January 2014 Moms
Options

Article:Pregnant nurse: I was fired for refusing flu vaccine

https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/29/health/pregnant-nurse-flu-vaccine-refusal/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

(CNN) -- A pregnant nurse tells CNN she was fired from her job after she refused to get a flu shot for fear of miscarrying.

"I'm a healthy person. I take care of my body. For me, the potential risk was not worth it," Dreonna Breton told CNN Sunday. "I'm not gonna be the one percent of people that has a problem."

Breton, 29, worked as a nurse at Horizons Healthcare Services in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, when she was told that all employees were required to get a flu shot. The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention advises that all health care professionals get vaccinated annually.

She told her employers that she would not get the vaccine after she explained that there were very limited studies of the effects on pregnant women.

Breton came to the decision with her family after three miscarriages.

Photos: Flu under the microscopePhotos: Flu under the microscope

CDC: More states reporting widespread flu

The mother of one submitted letters from her obstetrician and primary care doctor supporting her decision, but she was told that she would be fired on December 17 if she did not receive the vaccine before then.

Horizons Healthcare Services spokesman Alan Peterson told CNN affiliate WPVI that it's unconscionable for a health care worker not to be immunized and that pregnant women are more susceptible to the flu.

The CDC website states that getting a flu shot while pregnant is the best protection for pregnant women and their babies.

"I know that the CDC says to get it, and that's fine, but it was our choice to avoid the flu vaccine and the unknowns that come with that," Breton said.

Breton offered to wear a face mask at work, a practice that is used if employees are exempted for religious reasons. The hospital did not approve, according to Breton.

Breton has no interest in taking legal action, she said. She stated she only wants the company to reevaluate their policy on vaccines for pregnant employees and to continue working as a nurse.

Flu vaccine may work better in women, study suggests

New York City requires flu vaccine in city preschools and day cares

Re: Article:Pregnant nurse: I was fired for refusing flu vaccine

  • Options
    I'm surprised they wouldn't let her wear a mask and I'm curious as to their reasoning. Every medical facility that I'm aware of in my area requires a flu shot as well but wearing a mask is always an alternative.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • Loading the player...
  • Options
    Lena122 said:
    I'm surprised they wouldn't let her wear a mask and I'm curious as to their reasoning. Every medical facility that I'm aware of in my area requires a flu shot as well but wearing a mask is always an alternative.
    This is how it is at our hospitals too. Personally, I wish they would take a stronger stance because I see the people with the flu masks not wearing them appropriately all of the time. The woman at the lab I use frequently always had hers hanging around her neck last year while she was taking my blood. It pissed me off. This year, she got her flu shot. I bet she was reported by someone.
  • Options
    Personally, I don't see any problem with her being fired. They have a policy, she made the choice not to follow it. She had to do what she felt was right for herself and her family, but the hospital administrators also had to do what they felt was right for their patients.

    ETA: And I would be willing to be money that the real reason she isn't suing them is because she was advised that she would lose.

    All of this. She made a decision for herself that could have a negative effect on others, knowing full well the consequences of her decision. Sucks but it is what it is.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

    Lilypie Third Birthday tickers Lilypie First Birthday tickers  
  • Options
    wilburbud said:
    Personally, I don't see any problem with her being fired. They have a policy, she made the choice not to follow it. She had to do what she felt was right for herself and her family, but the hospital administrators also had to do what they felt was right for their patients.

    ETA: And I would be willing to be money that the real reason she isn't suing them is because she was advised that she would lose.
    I share this opinion. completely. 
    Ditto. And another ditto on seeing too many people not following the proper techniques with masks, etc. if they take the exemption. My mom works at the hospital where I'm delivering and they allowed people to wear masks for a few years but did away with that because people weren't doing it properly. The hospital is now 100% non-smoking and 100% vaccinated. If you don't like it, you can work somewhere else.

    Although, @wilburbud I think I also remember hearing something about a small Haitian religion being exempt. But I think my mom said no one submitted that, this year.


    Married: 9.22.12 - DD: 1.7.14 - EDD 2: 10.30.17 - J14 OG
  • Options
    Good for the employer. I would have fired her, too. I've worked in healthcare all my adult working life, and I can't imagine not getting a flu shot. Not only would I hate to get it myself, but I'd hate to give it to someone - and if you're coming into contact with anyone who might have a compromised immune system (infants, children with special needs, cancer patients, the elderly), you have a responsibility to do no harm, which includes not subjecting them to the flu.
    Lilypie First Birthday tickersimage
    partial molar pregnancy : bfp 6.28.10, d/c 8.17.10, 7 rounds methotrexate, cleared 7.1.11
    alexander patrick : bfp 1.16.12, born 9.20.12 @ 39w1d, 7 lbs./11 oz./22 in.
    scarlett irene elizabeth : bfp 5.24.13, born 2.3.14 @ 41w2d, 7 lbs./13 oz./19 in.
  • Options
    I have absolutely no problem with her being fired. I know one nurse at the hospital I'll deliver at who got an exemption because of an allergic reaction, but I also know they are very strict with her about wearing masks. A personal choice (unsupported by actual, legitimate research) is just that--and shouldn't entitle her to keep her job if it's against company policy.

