Do vaccine refusers have an ethical duty to pay for their own Covid care?

jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
I wasn't ignoring your statement, I was addressing a question you posed that appeared to contradict it. There was no deliberate intention to take your words out of context, if that's what you perceived.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought I had made and statement and then a follow up question so the question was construed as only a question.

Hence both my defensiveness and confusion.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
You posed a question regarding how care for unvaccinated COVID patients should be prioritized if it comes to competition over hospital beds, yes? To me, asking the question suggested that you might possibly think such patients should have lower priority. From your subsequent statements, I understand that you are not of this opinion.
My follow on question was how are ICU beds prioritized when you have two medically equivalent needs. How do the people responsible for such a heavy decision make this? From a social fabric standpoint I wish people that are irrationally opposed to vaccination wouldn't be as self centered or just plain stupid as to put medical professionals and patients in need through no fault of their own in that position.

To be fair my statement about top notch care was made before my question. All to stave off this sub-thread back and forth.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
My follow on question was how are ICU beds prioritized when you have two medically equivalent needs. How do the people responsible for such a heavy decision make this?
They’d look and see if anyone could be transferred out of the ICU in a reasonable period of time, potentially transfer someone to a different hospital, etc. It’s never come down to “this guy sounds like a real a-hole, screw him” IME at least.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
My follow on question was how are ICU beds prioritized when you have two medically equivalent needs. How do the people responsible for such a heavy decision make this? From a social fabric standpoint I wish people that are irrationally opposed to vaccination wouldn't be as self centered or just plain stupid as to put medical professionals and patients in need through no fault of their own in that position.

To be fair my statement about top notch care was made before my question. All to stave off this sub-thread back and forth.
This speaks to a point I made earlier. I can't see medical staff looking beyond regular triage protocols when it comes to prioritizing treatment. Moral considerations vis-a-vis the circumstances placing patients in a hospital would be a bag of snakes to untangle. The smashed up drunk driver or the COVID-infected anti-vaccer?

However, I would not be surprised if subconscious moral judging took place when choices have to be made.
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Overlord
I don't always have an original thought, but I can see where someone's opinion clearly supports my own and put in better words, like this Arstechnica comment on the Houston Methodist Hospital case from today by "Jarvis":

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are "free" to choose not to accept the vaccine, but you are not "free" from the consequences of your decision. You WORK in the medical field. There is a global pandemic and if you want to work in that field then this is a requirement. Like a license to perform engineering work. Deal with it. Or don't work there. Your call. But you don't get to complain about it, and these arguments are just ridiculous. I'm sure there are plenty of others who can fill your shoes that won't serve as a conduit to spreading Covid while patients seek treatment at your hospital. What is wrong with people?

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/judge-tosses-reprehensible-lawsuit-comparing-covid-vaccine-to-nazi-atrocities/?comments=1&sort=high#comments
Cause and effect:
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Samurai
Interesting. Now that unvaccinated nurse can possibly spread covid to ill people in their homes. What a great company they work for. Hope they get sued out of business if and when...
I've more sympathy with "Typhoid Mary", an uneducated cook living a hundred years ago, than a nurse with a modern and science based education.

Mary Mallon (1869-1938) and the history of typhoid fever

>>>Mary Mallon was born in 1869 in Ireland and emigrated to the US in 1884. She had worked in a variety of domestic positions for wealthy families prior to settling into her career as a cook. As a healthy carrier of Salmonella typhi her nickname of “Typhoid Mary” had become synonymous with the spread of disease, as many were infected due to her denial of being ill. She was forced into quarantine on two separate occasions on North Brother Island for a total of 26 years and died alone without friends, having evidently found consolation in her religion to which she gave her faith and loyalty.<<<
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
"She also told the AP that Tuesday was her first day at a new job with a company that will send her and other unvaccinated nurses into people’s homes to provide care."

At some point a health care provider who refuses to take basic precautions to protect vulnerable patients from contracting a potentially deadly disease could be subject to sanctions or a loss of accreditation.

I have not researched this in detail, but here are a few examples from the Texas Administrative Code that might apply:

>>>The Texas Board of Nursing is responsible for regulating the practice of nursing within the State of Texas for Vocational Nurses, Registered Nurses, and Registered Nurses with advanced practice authorization. The standards of practice establish a minimum acceptable level of nursing practice in any setting for each level of nursing licensure or advanced practice authorization. Failure to meet these standards may result in action against the nurse's license even if no actual patient injury resulted.

