Judge Stops Mandatory Flu Shots For Health Workers

Photo by Jeff Roberson/AP

A State Supreme Court judge has, at least temporarily, blocked the mandatory flu shots the state was requiring for health care workers. A nurse had sued, saying the State Health Department's requirement for swine and seasonal flu shots was "arbitrary and capricious."

A lawyer for other nurses who sued the state told City Room his clients "are not libertarians, they are not lefties, they are not right-wing lunatics... They are health care professionals, and they think the vaccination is not going to be good for them. They have no confidence that either the seasonal flu vaccine or H1N1 vaccine is going to do any good for them."

The next hearing is October 20 and the State Health Department said, "In two weeks, the department intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit on its merits and we are confident that the regulation will be upheld. The health commissioner and the State Hospital Review and Planning Council have clear legal authority to promulgate the mandatory regulation."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on October 16, 2009 4:42 PM

Comments [rss]

sowhtifithppnsitwll

here come da judge... ty

OttoBloggo

That's GREAT that the health care workers will be able to pass on the flu vaccine. Maybe now I won't have to wait until January to get MY jab.

freddynyc

I would think that the pneumococcal vaccine should instead be mandatory in all health care facilities - any hospital people here?

dadoc

What raised the ire was the unilateral proclamation of "mandatory" without legislative action, in the absence of a health emergency. Regardless of the individuals' beliefs, the case was backed by 2 major unions. There are precedents for invading an individual's person, this case just did not (legally) fit, and the legal issues addressed. Another "camel's nose under the tent" case. If it goes unchallenged, it sits as precedent, and can allow subsequent actions based on that unchallenged precedent.

EastRiver

If they just wanted this to be about civil rights they should not have wandered into discussing whether the vaccine works or not.

They are health care professionals, and they think the vaccination is not going to be good for them. They have no confidence that either the seasonal flu vaccine or H1N1 vaccine is going to do any good for them.

So having a nursing degree means you're also an expert in vaccines?

Spirit of 76

So having a nursing degree means you're also an expert in vaccines?

Heck, it's ridiculous how many people wearing scrubs I see smoking outside some of the hospitals I pass. Kind of puts the lie to their argument about how they just want to insure that they're not risking their health.

dadoc

Haven't read the case yet (hard to find the actual filings online so far), but I believe the premise dealt with the "mandatory" issue & basis for authority. The attorney's words were ill-chosen, and seem to mix issues. Likely the safety/efficacy may have been needed to show an imminent need in order to get the other issues examined. If I find more specific citations will post.

In other news, Gardisil was approved for boys today.

Based on the precedent, can the State make it mandatory for all boys in order to decrease the incidence of cervical cancer in women? See the camel's nose?

Discuss.

Shinobi Shaw

Finally, some level of reason and justice from the courts.

S.D.

"They have no confidence that either the seasonal flu vaccine or H1N1 vaccine is going to do any good for them."

I'm curious, Based on what? The regular shot was had all the same testing it always has. I can see that argument for the N1H1, but the regular one?

ennuipoet

I like how libertarians and lefties is just there while right wingers gain "lunatics". I guess it is differentiate between right wing whackos, which are quite different.