Religion
Related: About this forumNew Jersey court rules for nurse who refused vaccine on non-religious grounds
By Bruce Konviser
GREEN BROOK N.J.
Thu Jun 5, 2014 8:03pm EDT
(Reuters) - A New Jersey appeals court ruled on Thursday that First Amendment protections allowing people to refuse medical procedures on religious grounds also extends to those opting out of treatment for secular reasons.
The Superior Court of New Jersey's appellate division said the state's Department of Labor erred in refusing to pay unemployment insurance to a nurse fired for declining to receive a flu vaccine out of personal conviction, rather than on religious or medical grounds.
"The Board's ruling unconstitutionally violated appellant's freedom of expression," said the three-judge panel.
June Valent was a nurse at the Hackettstown Community Hospital in September 2010 when the company issued a policy requiring employees to get a flu vaccination. The rule allowed workers to claim an exemption on religious or medical grounds provided they submitted a note from a religious leader or a doctor.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/06/us-usa-new-jersey-firstamendment-idUSKBN0EH00320140606
The opinion is at the link below under Docket No. A-4980-11, published yesterday.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The issue of vaccination of healthcare employees is not just about them infecting others. It's about the staff not becoming incapacited during a major outbreak and the facility being short-staffed.
It seems that very, very few could claim a religious exemption, but if everyone is allowed to refuse for rather vague reasons, like "freedom of expression", it could conceivably lead to a real crisis.
OTOH, should a religious exemption be permitted in those circumstances? I would guess they are talking pretty exclusively about Christian Scientists, but perhaps there are other groups as well.
Leme
(1,092 posts)it was a unemployment pay case.
-
the employers said, get a vaccine... she refused and was fired
-
so far...ok
-
the company refused her unemployment claim... that's their problem.. fire someone for "no reason"... pay the unemployment.
-
There is no law requiring people to be vaccinated. Perhaps there should be, but that is not the issue before that court.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Religious or medical. The medical reason required documentation from a physician. She didn't supply it but refused the vaccine.
She was fired. She is not entitled to unemployment, imo, but the court did not agree with me.
There are not laws, but there are certain situations where vaccination is a condition for employment and healthcare facilities are generally in that situation.
It's a very slippery slope to allow people to refuse for no particular reason.
Leme
(1,092 posts)but the two reasons were defined by the employer.
-
No one says the employer could not fire whoever they choose.
-
Just that they have to pay unemployment.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and the court decided that was not the case here, others were not terminated who refused the vaccine.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)was not terminated.
Where did you get that information?
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It clarifies what the arguments are about.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Which is going to run afoul of some other Joint Commission requirements most likely.
But allowing people to refuse for purely secular reasons is a really, really bad idea.
rug
(82,333 posts)I think a society should give wide latitude to the consciences of its citizens. But then, I remember very clearly the days of the draft.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Would that be considered a matter of conscience?
rug
(82,333 posts)In any event, this decision did not address the merits of the objection. It's not a vaccination decision. It did say this on page two:
"The Board's decision upholding appellant's termination unconstitutionally discriminated against appellant's freedom of expression by improperly endorsing the employer's religion-based exemption to the flu vaccination policy and rejecting the secular choice proffered by the appellant."
It reversed because it found the stated reason for denying unemployment insurance to be unreasonable and unconstitutional.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)in her favor.
They are going to have to remove the religious exemption, imo.
Interestingly, this policy was put in place after she was already employed. They probably should have put a grandfather clause in, then it seems they would have better standing for making it a condition of employment.
Or do I have that wrong?
rug
(82,333 posts)And she represented herself!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that part caught my eye as well and I have to give her a lot of credit for that.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)It seems like if face mask is sufficient protection based on rejecting the vaccination on religious grounds, then that has to be sufficient protection based on rejecting the vaccination on non-religious grounds.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)are not just about protecting patients from infection. They are also about doing what you need to ensure you have an adequate work force if there is a significant outbreak.
It's not sufficient protection in that case, but the number of people who would decline for religious reasons is likely very, very small.
Allowing people to refuse for any reason they feel like places the institution in jeopardy.
Leme
(1,092 posts)what vaccinations are needed also creates problems. Why not this vaccination or that one...or this medication or that one? Especially when some people get exceptions. And just because it is a medical institution THIS time... what about other institutions.
-
The court made a good decision imo
cbayer
(146,218 posts)policy in healthcare settings. They generally do not require other kinds of vaccinations and I've never heard of one requiring any kind of medication, unless someone is diagnosed with a communicable illness.
This may also be a part of accreditation requirements, though I am not certain about that.
In general, it's a very good policy in terms of public health.
The court made a very bad decision, imo, and this is a very slippery slope.
Leme
(1,092 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)was that they fired her for cause and hers was that they had no cause.
She won. I disagree with their decision.
Leme
(1,092 posts)wanting it's personnel to have vaccinations.
-
I am saying that if they refuse... pay their unemployment
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I just did some research and found out that the Joint Commission (which accredits hospitals and other healthcare institutions in this country) established a new set of requirements in 2012 that require hospitals to have a program for influenza vaccination with the goal of reaching 90% compliance.
Allowing people to decline for not particular reason will prevent the hospital from doing this. Do you want your treatment in an accredited or non-accredited institution.
Having it as a condition for employment with only narrow exceptions is the only way to go. There are a lot of people in this country who refuse vaccines for completely unsubstantiated and non-scientifcallly based reasons.
That's very bad medicine.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)It's also about firing her for insubordination and denying her unemployment benefits.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)As rug explained, the court said she was entitled to a secular basis for refusing because of conscience and therefore did not meet the criteria for termination.
It's a really interesting case and has some very significant ramifications in several areas.
pinto
(106,886 posts)It was generally understood as par for the course in a public health setting. Just as the signs on the door alerting parents to ring the buzzer if a child is being brought in with a possible case of measles. A PHN would meet them outside and do an evaluation.
I guess there was a religious exemption clause in the case of vaccinations, but I never heard much of a to-do about it.
Public health is about limiting infectious diseases in a community. Vaccination is a key component in that. Probably one of the biggest successes in general overall health this country has ever seen. Coupled with numerous other actions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)began a real push to get it to 90% in 2012.
I think there are generally religious and medical exceptions, but they are rarely utilized in my experience.
I think the court allowing exemptions without good reason is a reflection of their lack of understanding about the public health risks.
pinto
(106,886 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think the only solution is to remove the religious exemption and make clinical accommodations for those that refuse (like working in a room with little contact with others and wearing the mask).