Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines Protect Ourselves and Our Communities
Wendy Horton, FACHE
Chief Executive Officer at UVA Health University Medical Center
The question of whether an employer can mandate workforce coronavirus vaccination is reverberating throughout all industries, but it is an especially critical issue in the world of health care. At UVA Health, it is our primary responsibility to safeguard the health and well-being of our entire UVA family, which includes patients, faculty, team members, administrators, and the entire Charlottesville community. A key part of protecting the public health involves making sure that we have a high level of vaccinated personnel. A vaccinated staff creates the safest possible environment for the clinical care of patients, and it ensures that a vulnerable population is protected from the threat of the deadly virus. To that end, UVA Health will plan to take a stepwise approach to achieving a fully vaccinated staff.
Some hospitals have already begun mandating vaccinations for all employees. Houston Methodist Hospital and Health System and the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) are among the first health systems to do so. UPHS is one of the nation’s largest health systems, and they are asking their workforce to set an example to end the pandemic. Other health institutions are following suit. RWJBarnabas Health in West Orange, NJ, is now requiring supervisors and above to be vaccinated for COVID-19, with plans to extend the mandate to all employees. As we head into the second half of the year, we expect more hospitals and health systems nationwide to require their workforce to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
At the same time, many healthcare systems are still undecided about requiring staff to be vaccinated. The issue is a complex one, as it involves many sensitive and overlapping issues including public health, ethics, law, labor relations, as well as an individual’s right to autonomy. The question that must be answered is this: How do you balance the need for personal freedom against the necessity to provide a safe hospital environment, if not everyone who works at the health system is willing to get vaccinated?
Regarding a vaccine mandate for UVA Health, here are the facts we are considering:
Is it Safe?
The science behind vaccines is vigorous and sound, and the science community overwhelmingly believes the current US vaccines to be safe. More than a hundred million Americans have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history. The CDC states that the COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19, and all U.S. vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective at preventing the coronavirus. Moreover, the vaccine helps prevent patients who do get the virus from becoming seriously ill. Finally and importantly, getting vaccinated not only protects you, but it may also protect people around you, particularly people at increased risk for severe illness.
Is it Legal?
This is unclear, but there is some historical precedent for having a public mandate for vaccines. As early as 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that the Cambridge, Mass., board of health had the authority to require that the city’s population be vaccinated against smallpox, as the disease was sparking outbreaks. Much more recently, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health has said that states have the legal and constitutional authority to require that residents be vaccinated. What’s more, workplaces like hospitals, health care and long-term care facilities already require their staff be vaccinated against the flu each year. One thorny legal question remains, however. COVID-19 vaccines are currently approved under the FDA’s emergency use authorization, they do not have full FDA approval yet.
Organizations that provide public health guidance like the CDC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have not commented on the question of requiring vaccinations. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said that employers may mandate vaccinations with some limitations, as mandating coronavirus vaccines would not conflict with federal disability law or civil rights statutes on discrimination. Furthermore, the EEOC said an employer could exclude an employee from a workplace if vaccine refusal posed too great a threat, but the worker must be offered the option of telework or a leave, and employers must allow exemptions for medical and religious reasons.
Is it Ethical?
This depends on who you ask. The World Health Organization (WHO) weighed in on the ethics of mandatory vaccines by saying that “they should be considered only if it is necessary for, and proportionate to, the achievement of an important public health goal identified by a legitimate public health authority. If such a public health goal (e.g., herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable) can be achieved with less coercive COVID-19 or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified.”
In another opinion, Professor Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center with expertise in health law recently told the Washington Post: “Vaccination mandates are ethical. Everyone has a right to make decisions about their own health and welfare, but they don’t have a right to expose other people to potentially dangerous or even lethal diseases.”
A final consideration that cannot be ignored is that unvaccinated populations risk enabling new virus mutations that cannot be contained by our current vaccinations. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center stated that: "Every time this virus finds a new person, it multiplies. Every time it multiplies, it creates mutations….and those mutations can create a variant that is so different that our current vaccine protection might not work or might not work as well."
Throughout the health care world, we have all faced a year of unprecedented and relentless challenges to keep our communities safe and healthy. We have changed policies and amended procedures in rapid succession to limit exposure, treat the sick and provide comfort to hospital staff, patients and families as we fought to contain the virus. Now we have come to a point where the situation is becoming more manageable. We can look forward to a time when life can return to what we used to consider normal, when we have the freedom to go out into the world with fewer restrictions and a lot less fear. At the same time, we still have an obligation to do everything in our power to keep ourselves and others safe. We know that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, mandating it is ethical, and although the legal question might be still up in the air, getting the vaccination as soon as possible is the right thing to do. It is the right choice to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities from future harm.
Registered Dental Hygienist
3 年There is definitely major concern about mandating this experiment....America's Frontline Doctors, and an international group are working to educate the public. Voluntary consent for anything medical is a major requirement. Should not be mandated until FDA approval and employer is willing to accept the risk if employee has an adverse event and/or is disabled or dies from the shot. Too many adverse incidents and still not being fully reported. Just my thoughts! Requires much more study in my opinion. Most virologist says there has never been a successful vaccine against the corona virus. Consult with the experts in the field and see what they are saying. TRANSCRIPT Dr Reiner Fuellmich is the public frontman for an international team comprised of hundreds lawyers and medical experts, who have begun legal proceedings over the CDC, the WHO, and the Davos group for committing crimes against humanity. The protocol for the PCR test given by the WHO and the CDC was knowingly set to a level that guaranteed 100% false positives or false negatives. This is all about getting people to take the shot. Their argument is that we are at the very least being subjected to an illegal experiment. And at the worst, global genocide. Dr Fuellmich points out how the experimental jab is in clear violation of all ten of the Nuremberg Codes, which carry the penalty of death for those who violate them. *** Number 1:?Voluntary consent is absolutely essential. There should be no intervention or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion. By definition, a vaccine must provide immunity to the virus, protect recipients from getting the virus, reduce deaths, infections, circulation and transmission of the virus. We are told the experimental jab does none of these, yet they fraudulently call it a “vaccine”. As far as duress, restraint and coercion, it’s everywhere: If you want your life back, get the shot. Number 2:?The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results unprocurable by other methods. The most fruitful method would be a healthy immune system, which can be achieved through good health and natural supplements, such as Vitamin D and Vitamin C and Zinc but the people are not being told this. In fact, those that point it out are being vilified and silenced. Number 3: The experiment should be designed and based on the results of animal experimentation. This experimental jab skipped animal testing. Number 4:?The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. According to official reports, there are already thousands of deaths and over a quarter of a million injuries from this experiment. Number 5: No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur. Past trials have shown a strong possibility that these new spike proteins will cause a body to attack itself. This is known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) and recent doctors have blown the whistle that this could end up killing everybody who’s been vaccinated in the next two years. Number 6:?The risk to be taken should never exceed the benefit. COVID-19 has a 98-99% survival rate, less deadly than the seasonal flu. The experimental jab is already the most dangerous vaccine in VAERS’ 30-year history. Number 7:?Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. There were no preparations made. There are no facilities. The subject shows up for their shot and goes home. Number 8:?The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically-qualified persons.? This experiment has been exclusively run by politicians, the media, celebrities and Big Pharma bureaucrats. Number 9: The subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end. Thousands of medical experts have attempted to end this madness and their voices continue to be silenced. Number 10: The experiment must be brought to an end, if resulting in injury or death.
Architect at Rivermoore
3 年great article on a timely and dicey subject.