(1) Standards Applicable to All Nurses. All vocational nurses, registered nurses and registered nurses with advanced practice authorization shall:

(A) Know and conform to the Texas Nursing Practice Act and the board's rules and regulations as well as all federal, state, or local laws, rules or regulations affecting the nurse's current area of nursing practice;

(B) Implement measures to promote a safe environment for clients and others;
. . .(O) Implement measures to prevent exposure to infectious pathogens and communicable conditions;
. . .(T) Accept only those nursing assignments that take into consideration client safety and that are commensurate with the nurse's educational preparation, experience, knowledge, and physical and emotional ability; <<<


The following could also apply:

>>>(h) Some conduct falls outside the definition of a minor incident and must be reported to a nursing peer review committee or to the Board. This includes: (1) conduct that ignores a substantial risk that exposed a patient or other person to significant physical, emotional or financial harm or the potential for such harm<<<


And this:

>>>The following unprofessional conduct rules are intended to protect clients and the public from incompetent, unethical, or illegal conduct of licensees. The purpose of these rules is to identify behaviors in the practice of nursing that are likely to deceive, defraud, or injure clients or the public. Actual injury to a client need not be established. These behaviors include but are not limited to:

. . . (4) Conduct that may endanger a client's life, health, or safety.<<<

And:

>>>(b) Functions. The board shall perform the following functions as outlined in Texas Occupations Code chapters 301, 303, and 304. . . .
(4) Discipline violators through appropriate legal action to enforce the Nursing Practice Act and rules and regulations.


And, here's the kicker:

>>>(e) The Board may, upon the finding of a violation, enter an order imposing one or more of the following disciplinary actions, with or without probationary stipulations:

. . . (9) Revocation of the person's license or permit;<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
I dont " wish" anything to that effect, I'm a card carrying social dem that wants everybody to clue up and get on board , I'm just realistic in my view of the oversized idiot fringe and their enablers in the gop...including the sc...Edit .. The resolution of this debate is in the future , not the past.. And like reproductive rights and other similar gop election fodder , the sc is set up to overturn whatever they want..
"The resolution of this debate is in the future , not the past."

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. The law is not a nose of wax that can be twisted in any way one wishes.

Let's start with the basics, namely stare decisis: "To stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications. 1 Kent, Comm. 477."


You're asserting that an issue that is settled law is not actually settled law. Your theory seems to be based on home-brew notions about "oversized idiot fringe and their enablers." You do realize that those are just thoughts that you have in your mind? Your thoughts are not the law.

The law is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). The law is right there, see I just spelled it out. If you want to know what the law is, read the law. Read this case. This is what one does in law school. If one wants to avoid getting sued for malpractice, one also reads the law before filing motions and arguing in court.

I realize you don't want to do the research, but you don't have to. The law on this point is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). It is decided law.

Here's an article about what judge Easterbrook (a Reagan appointee) had to say about vaccine mandates in a unanimous 7th circuit opinion issued yesterday:

>>>“Given Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which holds that a state may require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox, there can’t be a constitutional problem with vaccination against SARS-CoV-2,” Easterbrook wrote Monday. “Plaintiffs assert that the rational-basis standard used in Jacobson does not offer enough protection for their interests and that courts should not be as deferential to the decisions of public bodies as Jacobson was, but a court of appeals must apply the law established by the Supreme Court.

Jacobson defeats the plaintiffs’ argument that IU’s vaccine mandate violated their fundamental rights, thus implicating substantive due process, Easterbrook wrote. And, he added, “this case is easier than Jacobson for the University, for two reasons.”

First, Jacobson upheld a vaccine mandate that did not allow for exceptions for adults, while IU’s mandate does have exceptions. And second, unlike in Jacobson, “Indiana does not require every adult member of the public to be vaccinated … ,” the 7th Circuit held.

“Each university may decide what is necessary to keep other students safe in a congregate setting. Health exams and vaccinations against other diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, varicella, meningitis, influenza, and more) are common requirements of higher education. Vaccination protects not only the vaccinated person but also those who come in contact with them, and at a university close contact is inevitable,” Easterbrook wrote for the panel.

“We assume with plaintiffs that they have a right in bodily integrity. They also have a right to hold property,” he continued. “Yet they or their parents must surrender property to attend Indiana University. Undergraduates must part with at least $11,000 a year (in-state tuition), even though Indiana could not summarily confiscate that sum from all residents of college age.

“… If conditions of higher education may include surrendering property and following instructions about what to read and write, it is hard to see a greater problem with medical conditions that will help all students remain safe when learning,” the panel concluded. “A university will have trouble operating when each student fears that everyone else may be spread disease. Few people want to return to remote education — and we do not think that the Constitution forces the distance-learning approach on a university that believes vaccination (or masks or frequent testing of the unvaccinated) will make in-person operations safe enough.”<<<


This is settled law, and challengers will continue to run into a legal brick wall. They will squeal and protest, of course because they don't like this brick wall, but their squeals will change nothing.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
In today's Washington Post is an op-ed article calling for vaccination mandates. The author, Joseph G. Allen, is an associate professor and director of the Healthy Buildings program at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

I'll summarize:
It’s time to acknowledge what few in the public health field are willing to say: The campaign to persuade all Americans to voluntarily accept coronavirus vaccinations has hit its limit.

