates is to increase vaccine uptake.
The later step of excluding the unvaccinated from frontline or high risk environment is only a secondary benefit, which may be extended, watered down etc, depending on the observed impact. They are not about to lay-off 10,000 nurses over this.
But to (I think) Northwind and Reeksy's previous points - it won't be 10,000 nurses. Anti-vaxxers and their apologists are continuing to consume a disproportionate amount of oxygen - and the number within the NHS will be even fewer. My concern is the care home sector, where a greater proportion of antivaxxers might be lurking.
I would be concerned that a Dr/Nurse treating me had refused the vaccine.... more as an indication of their poor judgement than anything else.
lamp
Free Member
the majority of NHS staff understand the argument that the vaccine is still in trial phase until 2023 and with that brings a degree of unknown risk that they don’t feel prepared to take.
So we're just making shit up now?
Majority means "more than half" BTW. More than half of all NHS staff are wrong about this basic information, widely publicized and easily checkable? And on this basis are refusing the vaccine? Yeah, nah.
For the record, if anyone tells you this in future (or perhaps you are tempted to believe it yourself?), you/they can be reassured that trials of all the vaccines are ongoing, and will be for years to come. However, the threshold for evidence needed to grant a license has been passed - and (obviously?) we don't just stop gathering information at that point.
My concern is the care home sector, where a greater proportion of antivaxxers might be lurking
Your timing is impeccable. As of 1h 45mins ago, Queensland extended the mandate "for all private healthcare staff across the state, including staff working in hospitals, aged care and disability services." Required by 15 December.
"The Direction extends to health professionals, contractors, independent third party providers, and employees or volunteers engaged by external agencies.
It applies to a vast range of healthcare settings including private hospitals, day surgeries, GP clinics, pharmacies, optometrists, private nurse offices, allied health clinics, dental surgeries, and private pathology centres.
The Direction also applies to in-home aged care, many disability support services, and not-for-profit and NGOs providing public healthcare services."
Your timing is impeccable
I'm usually a day late and a dollar short.
A NSW Paramedic (who was also the deputy mayor of some regional town) has just had his case against the vaccine mandate chucked-out of the supreme court. However, not directly relevant to TJs arguments as his technical objection was on "religious" grounds - which was found to be nonsense.
The case comes after another judge last month dismissed two other cases challenging the validity of the NSW vaccination mandates for certain workers.
One involved 10 plaintiffs from various industries, including health, aged care, construction and education, who all argued their employment had been impacted by the health orders.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones ruled all their grounds had failed and said the orders were aimed exclusively at public safety.
Nurse in a semi rural MIU here, and I think we are all doubled jabbed if not boostered up too. Probably has a lot to do with the demographic of the area. I think most of us know of the odd individual in the local health community that are constantly posting antivax nonsense on Facebook etc, and might just be our local cranks but most seem to have issues with 'the sauce' too 😵 not sure I would normally have been so quick to go for a rushed out vaccination, but my daughter has bad asthma and dying whilst reaching for breath has always been a bit of a fear of mine. I generally think getting it is better for patients and colleagues, so I don't have an issue with the plans.
Same here in Oz. Nov 1 was the "cut off".
We are already massively short staffed here. We are not getting staff from interstate or abroad.
I get the logic behind getting all staff double vaxxed. I have a certificate confirming I'm double vaxxed. But now they are saying we will need ongoing booster jabs every six months. Any sending people home wo decline the jabs isn't going to help with stress levels of an already overworked and understaffed health system.
The expectation that here in WA it's "close" to kicking off (zero cases in WA as of now). But it's creeping closer - cases increasing in NT and SA.
The feeling of impending doom is strong. I had an email saying my laptop has been designated as a "covid" laptop, whatever that means. And our nursing union sent out 2 face masks with our union magazine last week.
The expectation that here in WA it’s “close” to kicking off (zero cases in WA as of now). But it’s creeping closer – cases increasing in NT and SA.
The feeling of impending doom is strong.
Yeah - nothing drives vaccine uptake like an outbreak of Delta. Certainly in NSW there was a lot of initial vaccine hesitancy driven by the feeling that there was more risk associated with the vaccine (the AZ one in particular), than catching covid. Can't really blame people when numbers were so low, and it was 10 months since the last death at one point.
