Should influenza immunisation be mandatory for healthcare workers? No
BMJ 2008; 337 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2140 (Published 28 October 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2140All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor,
I am a bit surprised that there were so few rapid responses to the issue
of whether influenza (or any other) vaccination should be mandatory for
healthcare workers (or anybody else for that matter).
As I see it, there are several points to consider.
1. Are the flu vaccines actually effective in preventing influenza?
2. Are the flu vaccines safe?
3. Is there ever a good reason to force any medication or presumed
prophylactic onto anybody?
4. Is there ever any good reason for one person to be treated for the
benefit of another person?
To summarily address the above issues, one has to go back in history
of the flu vaccines. We have to start with the USA. The seventies of the
twentieth century, and more particularly 1976-1979, was a momentous time
for vaccination because childhood vaccination became effectively
mandatory by individual states, one by one, enacting laws requiring
presentation of the evidence of vaccination for enrollment to pre-schools
and schools. It was also the time when flu vaccination became a pushed
issue for adults. In February 1976, an alleged human infection with a
swine influenza virus occurred in five recruits at Fort Dix, a military
camp in New Jersey. The antigenic composition of the virus was interpreted
as a major antigenic shift and doctors expected a pandemic to occur
imminently. On March 13th the Director of the Center for Disease Control
(CDC) presented to the Assistant Secretary for Health the recommendations
of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on a proposed
total nationwide vaccination programme. President Ford signed into law the
bill authorising $135 million for a comprehensive influenza vaccination
programme. From June to September 1976, a complex public-private
vaccination delivery system was set up, reaching its full potential on and
after October 1. Many private doctors refused to participate in the
programme because of the liability implications. By the end of November,
various manufacturers had produced some 150 million doses of the vaccine.
Right from the beginning, this plan had one major flaw: the new virus
strain showed no capability of epidemic spread. Nevertheless, some 40
million adults were vaccinated. Within four months, there followed the
occurrence of hundreds of cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome paralysis in
vaccinees (Marks and Halpin 1980), with a number of deaths. Some 4000 law
suits were lodged seeking compensation for the damage sustained. Some
three billion dollars were paid out in compensation.
On December 16, 1976, the Public Health Service elected to place a
moratorium on all influenza vaccines pending reassessment of vaccine
risks. The moratorium was lifted on 9 February 1977 for all groups at
"highest risk of fatal disease from infection" with the then currently
prevalent influenza A and B.
People have short memories. Despite the swine flu debacle,
vaccination against influenza continued and in January 1978-March 1981,
during and after the 1978-1979 vaccination campaign, 575 cases of Guilain-
Barre Syndrome (GBS) were reported by participating neurologists in the
national GBS surveillance system. The incidence was highest in the fifty
to seventy four year olds. Victims experienced respiratory and
gastrointestinal illness before the symptoms of ascending paralysis
appeared. Sixty seven percent of the total number of vaccinees reported
receiving an A/New Jersey (swine) influenza vaccine in 1976 before being
revaccinated two years later (obviously sensitised by the previous dose).
The influenza epidemic which followed unabated in 1979-80 despite the mass
"immunization" programmes, not only was not stopped but was most probably
precipitated by weakening and sensitising large numbers of vaccinees to
the very illness the vaccines were supposed to prevent. The situation is
immortalised by Hurwitz et al. (1981) and Kaplan et al. (1983), and Poser
(1985).