The Biden administration’s vaccine rollout has been remarkable in distributing 400 million doses in the United States. But we have hit a wall with this voluntary approach. The only way out of our covid-19 morass is to mandate vaccines.

There are a number of lessons to glean from the failures of the vaccination strategy. Here are a few:
  • Public Health experts have failed to reach half the country. The group with the biggest vaccine “hesitancy” is Republicans. I’ve been in public health for a long time, and I can say with confidence that there are very few openly Republican public health scientists. Maybe we are drawn to this field because our principles align more closely with Democrats. No matter. Our field is “public” health, not “Democratic” health. Our gross failing to connect with half the country has been on full display. Appearing on left-leaning outlets is not working. Time to get out on Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Facebook and, yes, even Newsmax.
  • The Food and Drug Administration is going too slow on full approval. These are the most studied and scrutinized vaccines in the history of the world. And what we know with certainty is that these vaccines have an impeccable safety record on par with every other fully authorized vaccine. Yet the FDA has still granted it only authorization for emergency use. There is no reason for this.
  • Bringing back mask mandates won’t solve the problem. Highly vaccinated states will mask; poorly vaccinated states won’t. Does anyone really believe that Missourians were abiding by strict mask mandates and patiently waited for the CDC to lift its mask guidance for vaccinated people in May? To think that mask guidance caused this wave is so simplistic as to be naive. The cause is the delta variant and people refusing to get vaccinated, not lifting mask mandates.
  • Professional athletes and other “influencers” have been weak advocates. It’s time to call them out.
 
Last edited:
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Samurai
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
"The resolution of this debate is in the future , not the past."

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. The law is not a nose of wax that can be twisted in any way one wishes.

Let's start with the basics, namely stare decisis: "To stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications. 1 Kent, Comm. 477."


You're asserting that an issue that is settled law is not actually settled law. Your theory seems to be based on home-brew notions about "oversized idiot fringe and their enablers." You do realize that those are just thoughts that you have in your mind? Your thoughts are not the law.

The law is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). The law is right there, see I just spelled it out. If you want to know what the law is, read the law. Read this case. This is what one does in law school. If one wants to avoid getting sued for malpractice, one also reads the law before filing motions and arguing in court.

I realize you don't want to do the research, but you don't have to. The law on this point is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). It is decided law.

Here's an article about what judge Easterbrook (a Reagan appointee) had to say about vaccine mandates in a unanimous 7th circuit opinion issued yesterday:

>>>“Given Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which holds that a state may require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox, there can’t be a constitutional problem with vaccination against SARS-CoV-2,” Easterbrook wrote Monday. “Plaintiffs assert that the rational-basis standard used in Jacobson does not offer enough protection for their interests and that courts should not be as deferential to the decisions of public bodies as Jacobson was, but a court of appeals must apply the law established by the Supreme Court.

Jacobson defeats the plaintiffs’ argument that IU’s vaccine mandate violated their fundamental rights, thus implicating substantive due process, Easterbrook wrote. And, he added, “this case is easier than Jacobson for the University, for two reasons.”

First, Jacobson upheld a vaccine mandate that did not allow for exceptions for adults, while IU’s mandate does have exceptions. And second, unlike in Jacobson, “Indiana does not require every adult member of the public to be vaccinated … ,” the 7th Circuit held.

“Each university may decide what is necessary to keep other students safe in a congregate setting. Health exams and vaccinations against other diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, varicella, meningitis, influenza, and more) are common requirements of higher education. Vaccination protects not only the vaccinated person but also those who come in contact with them, and at a university close contact is inevitable,” Easterbrook wrote for the panel.

“We assume with plaintiffs that they have a right in bodily integrity. They also have a right to hold property,” he continued. “Yet they or their parents must surrender property to attend Indiana University. Undergraduates must part with at least $11,000 a year (in-state tuition), even though Indiana could not summarily confiscate that sum from all residents of college age.

“… If conditions of higher education may include surrendering property and following instructions about what to read and write, it is hard to see a greater problem with medical conditions that will help all students remain safe when learning,” the panel concluded. “A university will have trouble operating when each student fears that everyone else may be spread disease. Few people want to return to remote education — and we do not think that the Constitution forces the distance-learning approach on a university that believes vaccination (or masks or frequent testing of the unvaccinated) will make in-person operations safe enough.”<<<


This is settled law, and challengers will continue to run into a legal brick wall. They will squeal and protest, of course because they don't like this brick wall, but their squeals will change nothing.
Nothing like a long worded STFU Troll.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
The results of "free dumb" haven't been too impressive, that's for sure.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top