Forum menu
2so by not having a vaccination which is proven to help stop the spread of a virus would you be breaking that oath?"
Excedpt it isn't.
It is proven to help reduce the spread of Covid, by about 25%. Far less than the reduction in spread by wearing a mask. The main benefit from being vaccinated is to protect yourself - even though we have been told it protects others. Protecting yourself seems to be an unacceptable concept these days...
I'm happy to wear a mask but being told what to stick in one's body? A very slippery slope!
IIRC its "first do no harm" not that anyone does that oath any more again IIRC
Which means before you do anything ensure it will not harm the person. vaccines have side effects so "do no harm" is far too simplistic when its all about balance of risks
there is a large body of medical and nursing ethics and standards to adhere to which include respecting bodily autonomy and always obtain fair consent which this coerced vaccination breaches clearly.
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?
Problem is it doesn’t stop spread, it reduces the risk of hospitalisation and severe disease in the recipient.
This announcement is entirely political posturing. Why for example is it going to come in to full effect in April 22 when we are expected a surge of cases through winter, hospitals are on their knees coping with peak winter rates already and why is the flu vaccine not included when it does reduce spread and has been a major killer for decades and could be this year? More to the point why was Boris Johnson seen this week without a mask in a hospital full of sick vulnerable people?
If Govt was interested in stopping spread then it should look at making masks mandatory in all crowded spaces and schools like in the rest of the sensible world. Hospital workers catch Covid from somewhere and very likely from their kids, on the bus or tube.
BTW I’m a triple vaccinated healthcare worker who has been responsible at a very senior level in a Trust for trying to manage this Govts ineptitude, dithering and lies eg “protective ring around care homes” and am fed up with more of this nonsense.
More to the point why was Boris Johnson seen this week without a mask in a hospital full of sick vulnerable people?
even more to the point why did the management let him?
even more to the point why did the management let him?
Exactly what I said when I saw the picture.
Anyone interested in the code of conduct for nurses here it is
it includes such as:
2.5 respect, support and document a person’s right to accept or
refuse care and treatment
20.2 act with honesty and integrity at all times, treating people
fairly and without discrimination, bullying or harassment
so to me any nurse involved in this coerced vaccination would fall foul of these two provisions
I’m a pro-vac and have argued in the streets with anti vac protesters.
This action is predicated on the assumption that the vaccine has a significant impact on the spreading of the virus and I’m not sure it does I’m sure TiRed would be able to comment on that.
The best way to protect the vulnerable is to ensure a comprehensive booster program, I suspect that this is a smokescreen to divert the narrative away from the fact that is not going as well as it should. By next April this wave will have passed, we may have prophylactic antibody treatments for those who can’t get vaccinated and a number of oral antivirals that are looking very promising. It will be a different world so im not even sure if it makes a difference now it will then.
A few ago my son caught covid at school and before was he symptomatic he managed to infect 11 people out of the 13 people in an afternoon, all the 7 adults were vaccinated. Only me and a his 83 year old diabetic great uncle who has had a booster didn’t catch it, a year ago we’d have worry that he’d survive. But everyone including his grandparents had nothing but a sniffle. That’s the success of the vaccine not preventing transmission.
Written in parallel to Devbrix post above.
deleted
Ooft - thats difficult.
personally I would have had the vaccination by now in your shoes and would be going for custody of the kids if she wanted to divorce over it. Horrible situation to be in.
even more to the point why did the management let him?
Raab was defending him this morning, saying he followed the procedures in that hospital. Which made me think they were lying.
it will most likely end up in us splitting up if i get it.
Sounds an awful situation. Is there any way of saying "either I have it or we're homeless, I have no choice"? Or having the jab and her not finding out?
Ed, How does your missus think your getting a vaccine affects her or your kids?
sorry various issues but ive decided its best not going into them on a forum
Did ed’s wife just look over his shoulder and insist he deleted?
My instinct says everyone should get the vaccine or be put on home duties, but tj is making interesting arguments.
ed - plenty folk on here to lean on and I have found it helpful. Im not really the right person for you but sharing on anonymous forums can be helpful
It's Hobson's choice tbf the policy making machine cannot win. mandatory and they get hung over human rights do nothing and get hung next spring when the covid winter figures are crunched.
I guess that's why it's been kicked down the road untill April
Seems sensible. Don't see what the problem is? I'm assuming to work in healthcare you need a level of intelligence sufficient to understand what's going on.
When I worked as a forensic scientist we had to get certain vaccinations to work.
Strange nobodies brought up wearing masks and keeping your distance, all seemed to come in and not many objections
You’d think that was the case but it wasn’t.
so to me any nurse involved in this coerced vaccination would fall foul of these two provisions
If you’ve reached the point of administration they’ve given consent.
Also, unless you live in the hospital, you need to travel to work. The risk involved there is greater than the vaccine side effects.
Some People just don't like being told what to do.
not really Drac. If the consent was obtained under duress then its invalid and also the nurse will always get consent again at the point of administration - this can be verbally and informally but you still get consent for EVERY procedure. absolutly 100% drummed in to us. consent at every stage
it could just be in the form of " you are here for your covid jab - right arm or left?" thats obtaining consent.
not really Drac. If the consent was obtained under duress then its invalid and also the nurse will always get consent again at the point of administration
That’s exactly my point the nurse administrating the jab will ask and get them to sign, therefore gaining consent. They’re wouldn’t know about the lead up to that, any hearing would have to have proof they knew, proof the person was coerced or forced into and that they hadn’t changed their mind therefore wilfully having it.
Yes thats fine - I agree with that. hence my use of "could" and "potentially"
And would. 😉
Only me and a his 83 year old diabetic great uncle who has had a booster didn’t catch it, a year ago we’d have worry that he’d survive
In February my 83 year old diabetic grandfather died from it. He hadn't had the chance to get vaccinated yet. I blame the negligence of the NHS Trust that discharged my grandmother without checking her test results.
What a difference 9 months has made.
did I Drac? - dagnammitt i was trying hard!
tj is making interesting arguments
The story of the government's ineptitude in managing this whole shit show. Stop pontificating and take action.
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