Vaccination or Termination: The Issue of Mandatory Influenza Vaccinations for Healthcare Workers

Emily DeYoung
{"title":"Vaccination or Termination: The Issue of Mandatory Influenza Vaccinations for Healthcare Workers","authors":"Emily DeYoung","doi":"10.1515/jbbbl-2019-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Today, arguably the most common assertion against mandatory vaccinations comes from parents using the Due Process Clause to challenge mandatory vaccinations, claiming the mandates violate their children’s substantive due process rights. Ordinarily, schools allow certain exemptions to tenderly avoid violating the children’s constitutional rights. Many children may have parents advocating for their exemption from these vaccinations, but what about those who have less sway in an argument for exemption? What is at stake for children is their admission into a specific school, and even if they are denied admittance, their parents always have the option to homeschool them if they truly feel so passionately against mandatory vaccinations. However, a healthcare worker who is seeking employment, or who is already employed, does not have as much sway or alternatives when it comes to opposing a mandatory immunization policy. Employers have begun implementing mandatory influenza immunization programs, but even the employers who grant accommodations exempting certain healthcare employees impose some form of additional infection-control practice (e.g. requiring exempt healthcare workers to wear facemasks while on duty, wear different color badges, or placing them in alternative positions during flu season). These mandatory influenza immunization programs, and the alternatives required if healthcare workers acquire exemptions, strike a critical balance between the workers’ constitutional rights and the overarching public safety issues.","PeriodicalId":415930,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety, and Biodefense Law","volume":"2013 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety, and Biodefense Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbbbl-2019-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Today, arguably the most common assertion against mandatory vaccinations comes from parents using the Due Process Clause to challenge mandatory vaccinations, claiming the mandates violate their children’s substantive due process rights. Ordinarily, schools allow certain exemptions to tenderly avoid violating the children’s constitutional rights. Many children may have parents advocating for their exemption from these vaccinations, but what about those who have less sway in an argument for exemption? What is at stake for children is their admission into a specific school, and even if they are denied admittance, their parents always have the option to homeschool them if they truly feel so passionately against mandatory vaccinations. However, a healthcare worker who is seeking employment, or who is already employed, does not have as much sway or alternatives when it comes to opposing a mandatory immunization policy. Employers have begun implementing mandatory influenza immunization programs, but even the employers who grant accommodations exempting certain healthcare employees impose some form of additional infection-control practice (e.g. requiring exempt healthcare workers to wear facemasks while on duty, wear different color badges, or placing them in alternative positions during flu season). These mandatory influenza immunization programs, and the alternatives required if healthcare workers acquire exemptions, strike a critical balance between the workers’ constitutional rights and the overarching public safety issues.
接种或终止:卫生保健工作者强制接种流感疫苗的问题
今天,最常见的反对强制接种疫苗的主张可以说是来自父母使用正当程序条款来挑战强制接种疫苗,声称该命令侵犯了他们孩子的实质性正当程序权利。通常,学校允许某些豁免,以温和地避免侵犯儿童的宪法权利。许多孩子的父母可能会主张他们不接种这些疫苗,但那些在豁免争论中影响力较小的孩子呢?对孩子们来说,最重要的是他们能否进入一所特定的学校,即使他们被拒绝入学,如果他们真的如此强烈地反对强制接种疫苗,他们的父母也总是可以选择在家教育他们。然而,正在寻找工作或已经就业的卫生保健工作者在反对强制性免疫政策时没有那么大的影响力或选择。雇主已开始实施强制性流感免疫规划,但即使是给予豁免某些医疗保健雇员住宿的雇主,也会施加某种形式的额外感染控制措施(例如,要求豁免的医疗保健工作者在值班时佩戴口罩,佩戴不同颜色的徽章,或在流感季节将其安置在其他位置)。这些强制性流感免疫计划,以及如果医护人员获得豁免所需的替代方案,在工人的宪法权利和总体公共安全问题之间取得了关键的平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信