However - you think the healthcare sector is at breaking point now, wait until the ICUs fill-up with unvaccinated covid patients, and staffing numbers are down because of covid-related absence.
Fair play to WA for managing the border so closely - just over 1,000 cases and 9 deaths since the start. But the time to pivot strategy was a few months ago, WA are at risk of getting left behind, or worse: vulnerable to an inevitable delta outbreak
We shouldn’t be having to explain any of this to a “senior nurse.” I find that scarier than any vaccine.
Supporting Covid/antivax bollocks should be a disciplinary offence for a healthcare worker. Seriously.
Don't recall TJ getting quite this het up for the care home staff, whose deadline is next week to get jabbed or move post.
I’m pro vaccine but I’m also pro choice. I question the choice of those who decide not to, but that isn’t as concerning as a government who think it’s okay to mandate such things. Where is the line?
I would love to be a pilot but the pesky government have mandated that I need to have good colour vision. How dare they remove my choice?
There are literally thousands of jobs where there are rules in place requiring good health, licenses, qualifications and training. Your choice is whether or not you want to do that job.
Same applies to care home staff - I think the coercing of people under such a threat is morally wrong. the threat is severe - lose your job, your rights to work in that profession, no rights to benefits for a period of time as you have been sacked, huge financial penalty
There is also research quoted by the BMA in one of the links above that suggests it could actually be counterproductive
Also in the two examples I gave above: all citizens have a duty to report a crime. In both of those examples a crime is being committed, however a healthcare professionals duty of confidentiality trumps the legal requirement to report a crime. ( assuming non coercive / abusive in the case of the underage girls or just simple consumption for the cannabis user)
I find it astonishing how many of yo are simply prepared to watch this happen.
If the vaccine mandate was in place before they took employment its of no issues - its retrospectively changing the rules where the problem lies and also coercing people into taking invasive medical treatments
I have never seen coercive measures used in medicine for competent people before.
Should all hospitality workers and shop workers be compulsory vaccinated? How about transport staff? Police?
The premise of your question is why should health and social care staff be subject to different rules. I think the answer to that is bloody obvious. Hospitals and care homes are rammed full of clinically vulnerable people. Staff are working in close proximity to them for extended periods of time. The risk to all in these settings is much, much higher than in hospitality and shops. Hospitals are not healthy places to be for staff or patients so everyone has a responsibility to reduce risk. Further to that, these services can ill afford to have large cohorts of staff off for extended periods through getting ill or isolated / awaiting test results.
There is also a public health responsibility as frontline staff should be exemplars of good practice. The problem with anti-vaccers is that they are like open water swimmers. You know about them because they tell everyone about it, a lot. In a public health context these people have influence. They have responsibility and they certainly have choice about where they work.
If the vaccine mandate was in place before they took employment its of no issues – its retrospectively changing the rules where the problem lies and also coercing people into taking invasive medical treatments
That is a weak argument, COVID 19 and its vaccine did not exist before last year so it couldn't be mandated as a condition at the point of employment. If a new strain of ebola suddenly rampaged through the UK and they bought out a vaccine, would you say staff should not be required to have it because they had already started their employment?
I think you union militancy is blinkering your normal informed, medical and grown up common sense.
not sure I would normally have been so quick to go for a rushed out vaccination
Gnnn...
It's not "rushed out," it's had an atypically huge amount of resource thrown at it.
The answer may seem bloody obvious to you but its a question not solveable by simplistic analysis. the moral, legal and ethical questions are serious
this is altering the entire legal and ethical framework under which healthcare workers operate and is allowing the state to coercivly medicate people
OK - I have made my point
I hope a few of you might realise that what seems on the surface a "no brainer" is actually a very complex moral and ethical maze
I find it astonishing how many of yo are simply prepared to watch this happen.
Because we believe it is for the greater good.
Like mask wearing, social distancing, working from home, lockdowns, all those other restrictions on our personal freedoms and choices we've had to endure the last 18 months.
Ignoring those rules had (theoretically at least) legal and personal consequences, as does not complying with this vaccine mandate. Exceptional times require exceptional efforts.
It's perfectly fine if you feel differently.
(Though I'm somewhat wary of the potential political spin behind the timing of it, rather overshadowed the MPs second job thing for example.)
I wholeheartedly agree with what TJ just posted.
My early comments around the further un-attractiveness of the NHS as an employer are owing to this.
