Category: News

Joint statement in support of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for all workers in health and long-term care

News Release

For immediate release
Contact: APHA Media Relations, 202-777-3913

American Public Health Association

Due to the recent COVID-19 surge and the availability of safe and effective vaccines, our health care organizations and societies advocate that all health care and long-term care employers require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. This is the logical fulfillment of the ethical commitment of all health care workers to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.

Because of highly contagious variants, including the Delta variant, and significant numbers of unvaccinated people, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths are once again rising throughout the United States.1 Vaccination is the primary way to put the pandemic behind us and avoid the return of stringent public health measures.

Unfortunately, many health care and long-term care personnel remain unvaccinated. As we move toward full FDA approval of the currently available vaccines, all health care workers should get vaccinated for their own health, and to protect their colleagues, families, residents of long-term care facilities and patients. This is especially necessary to protect those who are vulnerable, including unvaccinated children and the immunocompromised. Indeed, this is why many health care and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

We call for all health care and long-term care employers to require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

We stand with the growing number of experts and institutions that support the requirement for universal vaccination of health workers.2,3 While we recognize some workers cannot be vaccinated because of identified medical reasons and should be exempted from a mandate, they constitute a small minority of all workers. Employers should consider any applicable state laws on a case-by-case basis.

Existing COVID-19 vaccine mandates have proven effective.4,5 Mandates are an essential policy to increase vaccination rates in health care and long-term care settings and protect the health care workforce and the patients and residents we serve. Simultaneously, we recognize the historical mistrust of health care institutions, including among many in our own health care workforce. We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.

As the health care community leads the way in requiring vaccines for our employees, we hope all other employers across the country will follow our lead and introduce effective policies to encourage vaccination. The health and safety of U.S. workers, families, communities, and the nation depends on it.

SIGNATORIES (listed alphabetically)

Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Academy of PAs
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
American Association of Clinical Endocrinology
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
American Association of Neuroscience Nurses
American College of Clinical Pharmacy
American College of Physicians
American College of Preventive Medicine
American College of Surgeons
American Epilepsy Society
American Medical Association
American Nursing Association
American Pharmacists Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Public Health Association
American Society for Clinical Pathology
American Society for Radiation Oncology
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
American Society of Hematology
American Society of Nephrology
American Thoracic Society
Association for Clinical Oncology
Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology
Association of Academic Health Centers
Association of American Medical Colleges
Association of Rehabilitation Nurses
Council of Medical Specialty Societies
HIV Medicine Association
Infectious Disease Society of America
LeadingAge
National Association of Indian Nurses of America
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
National Council of State Boards of Nursing
National Hispanic Medical Association
National League for Nursing
National Medical Association
National Pharmaceutical Association
Nurses Who Vaccinate
Organization for Associate Degree Nursing
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society
Philippine Nurses Association of America, Inc
Society of Gynecological Oncology
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Society of Hospital Medicine
Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists
Society of Interventional Radiology
Texas Nurses Association
The John A. Hartford Foundation
Transcultural Nursing Society
Virgin Islands State Nurses Association
Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society

REFERENCES

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Covid Data Tracker Weekly Review.
2. Weber, D., Al-Tawfiq, J., Babcock, H., Bryant, K., Drees, M., Elshaboury, R., et al. (2021). Multisociety Statement on COVID-19 Vaccination as a Condition of Employment for Healthcare Personnel. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1-46. doi:10.1017/ice.2021.322
3. American Hospital Association. AHA Policy Statement on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Health Care Personnel
4. Hospitals in DC, across the nation follow Houston Methodist in requiring vaccination for workers (USA Today)
5. More Nursing Homes Are Requiring Staff COVID-19 Vaccinations (AARP)

###

The American Public Health Association champions the health of all people and all communities. We are the only organization that combines a nearly 150-year perspective, a broad-based member community and the ability to influence federal policy to improve the public’s health. Learn more at www.apha.org.

‘I Shouldn’t Have to Beg for My Life’

A misunderstood disease and lack of support leaves one woman planning her medically assisted death. There may soon be more.

The Tyee

Moira Wyton

On a warm Saturday afternoon in May, Madeline was watching her friend’s young daughter open her birthday gifts. But as the girl sat under a tree in the park, tearing wrapping paper off a book about drawing horses, Madeline’s heart was breaking. “I don’t know if I will get to see her next birthday.”

Madeline has been preparing for medical assistance in dying, or MAID, for over a year, and says she could choose to die as soon as late July if she does not come up with the money to cover treatments for her complex mitochondrial and post-viral conditions. . . .

With relatively low funding levels for ME/CFS research, few specialized clinics and little coverage for emerging treatments that can help some patients, Madeline says B.C.’s medical system doesn’t properly recognize her illness, which affects about 77,000 British Columbians. . .

She can’t afford the necessary treatments on the $1,358 she receives per month as disability assistance, nor the support she needs with housework and personal care. But her diminished quality of life qualifies her for MAID.

“They would rather see me die than recognize my illness and pay for the treatments that keep me alive,” said Madeline. “My death is no more inevitable than a diabetic’s who can’t get insulin.” . . . continue reading

Conscience Project critiques Ontario Physicians College euthanasia/assisted suicide policy

Referral, urgent situations, death certificates, criminal law

News Release

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

Conscience Project critiques Ontario Physicians College euthanasia/assisted suicide policy

Powell River, BC. (28 April, 2021) The 2019 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal supporting the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario was not the last word on the subject of physician freedom of conscience.

