Forum menu
i don’t understand what you’re getting at. could you elaborate? genuine request
Lamp said this:
that the majority of NHS staff understand the argument that the vaccine is still in trial phase until 2023
I found it an unusual comment, as my wife (experienced Lead Nurse managing 48 Covid beds) is all over this and doesn't know a single person that agrees with the statement above.
You can make it a requirement to be employed there but nothing in that actually is a legal requirement to be vaccinated
I will follow the advice and guidance of the CQC, and as ultimately they're the people that regulate my activity and not you. I'll abide by what they tell if that's all the same with you.
The efficacy of the vaccines was measured in terms of a reduction in severity of symptoms, so I would argue that yes, it has been shown.
That part has indeed been shown, but the next part of your statement "and thus spread it without knowing it" is the bit I take issue with. I don't know of any data looking at if, in some scenarios, vaccination could somehow increase transmission due to an increase in asymptomatic spread.
However, a quick bit of Googling suggests that this concern is probably not valid and, in fact, the opposite is probably true.
Here are some sources:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757
Nickc - by all means do so. the advice is perfectly correct - which is why it uses "should" not "must"
The practice "must" have procedures in place. the staff "should" be vaccinated
that wording is important
the reason for it is the respect for bodily autonomy and medical ethics right thru the profession - two things that lay folk on here are just ignoring
tj, my view is that being in hospital isn’t usually an option, where as going to the pub or to the shops are options. people also interact with the NHS to be healed, not made ill.
cops and bus drivers, more complicated, but if NHS staff need the vaccination to keep their jobs, why not every other public servant?
i’m not sure i’m entirely comfortable with forcing vaccines on people, especially when there is a risk associated with it.
the whole situation another event creating a pickle as we race ourselves towards a grim future. without wanting to become completely maudlin, while not doing anything about global warming, does covid vaccination really matter? (to me it does, for what it’s worth) it is another way to drive folk into “camps”. i suspect covid antivax folk also deny that institutionalized racism exists or that global warming is caused by humans.
Thanks for the answer LAT - its a tricky question. why single out one group of workers for action? Its really hard to make a case that NHS staff must be but other workers who can spread it do not have to me - whats the moral difference?
Genuine Question for you all. 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
Can you point to the study that shows that Covid antibodies due to infection persist longer than those present due to double vaccination and subsequent booster.
Just to sum up issues with compulsory vaccination ( and remember I am pro covid vaccines)
1) to retrospectively change peoples T&C would automatically be unfair dismissal - loads of case law on this
2) consent to all medical procedures must be freely given without coercion ( statute and case law) so if its vaccinate of be sacked then this is not consent freely given
3) without consent the person doing the vaccination would be guilty of assault so any healthcare worker who gave vaccinations to people in this situation should refuse to do so as there is no consent and if they do give it they are potentially in a lot of trouble.
4) compulsory vaccinations go against "bodily autonomy" - a cornerstone of medical ethics
This should have been done at least 12 months ago.
What would happen if hospital patients requested evidence of vaccination status of any staff treating them - and insisted on only being treated by staff who could prove they have been fully vaccinated.
What would happen if hospital patients requested evidence of vaccination status of any staff treating them – and insisted on only being treated by staff who could prove they have been fully vaccinated.
They would be told where to go - that tricksy concept of ethics again. Staffs medical records are private and legally cannot be disclosed to third parties
ACAS make it quite clear.
https://www.acas.org.uk/working-safely-coronavirus/getting-the-coronavirus-vaccine-for-work
Makes what quite clear?
It will be interesting when the first cases reach tribunals that will be for sure.