So many people wading in here who clearly have no idea about ethics or good management.
Like mask wearing, social distancing, working from home, lockdowns, all those other restrictions on our personal freedoms and choices we’ve had to endure the last 18 months.
Non of those things are remotely like coercive medication.
Non of those things are remotely like coercive medication.
Fine, let them refuse the jab and deal with the consequences. The only non-medical reason not to have the jab is because you have very flawed judgement, and I'm not sure I want someone in that position looking after me.
Because we believe it is for the greater good.
the end justifies the means?
Personally speaking I don't want coercive vaccination of the population as a whole. I think that's a dangerous path that we should be very very shady about starting down. I'd much rather engage and convince people and from immunisation perspective we don't need 100% of folks vaccinated anyway.
I do however think that vaccinating people as a requirement to do a particular role is perfectly acceptable position to take.
TJ, you can use all the emotive language you like. Morals, ethics, "coercion" really?! Come on.
But at the end of the day if you're a doctor or a nurse or a surgeon or otherwise on the front line dealing with vulnerable people who are potentially immunocompromised or worse, and you're an anti-vaxer, then **** off to remote telesales or the dole or something because you're at risk of causing more harm than good. Where are your ethics when you've just infected someone who's then died?
I understand your Scargillism and would normally agree with you, but I have no sympathy here. Zero damns given, if we can seemingly take the hit of "sending back where they came from" all the European workers, then the plague rats can **** right off after them. Too bad.
It's not a "complex maze," it's really really easy. Get your injections or, as they say in Scotland, git tae ****. Vaccine deniers and their apologists have no place in the health service and of all people TJ I expected better of you.
Because, why? On principle? What's the actual objection here? Someone said earlier, "people don't like being told what to do" and that's what it boils down to isn't it. Christ, this is the cycle helmet argument all over again isn't it. But the uncomfortable reality is that a mature society has rules. Getting in a car, buckle up a seatbelt. Anyone whining about the infringement on their civil liberties because they're being "coerced" to wear pants when out in public?
We've been successfully vaccinating people for well over two centuries and this entire narrative is crackpottery of the highest order. Anyone anti-vaccinations needs to grow the hell up, go join the Flat Earth Society or something.
There is a moral and ethical dimension that you are not seeing here cougar that I have tried to explain
This alters the entire ethical framework under which healthcare operates
all of the professional and regulatory bodies are extremely concerned about this and many practitioners very unhappy even the pro vax ones like me
Have a read of this for example
So many people wading in here who clearly have no idea about ethics or good management.
People are dying because other people are stubborn.
Sorry, what was your point again?
Personally speaking I don’t want coercive vaccination of the population as a whole. I think that’s a dangerous path that we should be very very shady about starting down.
I agree. But that's not what's happening, is it.
On a building site you'd be expected to wear a hard hat. In a clinical environment you're similarly expected to be clean. Don't want to be vaccinated (and again, as a healthcare professional, why wouldn't you?) then hazmat suit #3 is over there.
Cougar - read the BMJ link above and I have sent you a pm about gillick competence
Because, why?
Because any government probably shouldn't be forcing anyone into having medical treatment against their wishes.
For example:
We've worked out that one the major issues facing our planet, and the survival of humans is overpopulation, so we're going to start to forcibly sterilise men between the ages of 18-40. Line up here....
Plenty of choice really. Jab or another job. No issues.
No one is , for example, a care or education job complains about the DBS system. It goes with the job.
Personally I would make the jab mandatory for all . Fail to have and and declined health care.
Personal choice has too many problems with our over populated world.
Nicely put nickc
My early comments around the further un-attractiveness of the NHS as an employer are owing to this.
So many people wading in here who clearly have no idea about ethics or good management.
Personally If I'd had to witness unprecedented numbers of deaths in my colleagues and stakeholders on a daily basis my idea of "good management" would be weeding out the morons from my workplace and getting the rest of us vaccinated.
Don’t want to be vaccinated (and again, as a healthcare professional, why wouldn’t you?)
From a purely personal perspective and practical level from what I've seen. I think it's because a whole bunch of folks in healthcare roles that aren't patient facing just don't think the COVID is that dangerous to them personally, and taking a gamble, they're probably going to be correct 99 times out of a hundred. If this was an Ebola pandemic (or something equally terminal) I'm pretty sure the treatment uptake wouldn't be a discussion point.