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

    image

    image   image   image

  • Options
    Ok so extreme example but my L&D nurse when I delivered Hannah was telling me she actually had an anaphylactic reaction to the flu shot last year...so this year(our hospital requires vaccination or wearing masks for the entire flu season) she got to sit in employee health with a physician and a ton of meds to prevent it from happening again. But she still got the vaccine! I've gotten my flu shot every year since I've been in healthcare and I think its definitely the responsible thing to do. Its scary while pregnant but getting the flu would be worse I think!




  • Options
    @ac1259 Kudos to that nurse!


    Married: 9.22.12 - DD: 1.7.14 - EDD 2: 10.30.17 - J14 OG
  • Options
    I agree with you @peanutmuse. The only irksome issue to me is that an exemption is allowed for those who refuse the shot for religious reasons, while she has no foot to stand on for a personal decision. As far as I'm concerned, a religious observance is a personal decision just like this woman's decision not to vaccinate due to her pregnancy, and so they all should be subject to the same repercussions for not following workplace policy. Maybe I should have saved that one for UO Thursday.
    I agree with you 100%. Why should a religious reason be enough for someone to put people at risk if a personal decision is not? Why are they providing alternatives for religious reasons but those alternatives aren't good enough for anyone else? I agree that if she knows the policy and chooses not to follow it then she is at risk of firing, but there seems to be a double standard here. 


  • Options
    km_md said:
    I agree with you @peanutmuse. The only irksome issue to me is that an exemption is allowed for those who refuse the shot for religious reasons, while she has no foot to stand on for a personal decision. As far as I'm concerned, a religious observance is a personal decision just like this woman's decision not to vaccinate due to her pregnancy, and so they all should be subject to the same repercussions for not following workplace policy. Maybe I should have saved that one for UO Thursday.
    I agree with you 100%. Why should a religious reason be enough for someone to put people at risk if a personal decision is not? Why are they providing alternatives for religious reasons but those alternatives aren't good enough for anyone else? I agree that if she knows the policy and chooses not to follow it then she is at risk of firing, but there seems to be a double standard here. 
    I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence for this one, to be honest. I believe there is a difference between a religious reason and a personal one. If they start making exceptions for every personal reason, where do you draw the line?
  • Options
    km_md said:
    I agree with you @peanutmuse. The only irksome issue to me is that an exemption is allowed for those who refuse the shot for religious reasons, while she has no foot to stand on for a personal decision. As far as I'm concerned, a religious observance is a personal decision just like this woman's decision not to vaccinate due to her pregnancy, and so they all should be subject to the same repercussions for not following workplace policy. Maybe I should have saved that one for UO Thursday.
    I agree with you 100%. Why should a religious reason be enough for someone to put people at risk if a personal decision is not? Why are they providing alternatives for religious reasons but those alternatives aren't good enough for anyone else? I agree that if she knows the policy and chooses not to follow it then she is at risk of firing, but there seems to be a double standard here. 
    I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence for this one, to be honest. I believe there is a difference between a religious reason and a personal one. If they start making exceptions for every personal reason, where do you draw the line?
    Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with @peanutmuse on this one.

    In terms of religious reasons, I feel like those are pretty easy to confirm as being legitimate reasons. It's easier for an employer to say, "Let's verify with this religious organization and find out what their stance is on this vaccine, and if there's any way we can work around it," versus verifying the legitimacy of every personal reason that someone might use.

    For example, the daycare employee who got fired back in September over the abduction prank played on me with DS - when she was hired, she was told she had to have a flu shot, and she agreed. When it came time for her to actually get it, she suddenly had a laundry list of health problems that prevented her from being able to get the shot or the mist. Apparently, whenever she got the shot, she ended up in the hospital for at least 2 weeks with flu-like symptoms, and the mist would make her airway close-up as well as give her a horrible all-body rash.