Moreover, in July 1976, a pneumonia-like epidemic occurred among
members of the American Legion who had attended a meeting in Philadelphia
(Friedman 1978). There were an estimated 180 cases with 29 deaths. This
was only a proverbial tip of the iceberg. Many other sporadic outbreaks
of what became the Legionnaire's disease (named after members of the
American Legion)occurred all over the United States. In England (Macrae
et al. (1979) some 84 cases with 18 deaths were reported between January
1976 and September 1978. During 1980-82, some 1300 cases of illness
compatible with the Legionnaire's Disease were studied in Spain (Otero et
al. 1983). In 1992, reports of the disease with a number of deaths
especially in Sydney, Australia, occurred. It was not coincidental that
these outbreaks followed a vigorous advertising campaign encouraging
people to take the 'flu shots'. According to Daily Telegraph Mirror,
September 1992), the family members of the victims who died claimed that
their relatives were given flu injection shortly they became violently ill
with the symptoms characterised by fever, cough, pneumonia, headache,
nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, dizziness, disorientation, loss short term
memory and hallucinations and became cyanotic, and developed breathing
difficulties, tremors of the limbs and renal failure. Legionella
pneumophila (the genus name coincidental) microorganism was allegedly
isolated from the victims. Legionella is a ubiquitous commensal, just as
golden staph, and only becomes virulent in individuals whose immune system
was seriously suppressed, such as by vaccines.
The dangers and ineffectiveness of flu vaccines have been known from
the 1940s. Curphey (1947) described fatal allergic reactions due to
influenza vaccine. Smith (1974) reported on the failure of vaccination in
the control of influenza in the post office workers. Warren (1956)
described encephalopathy due to influenza vaccine. Cherrington (1977)
described locked-in syndrome after "swine flu" inoculation; Weintraub
(1977) reported on paralytic brachial neuritis after swine flu
vaccination; Martilla et al. (1977) studied haemagglutination inhibiting
antibodies to four influenza virus strains in blood serum specimens of 20
patients with postencephalitic and 55 patients with idiopathic Parkinson
disease and their age-matched controlls. The postencephalitic group was
similar to the idiopathic Parkinson group with regard to the influenza
antibodies.
Saah et al. (1986) studied the effectiveness of vaccination against
influenza in a retrospective cohort study in a New York City nursing home
and examined the occurrence of pneumonia and its related mortality over
three consecutive influenza seasons. They concluded that vaccination did
not affect pneumonia-related mortality. "This study also suggests that
estimates of mortality due to pneumonia should include deaths that occur
up to 60 days after onset of pneumonia; shorter follow-up may overestimate
the protective effect of vaccination".
Saito and Yanagisawa (1989) described acute cerebellar ataxia after
influenza vaccination with recurrence and marked cerebellar atrophy.
Gavaghan and Webber (1993) described a 48-year old asthmatic patient
who eight days after the second flu vaccine (the first was given in 1986
"without ill effect") developed pronounced myalgia followed by
polyarthritis with a large urticarial eruption on her right shoulder. On
cessation of the steroids, she developed myositis, arthralgia and a very
significant urticarial reaction with gross tissue oedema and pressure on
her peripheral nerves, treated again with steroids. Sveral days after the
steroids ceased, she developed a severe vasculitis of both lower limbs
with polyarthralgia, myositis, and massive urticaria (biopsy showed
massive eosinophilic infiltrate through all the tissues and around the
blood vessels).
Brown and Bertouch (1994) described rheumatic complications of
influenza vaccination in three patients who have developed systemic lupus
erythematosus, polymyalgia rheumatica and rheumatoid arthritis
respectively.
Drinka et al. (1997) described large outbreaks of influenza A and B
in nursing homes despite high resident vaccination rates (80% or higher),
even when the vaccine strain was matched to the circulating strain. They
concluded that "Future efforts are needed to develop vaccines that provide
greater protection and to improve staff vaccination rates".