Because any government probably shouldn’t be forcing anyone into having medical treatment against their wishes.
But they aren't doing that, no-one is being forced to do anything. If you want to work with highly vulnerable, sick and elderly people, is it a great ask to get a vaccination against a potentially deadly disease in the middle of a global pandemic? And if you feel that the answer to that is "yes" then change jobs.
Yes they are cougar - they are being coerced under threat of losing their livelihood and being put into penury as a result. No benefits for 6 wks, no ability to return to healthcare ever.
to be 100% clear I think anyone refusing the jag is off their head
However that does not blind me to the serious questions this raises and being coerced into taking medications is changing the whole legal and ethical structure under which healthcare works
Its not like wearing a hard hat on a building site. this is an invasive medical treatment with ( rare but serious) side effects
this is not a question that can be solved by simplistic analysis
Fine, let them refuse the jab and deal with the consequences. The only non-medical reason not to have the jab is because you have very flawed judgement, and I’m not sure I want someone in that position looking after me.
+1
TJ - take a look at the 'hill' you've decided it's worth dying for
As I've said before, when I've worked in dodgy countries I've been to the GP and had the relevant jabs (paid for by work). Yes I had a choice, go get another job.
But what's the issue with having a vaccine to protect me/others - other than selfishness and/or stupidity?
nickc
Full MemberFor example:
We’ve worked out that one the major issues facing our planet, and the survival of humans is overpopulation, so we’re going to start to forcibly sterilise men between the ages of 18-40. Line up here….
tjagain
Full Member
Nicely put nickc
Jesus christ..... really?!?
Like most on here, I understand what you are saying TJ..... I just don't agree with you. But how on earth can you think that this most ridiculous analogy is "nicely put"?! Pffff - bit early to be drinking
But what’s the issue with having a vaccine to protect me/others – other than selfishness and/or stupidity,
attention seeking? portraying an internet persona that makes you feel special?
If you want to work with highly vulnerable, sick and elderly people, is it a great ask to get a vaccination against a potentially deadly disease in the middle of a global pandemic?
Nope, personally I'm cool with making it a requirement of that particular job.
I just don’t agree with you. But how on earth can you think that this most ridiculous analogy is “nicely put”?! Pffff – bit early to be drinking
Because its a coercive invasive medical treatment for the greater good
And if you feel that the answer to that is “yes” then change jobs
The issue you have with this approach, is that the NHS is already understaffed.
If we take your approach and say 5%* of the NHS workforce is forced to leave, then what happens the next time you need treatment?
You're going to have to wait longer for that treatment....
I'm sure the majority of clinical staff are vaccinated. It will be the secondary front line staff where uptake is lower.
Also, if its NHS staff, what about all other types of front line staff?
Should we also include, Police, Teachers, Supermarket workers, etc??
*This is the number currently estimated by NHS Wales
I wrote a long post about your logical fallacy TJ... But then thought what's the ****ing point, you will argue as devil's advocate regardless of any alternative viewpoint because you want to intellectualise this and reject anything else as simplistic because you did a course at some point.
But at the end of the day if you’re a doctor or a nurse or a surgeon or otherwise on the front line dealing with vulnerable people who are potentially immunocompromised or worse,
You seem to have a childlike grasp of what whole sectors of the NHS actually does.
Edit... just for clarity, I am frontline* and I was first in line for the vaccine (my choice).
*frontline? hate that phrase!
Reeksy - I would be interested in where you see the logical fallacy - and actually I have had a lifelong interest in medical ethics and have studied it at honours degree level.