    How do you, as an employer, verify this? Patients have the right to privacy in regards to their medical records, and instead of asking them to provide documentation from their physician to back up claims like these, it's just easier to say, "This is our policy. If you don't get a flu shot, you're fired."
    Lilypie First Birthday tickersimage
    partial molar pregnancy : bfp 6.28.10, d/c 8.17.10, 7 rounds methotrexate, cleared 7.1.11
    alexander patrick : bfp 1.16.12, born 9.20.12 @ 39w1d, 7 lbs./11 oz./22 in.
    scarlett irene elizabeth : bfp 5.24.13, born 2.3.14 @ 41w2d, 7 lbs./13 oz./19 in.
  • Options
    @brideandbreve, she sounds like a stellar employee all around. Yikes.
  • Options


    km_md said:



    I agree with you @peanutmuse. The only irksome issue to me is that an exemption is allowed for those who refuse the shot for religious reasons, while she has no foot to stand on for a personal decision.
    As far as I'm concerned, a religious observance is a personal decision just like this woman's decision not to vaccinate due to her pregnancy, and so they all should be subject to the same repercussions for not following workplace policy.
    Maybe I should have saved that one for UO Thursday.

    I agree with you 100%. Why should a religious reason be enough for someone to put people at risk if a personal decision is not? Why are they providing alternatives for religious reasons but those alternatives aren't good enough for anyone else? I agree that if she knows the policy and chooses not to follow it then she is at risk of firing, but there seems to be a double standard here. 

    I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence for this one, to be honest. I believe there is a difference between a religious reason and a personal one. If they start making exceptions for every personal reason, where do you draw the line?


    I'm not saying they should make an exception for a personal reason - I think there should be no exceptions at all, including for religious reasons.
    Sorry if that was unclear.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPicImage and video hosting by TinyPicImage and video hosting by TinyPicBaby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • Options
    Shannahbee said:
    I'm not saying they should make an exception for a personal reason - I think there should be no exceptions at all, including for religious reasons. Sorry if that was unclear.
    Yes, that makes sense and I agree with that. You weren't unclear, @Shannahbee. I think my response was more tailored to what @km_md said, which was a bit more ambiguous. But now, after rereading, I'm not quite sure where km_md falls -- on the side of more personal exemptions or fewer religious ones? You don't need to answer, I'm just kind of thinking out loud.
  • Options
    Shannahbee said:
    I'm not saying they should make an exception for a personal reason - I think there should be no exceptions at all, including for religious reasons. Sorry if that was unclear.
    Yes, that makes sense and I agree with that. You weren't unclear, @Shannahbee. I think my response was more tailored to what @km_md said, which was a bit more ambiguous. But now, after rereading, I'm not quite sure where km_md falls -- on the side of more personal exemptions or fewer religious ones? You don't need to answer, I'm just kind of thinking out loud.
    I definitely wasn't very clear with my response (sorry!), but I agree that there just shouldn't be any exemptions. It is for health reasons that they require staff to get these vaccines, and it can be very dangerous for others if they don't. I agree with you, peanut that it would be ridiculous to try and define the line for personal reasons, there are way too many variables for something like that to work. 


  • Options
    Totally agree that she's only not suing b/c she knows she has nothing to stand on. I don't think anyone should be exempt from getting a shot they agreed to get when taking their job. 
    KaitiMac that she should have said her real reasons clearly instead of trying to make pregnant women afraid to get a flu shot. 
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
    imageimage
  • Options
    I am personally pretty on-the-fence about vaccines. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely NOT against them and I am definitely NOT someone that believes they cause autism or anything like that, I just think we (as society) can jump on board with them before we really know and understand the potential consequences. (That is in reference to newer vaccines, NOT things like TDAP, MMR, polio, etc. )

    So, when I was reading that pregnant women should get the flu shot, I was a bit apprehensive and did a bit of reading. In doing so, I saw that the shot that is recommended is dead, not alive like in other vaccines (I'm not a medical professional, so I cannot personally say which ones are living). That made me much more comfortable with the idea. According to many, many sites, you just cannot "get" the flu from a dead vaccine like that. So I had no problem going out and getting it. I feel like getting a bad flu is actually dangerous, especially while pregnant, so why would I not?

    In this event, I don't understand why she'd refuse. If she's dealing with sick, elderly, young people or anyone in close proximity like that, her health is of the utmost importance. I have no issue with her being fired over it, especially since I've heard that this year's flu has a bunch of different strains that are more dangerous than in years past. 

    * Please note, our children will get vaccinated. We are not opposed to them, just a little hesitant to jump into anything like that without doing some reading and trying to understand what is what. And obviously, I realize I'm saying this to a bunch of people in the medical field and likely sound like an idiot. So I just want to say that I want (try) to be as informed as possible. I've never forgone a vaccine that was recommended or required. 
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"