{"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.