Read this - from two highly respected professors. From the BMJ
Lydia Hayes, professor of law1, Allyson M Pollock, professor of public health2
Author affiliations
Correspondence to: L Hayes L.J.Hayes@kent.ac.uk
Unnecessary, disproportionate, and misguided
In a profound departure from public health norms, new law will remove the right of care home staff in England to choose whether to be vaccinated against covid-19.1 The intended next step is a rapid and massive expansion of compulsory vaccination legally to require covid-19 and flu vaccination of all frontline health and social care workers, subject to consultation.2
Official claims that “we are not forcing anyone to take the vaccine” are disingenuous.1 Care home workers who reject covid-19 vaccination will be dismissed from employment without compensation and be barred from access to their occupation. A regulatory amendment will make it unlawful for care homes to permit care workers to enter the care home premises without proof of full vaccination.1 This will impose a new duty on all registered providers of residential care to verify the medical status of each worker, including full time and part time agency staff, staff employed directly by a care home, and volunteers. It will give responsibility for compliance and enforcement to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
The providers’ associations Care England and the National Care Forum, as well as trade unions, have expressed concern that coercion is not the best way forward.3456 Vaccination is not a panacea for safety. Safety, according to current regulatory law, is achieved through adequate staffing levels, training, equipment, cleanliness, personal protective equipment, risk assessment, and consultation with staff and residents.7 Care home residents accounted for 40% of all covid-19 deaths in the first wave and 26% in the second wave, as a result of long term problems with care home provision, including staff shortages, but also deficiencies in the pandemic response.8
Vaccination protects individuals from covid-19 and reduces the risk of transmission of disease to others.9 Vaccine efficacy against reinfection after two doses is around 85-90%, efficacy against risk of hospital admission and death from covid-19 is even higher.910 Crucially, previous infection affords immunity against reinfection and provides comparable protection to vaccination.1112 However, the duration of protection (particularly against new variants) remains unknown after either vaccination13 or infection.
The “liberty of non-vaccination” is a principle established in UK law since 1898. It followed vigorous and widespread protest about compulsory vaccination for smallpox that was imposed by the Vaccination Act 1853. Amendments to the Vaccination Act in 1898 and 1907 provided legal recognition of conscientious objection for those who were “honestly opposed” to vaccination and noted, too, the contribution of improved sanitation to the drop in smallpox.14
Compulsory vaccination has not been attempted since in the UK. The Coronavirus Act 2020 was careful to avoid changes to the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which excluded mandatory medical treatment, including vaccination, from the secretary of state for health and social care’s power.15
Wales and Scotland have rejected compulsory vaccination for care workers. Vaccine uptake for care workers in Wales is over 96% for the first vaccination and 85% for the second.16 “Virtually all” care home staff in Scotland have been vaccinated.17 Wales and Scotland have invested in systems of mandatory registration for care workers. Care worker registration aims to professionalise the sector, increase access to training, and embed a culture of continuous professional development. In England, successive ministers have rejected national care worker registration. The Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC therefore don’t know who England’s care workers are, and training of the care workforce is woefully inadequate. The Scientific and Advisory Group for Emergencies has recommended a threshold for minimum protection in residential care homes of 80% of care workers and 90% of residents to have had a first vaccination.18 By 20 June 2021, over 90% of care home residents in England had received two doses of a covid-19 vaccine, 84% of care workers in England had received a first dose, and 72% of care workers had received a second dose.19
The government’s decision on compulsory vaccination for care home workers was based on claims of low vaccine take-up in some care homes that were subsequently echoed in media reports.20 However, closer scrutiny of most recent data shows that uptake of the first dose of covid-19 vaccination among care workers is below 80% (68-74%) in only three upper tier local authorities in England, but these numbers are an artefact of very low numbers of staff employed by care homes in these three. For instance, the lowest uptake of the second vaccine is in Haringey, with only 355 eligible staff in its older adult care homes compared with many thousands of staff in other local authorities.21 Moreover, the government’s own methodology note warns that the numbers of staff and residents who have not received the vaccine cannot be directly derived from its data.22
Civil liberty is a necessary component of strong public health. Mandatory vaccination is unnecessary and disproportionate. It will not remedy the serious shortcomings of the care sector in England. Safety can be assured only by taking steps to build trust and to mitigate outbreaks. Care workers need paid time in which to access vaccination and good training, decent wages (including sick pay), personal protective equipment, and strong infection control measures. Mandatory vaccination in residential care is unnecessary, disproportionate, and misguided.
Footnotes
Because its a coercive invasive medical treatment for the greater good
And you think getting the covid jab is equivalent to enforced male sterilisation?
Sorry mate, you've lost it.
The principle is the same. thats the point. By making this mandated vaccination then we are overturning the whole world of medical ethics
Having studied this, perhaps you could come up with a slightly less batshit example? Perhaps that might convince us?
Edit: also it's not remotely the same principle. Forced sterilisation of all males vs have this Jab (which is proved to be safe and effective) or lose your Job.
they are being coerced under threat of losing their livelihood and being put into penury as a result.