Bigndaft currently the nhs siren study is showing positive antibodies present from previous infection have lasted 19 months so far (the study has been running 19 months)
How long the vaccine lasts who knows as it appears no one is actually testing this and boosters are given without any data
Makes what quite clear
It will but as it stands unions are saying dismissal is a last resort not it can’t be done. I’ve seen this with staff who started before some vaccines came in, they went for years allowing them to continue. They then set a timeline, if staff still didn’t get it where they could they were offered alternative roles. If there was no alternative they were dismissed, it was backed by unions although reluctantly. Most just had them for their own good.
do the boosters cater for new variants?
do antibodies from infection infection by one variant protect against infection from another?
More annoying is my wife has to deal with pregnant women who refuse a covid test on arrival at ward, so they are defaulted to having covid as its not compulsory and they bleat that they can't wear a mask when in the ward yet my wife has to wear full PPE treating them . Also having to treat covid positive women due to refusing the vaccine, 6 of them last week.
Anyone who refuses a test just shouldn't be allowed treatment. Singapore gov stopped paying for those unvaccinated through choice https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/08/singapore-unvaccinated-medical-costs-health-care-covid-19/
How long the vaccine lasts who knows as it appears no one is actually testing this and boosters are given without any data
Yes they have that’s why boosters have come about, I’ve no idea where you’re getting your information from.
Whose ethical concerns matter more - the staff who don't want there records exposed or the patients being placed at greater risk by unsafe staff?
Not as easy as that – you have medical ethics to deal with, compulsory vaccination is against the human rights stuff. all sorts of shizzle.
Mmm... except that mandatory vaccinations are legally required in some EU countries and the European Courts has just refused interim suspension of French and Greek rules requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated. Whilst that's not to say a final decision won't be in the favour of the workers the court has clearly decided that the balance of leaving the rules in place whilst the cases are fully considered is better than suspending the rules and "protecting" the human rights.
Should all hospitality workers and shop workers be compulsory vaccinated? How about transport staff? Police?
In my opinion if hospital and care home staff need this then yes police and prison officers should too - any occupation where being in direct prolonged close proximity to members of the public is unavoidable, and where members of the public have no realistic choice - whether because you are in custody, in need of urgent medical care or unable to leave your (care) home. I wouldn't go as far as hospitality staff or transport staff because social distancing and/or not going to those places is a viable alternative for the users.
(I should say I'm not convinced its necessary or justified even for NHS staff / carers but if the assessment is this is the only way to get to >95% uptake I could be persuaded)
Can those of you that are so keen to forcibly vaccinate healthcare staff against all law and ethics please answer this
You are getting a bit het up TJ. Nobody on this thread or on any other I've read here is suggesting forcibly vaccinating people. There may well be an issue about whether it is genuine consent if your job depends on it, but lets not imply that reluctantly agreeing to a vaccine to keep your job is comparable to holding someone down and injecting them. I'd also suggest that unless the person walks into the vaccination centre and says "I'm only doing this because otherwise I'll lose my job" that the vaccinator need not worry about being pursued for assault or misconduct by vaccinating someone.
You are also adamant that case law means this can't be done - but unless you cite case law that is directly comparable to this then it's not directly relevant case law, and the courts will determine each case on its merits of the facts and circumstances. Even if someone wins a case - it won't necessarily mean that a different organisation with a better thought-through policy and procedure will lose its case. There must be case law for situations where government policies, national guidelines, industry best practice, etc have changed and employees have been required to follow those rules without them actually being written into contracts originally and where people have been dismissed for failing to update. Now I appreciate being injected with something is different from your working practice changing but it debunks the idea that every contractual requirement must be in the contract on day 1. I think it is far from clear cut where the law will sit on this - and its likely that some cases will be lost not on the principle of no-vaccine no-job but on how they go about that before any actual decision is made on the fundamental idea itself, because we all know many employers are spectacular at screwing up processes to manage HR policies. I predict by the time the courts (and likely appeal courts) have concluded that Covid will no longer be the headline news!
1) to retrospectively change peoples T&C would automatically be unfair dismissal – loads of case law on this
I'm quite sure there will be precedent for this that can be used.