Finsterer et al. (2001) described a case of a 70-year old previously
healthy man who developed a common cold with headache, treated with
aspirin. Despite this infection, he was vaccinated against influenza 5
days after the onset of his symptoms. Immediately after vaccination, he
developed a newly located severe headache, fever, facial oedema, and high
blood pressure. He became very ill, which required hospitalisation. In
hospital, he also developed blurred vision, proptosis, pain on eye
movement, and weakness of the right upper limb. MRI of the cerebrumn
revealed cavernous sinus thrombosis and on day 5 also proptosis and
chemosis of the right eye, bilateral ptosis, spontaneous nystagmus,
weakness of abducens muscle, and peripheral facial palsy on the right
side, and his visual acuity further deteriorated. Giant cell arteritis
was confirmed by the temporal artery biopsy findings. After antibiotics
failed, corticosteroid therapy was initiated and relieved all the
abnormalities during the following days. Only slight weakness of the
right upper extremity persisted. My personal comment? What a waste of
effort and money and other resources in a predictable and preventable
situation.
Even though some recipients of flu (and other) vaccines do not have
serious symptoms, there is no guarantee that the next dose will not elicit
serious reaction and even death. There is also no evidence that flu
vaccines, just as other vaccines, would actually prevent the recipients
from contracting the flu. Flu viruses, just as bacteria and other
microorganisms, are ubiquitous (just where does the first case come
from?). Flu is not a deadly disease per se; it is only potentially
dangerous in immunosuppressed and malnourished people (and overworked
healthworkers). With this uncertainty, mandating flu (and all the other)
vaccines is only an illusion and could amount to a life of misery and even
death sentence. The traditional, very large, doses of sodium ascorbate
powder are more likely to do the trick without any deleterious side
effects.
References
Marks JS, and Halpin TJ. Guillain-Barre syndrome in recipients of
A/New Jersey influenza vaccine. JAMA; 243 (24): 2490-2494.
Hurwitz ES, Schonberger LB, Nelson DB, and Holman RC. 1981.
Guillain-Barre syndrome and the 1978-79 influenza vaccine. NEJM; 304:
1557-1561.
Kaplan JE, Schonberger LB, Hurwitz ES, and Katina P. 1983. Guillain-
Barre syndrome in the United States, 1978-1981: additional observations
from the national surveillance system. Neurology; 33;May: 633-0637.
Poser CM. 1985. Swine influenza vaccination. Arch Neurol; 42: 1090-
1092.
Friedman HM. 1978. Legionnaire's disease in non-legionnaires. Ann
Intern Med; 88: 294-302.
Macrae AD, Appleton PN, and Laverick A. 1979. Legionnaire's disease
in Nottingham, England. Ann Intern Med; 90: 580-583.
Otero MR, Anda P, Fernandes MV, Casal J, and Najera R. 1983.
Legiinnaire's disease in Spain. Lancet; 2 April: 759.
Curphey TJ. 1947. Fatal allergic reactions due to influenza
vaccine. JAMA; 133 (15): 1062-1064.
Smith KWG. 1974. Vaccination in the control of influenza. Interim
report to the Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service on a
collaborative study with the Post Office. Lancet; 10 August: 330-333.
Warren WR. 1956. Encephalopathy due to influenza vaccine. Arch
Intern med; 803-805.
Cherrington M. 1977. Locked-in syndrome after "Swine flu"
inoculation. Arch Neurol; 34: 258.
Weintraub MI. 1977. Paralytic brachial neuritis after swine flu
vaccination. Arch Neurol; 34: 518.
Marttila RJ, Halonen P, and Rinne UK. 1977. Influenza virus
antibodies in parkinsonism. Arch Neurol; 34: 99-100.
Saah AJ, Neufeld R, Rodstein M, La Montagne JR, Blackwelder WC, et
al. 1986. Influenza vaccine and pneumonia mortality in a nursing home
population. Arch Intern Med; 146: 2353-2357.
Saito H, and Yanagisawa T. 1989. Acute cerebellar ataxia after
influenza vaccination with recurrence and marked cerebellar atrophy.
Tohoku J Exp Med; 158: 95-103.
Gavaghan T, and Webber CK. 1993. Severe systemic vasculitic syndrome
post influenza vaccination. Aust NZ J Med; 23: 220.