That message was delivered to the College by the Protection of Conscience Project in a submission responding to the College’s request for public feedback on its policy, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). The submission focuses primarily on the College demand that physicians unwilling to provide euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) for reasons of conscience provide an “effective referral”: that is, connect the patient directly with someone willing to provide a lethal injection or assist with suicide.

The submission on MAiD addresses three points unique to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Conflicts in urgent situations: If a patient is approved for EAS at some future date, a sudden deterioration of the patient’s condition may cause the patient to ask for immediate relief by EAS. In the absence of an EAS practitioner, other practitioners may be willing to alleviate the patient’s distress by palliative interventions, but not to provide EAS. The Project suggests how this conflict can be avoided.

Falsifying death certificates: Falsification of death certificates is contrary to accepted international standards and can be considered deceptive, unethical or professionally ill-advised. The Project suggests how EAS practitioners unwilling to falsify death certificates can be accommodated by the College and Office of the Chief Coroner even if current government policy does not change.

Criminal law limits on College policy: The Project’s position is that the College cannot proceed against practitioners who, having the opinion that a patient is not eligible for EAS, refuse to do anything that would entail criminal responsibility for homicide/assisted suicide, including “effective referral.” Further, to advise or attempt to coerce them to present EAS as treatment options or to participate by effective referral would seem to be a criminal offence. Finally, since counselling suicide remains a criminal offence, it appears that practitioners cannot be compelled to present assisted suicide or MaiD as treatment options unless a patient has expressed an interest in the services.

The College’s clarification that it does not require objecting practitioners to personally kill their patients is welcome. However, the Project’s position is that this ought to be the norm in a democratic society, not a “concession”or an element in the “accommodation” of freedom of conscience.

While the submission includes specific policy recommendations within the existing MAiD policy framework, it recommends that the College adopt a single protection of conscience policy in line with “the basic theory” of the Canadian Charter of Rights affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and consistent with rational moral pluralism. Such a generally applicable policy is included in the simultaneous Project submission to the College on Professional Obligations and Human Rights.

Public consultations on Professional Obligations and Human Rights [Consultation Page] and Medical Assistance in Dying [Consultation Page] are open until 14 May, 2021.

Contact: Sean Murphy,
Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project
protection@consciencelaws.org

Ontario College of Physicians policy challenged

Forcing physicians out of Covid fight not in public interest

News Release

For immediate release

Protection of Conscience Project

Ontario College of Physicians policy challenged

Powell River, B.C. (28 April, 2021) The 2019 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal supporting the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario was not the last word on the subject of physician freedom of conscience.

That message was delivered to the College by the Protection of Conscience Project in a submission responding to the College’s request for public feedback on its policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights (POHR).

The submission includes a cautionary note about the potential implications of human rights law for practitioners providing euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, the primary focus is on the College demand that physicians unwilling to provide a service or procedure for reasons of conscience provide an “effective referral”: that is, connect the patient directly with someone willing to do what they consider immoral/unethical.

Practitioners who object to providing a service typically provide information and work cooperatively with patients and others in relation to patient access to services. While willing to respectfully cooperate, they are unwilling to collaborate by doing something that makes them a party to what they consider wrongful and/or harmful. The distinctions between providing information vs. providing a service and between cooperation vs. collaboration enable an approach that accommodates both patients and practitioners, argues the Project.

However, the College is clearly confused about such critical distinctions. Citing College policy and reasoning, the submission states, “the College’s assertion that effective referral for euthanasia/assisted suicide does not ‘signal’ endorsement or support for the procedures [Advice:MAiD] is either disingenuous or the product of badly muddled wishful thinking.”

“The College does not even correctly apply its own definition of effective referral in its companion policy document,” observes Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Project.

According to the College, physicians unwilling to comply with its effective referral policy should restrict their practices to specialties like hair restoration.[1] This would force all objecting physicians out of general practice.

“To put it in a currently relevant perspective,” says Murphy, “the College would have them terminate all Covid 19 pandemic activities and take up podiatry or aviation medicine. This is hardly consistent with ensuring access to health care or protecting the public interest.”

The Project recommends that the College adopt a single protection of conscience policy in line with “the basic theory” of the Canadian Charter of Rights affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and consistent with rational moral pluralism. The submission includes a such general policy, drawing on policy documents from the Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Nurses’ Association, Catholic Health Association of Canada and the Canadian Medical Protective Association.

The Protection of Conscience Project has also made a submission about College’s policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide, Medical Assistance in Dying. Public consultations on Professional Obligations and Human Rights [Consultation Page] and Medical Assistance in Dying [Consultation Page] are open until 14 May, 2021.

Notes

  1. Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2019 ONCA 393 (CanLII) at para 184.

Contact: Sean Murphy,
Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project
protection@consciencelaws.org

Kildare GP linked illness to wearing facemask, High Court told

Kildare Nationalist

A Co Kildare GP who was suspended by the Medical Council after he failed to refer patients for Covid-19 tests is alleged to have told a patient with chest complaints that his symptoms were caused by his facemask, a High Court judgment shows.

Last month Ms Justice Mary Irvine granted an application by the Medical Council to suspend Dr Gerard Waters, a GP at the Whitethorn Clinic in Celbridge, following allegations surrounding the Covid-19 vaccine and adherence to public health measures.

The High Court published its judgment in full on Thursday following a further application by the Medical Council.

The judgment shows Dr Waters refused to administer Covid-19 vaccines on the basis he was a “conscientious objector”, but that he did not take steps to refer patients to other doctors. . . continue reading