For example in my line of work, PPE is a Must be worn when on site. Refusal to wear adequate PPE can lead to dismissal. However there are folk in my org who have worked for decades and would have started / contracts originally written before PPE was ever a thing.
The current Health and Safety in the workplace regulations will have been brought in and changed during the course of their employment, but they must still adhere to the same current rules.
I predict by the time the courts (and likely appeal courts) have concluded that Covid will no longer be the headline news!
🙂
Aye - maybe its not as black and white as I said but its very concerning to me from the medical ethics point of view especially the coerced consent.
If I was in a Trade Union then I'd expect them to be looking after the welfare of the majority of their members.
Nobody on this thread or on any other I’ve read here is suggesting forcibly vaccinating people.
Yes they are - under threat of dismissal.
Scruff - PPE does not violate medical ethics. Big differnce
Scotroutes - I would expect a union to represent ALL their members.
Scruff – PPE does not violate medical ethics. Big differnce
Appreciate that, but you specifically stated that terminating employment as a result of changing t&c's of employment after they were employed/ contract signed would be unfair dismissal. I was pointing out there is precedent to counter your claim.
Yes they are – under threat of dismissal.
That's not being "for" forcible vaccination. It's a harsh way of saying you have freedom of choice which has serious consequences of you choose to not get vaccinated.
You may not like that position, but it is not "for" forcible vaccination.
Scotroutes – I would expect a union to represent ALL their members.
But this is a situation in which they could be forced to take sides and if the majority of their membership refuses to work with the unvaccinated then I would expect them to honour that position.
….actually…..
But this is a situation in which they could be forced to take sides and if the majority of their membership refuses to work with the unvaccinated then I would expect them to honour that position.
I have actually been involved in this sort of situation over a different issue - what the union does is represent both sides using different officers
Then that’s not forcing them to take the vaccine, but to make a choice. Which is still pretty murky.
Its not much of a choice! Loose your job, your entitlement to benefits ( cos you were sacked) and thus be in huge financial difficulties as a result.
its certainly strong coercion and to me its forced because of the huge penalty for non compliance
A key thing with consent to medical treatment is it must be freely given. If you are being coerced under threat of dismissal its not freely given therefore consent is invalid
Have the government produced anything that states their case for making it mandatory? I agree with TJ on the practicalities/legalities. This can't have gone unnoticed so I was wondering how it was justified in writing with some science backing it up.
If they follow through and dismiss people it will create a shortage amongst other issues. You wonder what models have been created to understand if this will give people cause to be vaccinated who aren't already. I can't see it to be honest, if you are a front line medic who's deliberately decided not to take up the vaccine at this point it is going to take a lot to change that position.
I actually think the number of anti vaxers who would lose their jobs over this to be insignificant
I think its about creating a political narrative that " the NHS staff are to blame for spread"
However, a quick bit of Googling suggests that this concern is probably not valid and, in fact, the opposite is probably true.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757
What those papers show is a reduction in hospitalisations, etc, in addition to the primary effect of reducing symptoms.
Granted, I'm not sure the effect (that is, that getting vaccinated increases your chances of having an asymptomatic case of Covid and unknowingly passing it on) is very big, but then for the under 40ish age group, all of the various effects (side and otherwise) are quite small.
I would love everyone to be vaccinated in the NHS and social care.
The question to ask is will more harm be done by unvaccinated staff or from having not enough staff in the sector.
There are already tens of thousands of vacancies at every level and any loss of staff will make it even harder to deliver the care that we all want. A mandate is very blunt where a more open discussion with people that haven’t been vaccinated would be better.
There are already tens of thousands of vacancies at every level and any loss of staff will make it even harder to deliver the care that we all want
All the more reason to protect the staff from illness and death caused a result of having to work with unvaccinated colleagues.
I can see why you are taking this position TJ, from a both a theoretical and moral stand. I'm sure it could be argued until the cows come home - especially by a bunch of rank amateurs with no legal qualifications between us! 🙂
But lets strip this right back. You said early on that, as a nurse, you had the vaccine 'instantly' as soon as it became available. I'm assuming from that you said that because, as someone caring for ill people having the vaccine was the right thing to do. The compassionate thing. The caring thing.
