Please read Tuesday's (9/8) New York Times Science Section article: Preparing for a Stressful Flu Season, by Tara Parker-Pope.
True Story: The President and CEO of a medical device company located in Boston announced- privately- that is internally only- that all employees are required to get a swine flue shot and must bring full documentation of their inoculation to work in order to continue employment. Is this ethical and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that a CEO has no ethical reason to require his/her employees to get an inoculation for the swine flu shot at this time. According to the article written in the New York Times, the H1N1 virus is contracted mainly by children and young adults and the side affects from the flu vaccine aren't currently known. Assuming that the employees that work for this independent company are older adults, the risk for death by the h1n1 virus without a vaccine is very low, and the benefits of the vaccine are unclear. By "jumping the gun" so-to-speak and requiring all employees to become vaccinated, the CEO could potentially put more people at risk for illness than if the employees were not vaccinated. Following this logic, the basic idea of vaccinating employees so that others don't get sick breaks down, for by vaccinating employees at this time seems to have a greatest risk for illness than the chances of getting sick without the vaccination. However, it will be important to follow the issue closely while more details about the vaccine and its risks emerge.
ReplyDelete-Jennifer Hicks
Although the President and CEO might believe that they are acting to promote beneficience, I believe that their actions may be an act of malficience.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the purpose of the policy is to make sure that the work place is safe and to alleviate the "stress" that was described within the NY Times article that everyone seems to be having. However, the company is not taking into account the resources and time it will cost the employees of the company to get these shots. Particularly problematic is the fact that the vaccine (according to the article) has the potential to require two shots (the second being three weeks after the first) as well as a two week interval to build up immunity. The question then becomes whether the company plans to compensate the workers for this long hiatus during the fiscal year.
I believe that this will become a problem for less fortunate families who may depend on the medical device employee as the bread winner of the family. Having to pay for the inoculation while missing almost a month of work will be detrimental for these individuals and their families. The disadvantages for implementing this plan outweigh the benefits so I do not believe it is ethical
Unless the company compensates the workers for the time they will not be allowed to work and pay for the vaccines, I believe that implementing this plan will not be ethical.
Although such a requirement seems outlandish, as long as the company is providing subsidizing the cost of the swine flu vaccine, it is ethically justifiable. Though it may seem that getting a swine flu shot should be a personal decision, especially since the workers of these companies are not directly related to the public health sector, ultimately the CEO is pursuing this policy as a means to an ends that can only be beneficial to the employees of the company and anyone else interacting with employees of the company.
ReplyDeleteThis requirement seems slightly outlandish because a company is forcing adults to get the vaccine, but such a requirement is commonplace in schools and for schoolchildren. Many states require children attending public schools to get their vaccine shots before the first day of school. Ethically, there should be no significant distinction between forcing parents to take their children to the doctor's office to get vaccinated and getting vaccinated themselves.
Thus, the companies decision to require swine flu vaccines is ethically justified.
~Ankit Agarwal
In my opinion, it is not ethical for the CEO of a company to issue a mandate where employment is conditional on a course of action that has consequences for a person’s health. Autonomous, rational action of individuals is a cornerstone of American society and a fundamental basis of a market economy. This same respect for individual autonomy must be applied in this case as well because only a [well informed] person can evaluate the balance of risks and costs with the benefits and arrive at the conclusion that is best for themselves, and others--given that this is a moral person and would consider the risk of infecting others among the things counterbalancing the benefits of not being inoculated. As an anecdotal example: my friend, who has severe asthma--putting her at greater risk should she contract the virus--and and egg allergy--the flu vaccine is incubated in live chicken eggs. She sought the advice of her physician and independently decided that the risk of and allergic reaction outweighed the possible benefits of the vaccine. Instead she chooses to limit her exposure by other means (hand washing, avoiding those who show signs of illness...etc.). This decision could not have been ethically made by any other person who may or may not have her individual best interest at heart.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of a medical device company located in Boston requiring its employees to receive a swine flu vaccination, I believe that considering the range of characteristics involved such as location of the company, the degree of seriousness that swine flu brings, and the fact that flu vaccinations are recommended by the Center for Disease Control regardless of a potential epidemic or not, make it completely ethical for the President to call for this action. In any city, the amount of people who have the potential of passing on infection is extremely high. Morally, it would be a great benefit to society if all people would follow recommendations by health reports of such basic actions as washing one's hands after meals and using the restroom. In reality, not everybody does these things, and that is why it is safe to say that a flu vaccine is a direct measure to benefit others by not directly putting them in danger of infection and keeping oneself clear of infection. As far as the financial prospect, local medical clinics will be sure to have the vaccine and at a high risk time like this, it may be obtained at a low cost, especially to residents in such an urban environment where the risk of transmission is so great.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this could be an ethical request if the swine flu vaccine is readily available and not too costly for those without insurance to cover it. The incidence of Swine Flu is increasing daily and if available, there should not be much of a reason not to obtain it. I believe though, that if someone has personal beliefs that interfere with this request (such as one who doesn’t believe in modern medicine for one reason or another or has religious views that conflict with getting the vaccine), that person should be allowed to sustain from getting the vaccine. If available, it is ethical to try to diminish the occurrence of this virus and getting the vaccine would do just that.