Or changing job roles to somewhere they're less of a threat to society.
No benefits for 6 wks, no ability to return to healthcare ever.
And why do we think that might be?
this is an invasive medical treatment with ( rare but serious) side effects
Away an' shite. So is eating peanuts.
Two more BMJ links
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1975
The second one I wanted to post shows that actually mandatory vaccinations are counterproductive but it will not open the full article
with that I am out. as you can see from my BMJ quotes I am not making this stuff up. this is a very serious step, its possibly counter productive
complex moral and ethical arguments cannot be solved by simplistic analysis
Having studied this, perhaps you could come up with a slightly less batshit example?
Read the big long quote from the BMJ
If the vaccine mandate was in place before they took employment its of no issues – its retrospectively changing the rules where the problem lies and also coercing people into taking invasive medical treatments
So basically your entire argument has the square root of **** all to do with vaccination at all, your beef is about a contractual change?
That stance at least I can get behind, but I'm afraid it happens all the time only usually for less emotive reasons. It's routine, I've had it done to me several times over. But it's always been consensual, in so far as I can accept the new terms or I can leave.
I have never seen coercive measures used in medicine for competent people before.
Competent medical practitioners are highly unlikely to refuse vaccines. An anti-vax doctor ain't all that competent.
There is a moral and ethical dimension that you are not seeing here cougar that I have tried to explain
actually I have had a lifelong interest in medical ethics and have studied it at honours degree level.
OK, so you're well aware that autonomy is not the only facet of a situation that needs to be considered (For others who may be reading, ethical decisions are typically considered in terms of four 'pillars'. 1st google result, I haven't read it: https://www.themedicportal.com/application-guide/medical-school-interview/medical-ethics/). As with anything, there are competing arguments and proportionality has to be applied. Fixating on a single aspect is being obtuse (there is absolutely a non-maleficence issue here which you are choosing to ignore).
Besides, no one is forcing ('coercing') anyone to be vaccinated and there is no issue around bodily autonomy here. I said earlier in the thread "I prefer when my doctor washes his hands." The doctor isn't forced, or coerced, to wash their hands between patients, but you might expect their fitness to practice to be called into question if they ignore such basic hygiene measures.
What happens if a patient dies after catching Covid, which can be traced back to an anti-vax nutjob nurse who didn't get the vaccine and refused to wear a mask while seeing patients? Should that nurse be allowed to practise? I'd certainly be happier if they were not frontline.
To be clear, I am not currently in support of vaccine mandates, and there is an ethical angle here that absolutely warrants discussion. But your belligerence is startling - ironically, this is the heel-digging mindset that allows anti-vax people to commit to their cause more vehemently. There but for the grave of god you go...
as you can see from my BMJ quotes I am not making this stuff up.
No, you're cherry-picking.
Seems pointless political ploy to me.
If you want to work with highly vulnerable, sick and elderly people, is it a great ask to get a vaccination against a potentially deadly disease in the middle of a global pandemic?
False logic. You can still pass on COVID if you're jabbed so not sure what the point of the policy is as it is not actually providing any additional protection to anyone other than those who choose not to be jabbed to reduce their own chances of serious illness from the infection. The vaccination doesn't stop any spread of infection. The viral load you receive from someone who is jabbed is the same as from someone who isn't jabbed.
For the care sector the priority has to be in the fastest possible detection of infected people and isolating them so they cannot pass the infection on. And in any case most of the infections received under care was from other patients and not staff, so nurses being jabbed wont change this.
It doesn't even prevent absenteeism in the care sector as you still have to isolate if you get a positive test result jabbed or not.
The vaccination is extremely effective at preventing serious illness in those who are infected and this is where we need to focus our efforts so ultimately the number of infections is irrelevant and why we're still tracking this as the primary measure is beyond. me. Got COVID? so what if you're jabbed. Why some people are choosing not to take the vaccines is a completely different issue and certainly needs tackling, but the answer to it is not mandatory vaccines. We don't do that with other infection diseases most of which are far more lethal than COVID.
On a building site you’d be expected to wear a hard hat.
Not if you are a Sikh you don't. So not completely mandatory and even here there are exceptions that don't lead you to lose your job. There are many legitimate reasons why someone might refuse the vaccines...it's not just about anti-vaxers. But ultimately the only person they're risking or hurting are themselves.