Given that, could you try and make a case to us for why we should care particularly about the treatment of those given the same situation you were in - indeed with a years worth of extra evidence that billions across the world are not dropping dead after their vaccines available to them - still refusing to do the compassionate, caring thing. Not those that can't have the vaccine for medical reasons but those that just won't. why would I want to give more than a gallic shrug if they had to move on and a find a new career? Is it just a 'line in the sand' moral issue for you or is there more to it?
Follow up question - to a former health care worker - in your opinion after a full career in nursing, is someone who works a frontline role and still refuses to be vaccinated fit for purpose? Not from a 'are they a covid danger' perspective, but from a do they possess the compassion and caring nature or the basic trust in modern medicine to be intimately involved in the care sector?
This approach has been used in Queensland (where Covid is still barely present). Our NHS equivalent has said you either get jabbed our apply for an exemption. Anyone that does not is asked to show due cause and moved to a non-clinical role where possible, or has to take leave until it expires upon which they will be suspended. Great idea IMO. It makes me sick to think of staff that won't adhere to such a logical approach. In my district there are ~400 out of 8,500 employees currently not doing the right thing.
Who cares what contraryTJ does or health workers who will not get vaccinated, they’ll get moved to pencil pushing or managed out /retirement and somebody more suitable who understands the duty of care involved in the job will take his place.
Just a cog in a machine, if it no longer fits or the teeth don’t mesh then it’s time to replace the part.
It’s a business decision, sentiment doesn’t come in to it.
However if somebody cannot take the vaccine for health reasons then they deserve to be found other roles in the organisation.
Convert - its nothing to do with compassion or caring - I took the covid vaccine because I believed it the right thing to do. I still do and I think healthcare workers who refuse it are off their heads
However its to me ( and I studied medical law and ethics to a decent level) its a huge legal moral and ethical minefield indeed its just wrong under medical ethics to coerce peiople into vaccinations
to me this is an moral and ethical issue
Bodily autonomy is a cornerstone of medical ethics. Consent to treatment is very important
On your follow up - its nothing to do with compassion or caring. I loathe that way of describing my profession
Maybe they are incapable of following the medical argument. maybe they have other reasons. Who knows and its irrelevant to the issues around autonomy and consent.
basic principles of medicine that have been developed by our best minds over centuries are being ripped up here. Its really serious from that point of view
I am really frustrated how lay folk are just dismissing these key concerns around the ethics
more suitable who understands the duty of care involved in the job will take his place.
Ah well - this is the bit you do not get. a nurses duty of care includes respecting bodily autonomy and respecting the principles of consent. So to coerce vaccinations in this way actually goes against our duty of care. We actually have a duty to report any cases where these two things are not respected and can be prosecuted for not doing so
I am really frustrated how lay folk are just dismissing these key concerns around the ethics
I'm not dismissing them - I'm saying staff face a harsh choice, but they have a choice.
Other than those who have been offered a medical exemption, the only reason for not having the jab is because you believe internet hysteria over the expert opinion of health professionals around the world, or you are just being contrary to prove a point. Either of those reasons means I have little sympathy for that position, frankly, and I'd extend that opinion to other job roles, my own colleagues, and the wider population.
Strange nobodies brought up wearing masks and keeping your distance, all seemed to come in and not many objections. and worn in most care settings still.
That means you are dismissing the bodily autonomy and consent issues tho as they are inextricably linked to this
Less so if you would compulsory vaccinate everyone I guess
Edit - a key point around consent is that a persons decision does not have to appear rational to be competent ie valid
Doesn't it say somewhere in the hipocratic oath that you must not intentionally cause harm to another, so by not having a vaccination which is proven to help stop the spread of a virus would you be breaking that oath?