Flu Shot Required for Employment

A hospital in Northern Indiana fired 8 employees who refused to inject their bodies with a foreign substance, a flu shot. While private companies have rights to make requirements of their employees, is it ever okay for a company to force an individual to subject their bodies to treatment that is not medically required for survival?

An article on ABC gives details as to how one nurse was even denied exemption based on her religious beliefs. Sue Shrock has loved her job of nursing for over 40 years, several of those years as a hospice nurse at IU Health Goshen Hospital. Someone who works hard and does a good job should not be penalized for their personal beliefs, especially since there is no proof she has done any harm to any of her patients.

The hospital claims the requirement is for the protection of its patients but couldn't other avenues been taken to protect those patients? The flu shot doesn't guarantee that a person will not contract the flu and it only protects the person from a select group of viruses that have been selected as being the most probable viruses of the year. Wouldn't it be just as effective to require workers to stay home if they are sick? Keeping sick workers at home provides more protection than a shot that only protects against a few viruses.

For more detailed information on dangers of a flu shot as well as how it doesn't protect a person from getting sick check out the Center for Disease Control.

Join the Conversation	You are following this conversation | stop following follow this conversation by email