ReplyDeleteWith the rapid growth of H1N1, their is no reason that people should choose not to take the flu shot. Although the cost is clearly a factor; if a person were to catch the flu, the cost of missing work, the cost of the medications, as well as the cost of time would be greater than just receiving the seasonal flu shot. A CEO is able to mandate that his employers get the flu shot because if one employer were to come down with the flu the illness would most likely effect many of the fellow employers; causing the CEO's business to be effected. Additionally, as a CEO, the health of his employers is of his greatest concern. Lastly, this request from the CEO is greatly understood if the health plan of an employer is covered by his business.
ReplyDeleteBefore students of Boston University begin classes each year we must provide proof of immunizations for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Hepatitis B, Tetanus, and Meningitis. Immunizations are a necessary ways to prevent the spread of diseases, which alternatively could progress to epidemics or pandemics. I feel the Boston Company, being a private company, has the right to require the vaccination for all employees. Although children and the elderly are usually more susceptible to contracting the swine flu, it is highly probable that many employees of the company have families with young children. Therefore by being exposed to their children they have an increased chance of contracting the swine flu, which could ultimately put fellow employees at risk. However, there should be some type of appeal process for certain circumstances including religious circumstances. A similar argument could also be made about the still unknown side effects. The vaccinations for the 1976 outbreak of swine flu, resulted in side effects of Guillain-Barre syndrome. Although it has been stated by physicians that the benefits outweigh the risks, and extensive appeal process should be available to those who have reasons other than convenience or monetary concerns not to get the vaccine.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it could be argued that there is a benefit to swine flu shots, it would be difficult to defend mandatory inoculation because, among other things, people have a right to self-determination. The decision rendered by the CEO is unethical because it violates the autonomy of the company's employees. Or, perhaps, more accurately the decision threatens the jobs and livelihoods of the employees should they choose to exercise their right to self-governance and refuse the swine flu shot. There are a number of reasons why an employee may want to decline getting a swine flu shot. For example, there could be future unknown medical complications because of the relative newness of the vaccine. Also an employee may simply not want to get a shot for autonomous and undeclared reasons. The employees of the company are autonomous individuals and act autonomously when they, and not others, make the decisions that affect their lives and act on the basis of these decisions. From an employee perspective, the CEO's decision is tyrannical because of the heavy price one must pay if one refuses to be inoculated. This is not ethical.
ReplyDelete-Jill Grodman
There is no immediate or obvious reason as to why the employees of this medical devices company should be forced to get the swine flu vaccine. The article mentioned that children, immuno-suppressed people, and pregnant women were at especially high risk for getting the flu, and even then they should be able to practice their autonomy to choose whether or not they want to get the vaccine. By forcing these people to get the vaccine, the CEO of this company is violating the autonomy of each employee. The CEO is also threatening, or making use of coercion by saying that his employees will lose their jobs if they refuse to get the vaccine.
ReplyDeleteBecoming inoculated with the swine flu vaccine will be a financial cost as well as a time cost to the employees. The article mentioned that people who receive the vaccine may also need a second dose a few weeks after. Additionally, the article stated that the vaccine may not even provide protection until weeks after it is given, possibly up until late November, which is well into the Flu Season already. The article also mentioned that there will be only a limited number of flu vaccine doses available. By forcing the otherwise healthy employees to get the vaccine, the CEO of this company could be taking away valued doses from people who are at a higher risk for the flu, and truly need the vaccine. It is not ethical for the CEO of this Medical Devices company to force and threaten his employees to get the flu vaccine because he is violating their autonomy to make the choice for themselves, as well as possibly, indirectly, but selfishly taking away doses of the vaccine from people who could REALLY use it.
it does not seem ethical for a company to require its employees to get this vaccine. Swine Flu is a relatively new issue, which is one of the main reasons why there is so much concern about it. However, as new as this issue of swine flu is, the swine flu vaccine is even newer. How can one say what the long term effects of this vaccine will be? Even when discussing the regular flu vaccine that has been around for years, many still do not believe its benefits outweigh the risks involved from taking it. Although there is speculation that swine flu could potentially turn into some sort of epidemic, it is a personal decision as to whether one feels that he or she should go out and get vaccinated. Especially when there is little if any information about the long-term effects of such a vaccine. Of course this illness must be taken seriously and precautions must be taken, but threatening one’s job over what should be a personal decision seems entirely unethical.
