Forum menu
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
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1684
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.