ReplyDelete-Rachel Finkelstein
Although the company's CEO being concerned of the so called 'new epidemic' may be crucial, I think the CEO's reason to require vaccination to his employees is unclear and unethical for certain reasons. It is true that the H1N1 virus has crossed boarders in a rapid manner and is still vastly spreading, even as we speak, but as it is stated in the article, nobody yet knows whether the flu will mutate into a severe epidemic or simply remain it's mild condition. So it would be too rash of a decision to ask employees to get vaccinated as a mandatory action. There is no mention on how the vaccination will be payed. Would the cost be coming from the employees' pocket, the company, insurance company or etc.? There is, also, no guarantee that the vaccination would completely immunize the employees. Who knows what could happen if, at all, the virus mutates into something harsher than what it is now? Will there be another new vaccination that will be mandatory for the employees? The compulsoriness of vaccination clearly has its flaws that point it to being unethical.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the idea of threatening employees in order to get them to take this new vaccine is unethical. The CEO is trying to take away free choice from his employees, in a sense taking away their autonomy to choose what they do or do not want injected into their own bodies. Receiving the vaccine clearly could have its benefits, but making it a requirement for everyone seems to be a greater negative due to the fact that the principle of respect for autonomy is being violated. In addition, every person has individual health situations and possibly might not react to the vaccine in the same way; therefore forcing someone to take a vaccine that could potentially do more harm to that individual than good is unethical.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the CEO has the right to require the H1N1 virus vaccination. He/she has the responsibility of running a successful business which only becomes more difficult if a potentially deadly virus is spreading through his/her employees. People have to realize that each and every child in the United States is required to have certain vaccinations to enter school and there is no choice in the matter, but people never bicker about those requirements or debate whether it is ethical or not. This is a similar situation, in the sense that the CEO is mandating certain requirements to be employed and if not met then you’re not eligible for work.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the CEO may have the right to mandate such measures that does not make his/her decision ethical. Ethics refers to individuals personal standards of right and wrong and should not change as you move from one society to the next. Furthermore, an ethical decision is often thought of as the one that reduces future conflict and creates the best possible outcome.
With that being said, I would not be happy with my employer if I was required to get a medical intervention that I did not trust or believe I needed; however, the CEO’s decision is undoubtedly ethical based on the above definition. Many people, such as myself, may feel they should have the option to choose, but in the end, the CEO is making an ethical decision. The CEO is attempting to be proactive and resolve future conflicts and provide the best possible outcome.
I agree with what Keenan has to say about this subject. Though employees may feel that this is a breach of their free will to decide what they need, the CEO is trying to use a very reasonable method to prevent the spread of H1N1 through his business. This simply is not a matter of right or wrong - it's a matter of keeping the people in his office working, and prevent them from sending others in his office out of work on sick leave if things do get bad.
ReplyDeleteAs people within this community, there should be no issue with this order from the CEO, as it is only expected that they look out for each other like this. Those who refuse are simply being inconsiderate.
It is not ethical of the CEO to require all employees to get an H1N1 vaccine. First of all, those who are at high risk of actually contracting the flu should take responsibility for themselves and get the vaccine. This way the employer would have no reason to worry about the well-being of any of his employees. It is also unlawful for him to require that they bring in documentation. They are not working in a hospital setting with sick patients in which they are putting anyone at risk. If they were working in that environment then one would hope that if the employees were sick they would chose not to come in to work rather than to infect fellow employees.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue raised is the morals and values of the employees. Many people refuse vaccination due to religious or cultural beliefs. In the united states the employer is not allowed to discriminate against people because of these beliefs and therefore they should have the option to opt out of the vaccine.
He is also not paying for the vaccine for his employees. Vaccinations can be expensive, especially new and possibly experimental vaccines. It seems that in this case the only reason the CEO is requiring vaccinations is to keep up his productivity and does not actually have the well being of his employees in mind.