Brown MA, and Bertouch JV. 1994. Rheumatic complications of
influenza vaccination. Aust NZ J Med; 24: 572-573.
Drinka PJ, Gravenstein S, Krausse P, Schilling M, Miller BA, and
Shult P. 1997. Outbreaks of influenza A and B in a highly immunized
nursing home population. J Fam Practice; 45 (6): 509-514.
Finsterer J, Artner C, Kladosek A, Kalchmayr R, and Redtenbacher S.
2001. Cavernous sinus syndrome due to vaccination-induced giant cell
arteritis. Arch Intern Med; 161: 1008-1009.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Many thanks for publishing the for(1) and against(2) sides of
mandatory influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs). Both sides
do a good job of canvassing the arguments, but there are some key issues
not covered by either side that are worth further exploration. These are:
1. The ethics of HCW autonomy to reject influenza vaccine cannot be
discussed in isolation;
2. Use of encouragements to improve HCW influenza vaccination
coverage is not cost-effective compared with mandatory vaccination; and
3. Failure to act to protect workers and clients from a potentially
fatal danger would be simply unacceptable in any other workplace, breeches
current workplace health and safety laws, and would result in serious
fines and other penalties for those who knew of the risks and failed to
act.
As a starting point, neither side acknowledged that HCW vaccination
is more significant than similar, increasingly common, workplace programs
in factories and offices: the key difference being that, unlike childhood
vaccination programs, the primary aim of HCW influenza vaccination is not
protection of the individual being vaccinated, but protection of patients.
Individual protection is a secondary, but necessary, benefit: it is
through individual protection that nosocomial transmission of influenza to
all patients, but particularly the vulnerable, and their carers is
restricted. The John Stuart Mills quote cited by Isaacs and Leask,
therefore, supports the prospect of a mandatory program, rather than
opposes it.(2)
The further arguments against mandatory vaccination, namely: that it
is ethically unjustifiable because it infringes HCW civil liberty and
autonomy, and acutely so because vaccination currently breeches the
boundary of the skin; and that failure to comply resulting in dismissal,
further infringes a HCW’s right to freedom to work and ensure financial
security, are both not supported by current practice. Such claims may be
valid if it were possible to focus on the individual rights of HCWs in a
vacuum, to the exclusion of the rights of all others. Unfortunately, it is
not possible to do so. Any ethical assessment of the issue requires a
balancing of all competing rights: the rights of the patient to enter a
safe healthcare environment must be considered. Given that influenza
epidemics are real and recurrent events, why should we give individual HCW
autonomy preference over our patients’ right to a safe healthcare
environment?
All Australian States and Territories’ Health Departments have
mandatory hepatitis B vaccination requirements for those who are not
immune and are responsible for providing patient care. Individual autonomy
to choose against this is not catered for: the choice the individual makes
is to be protected and employed, or not employed. This infringement on a
person’s right to work and earn a living in this specific environment is
not met by strong or reasonable objection, and neither should mandatory
influenza vaccination. HCWs need to exercise their right to chose at a
more fundamental level: do they chose to work in healthcare and do all
they can to minimise the risk to those under their care, or do they chose
to work elsewhere?
It is a modern reality that the cost-effectiveness of alternate
methods for the delivery of any healthcare program must be considered.
Increasing HCW influenza vaccination coverage is possible using
combinations of incentives and requiring signed declination. The results
achieved are better than when such approaches are not used, but they do
not reach the coverage achieved with mandatory requirements.(1) Further, I
would argue that the cost of implementing such incentives and hurdles
would be higher than the standard delivery and follow-up required with a
mandatory program. Better coverage at a cheaper delivery price makes the
mandatory program superior on both counts alone, and is thereby a dominant
approach in health economic terms. This is without considering the cost
savings from reduced staff absenteeism and prolonged inpatient stays.
Most developed industrialised countries have Workplace Health and
Safety Laws that require, in one form of words or another, that workers
are not only free from death, injury or illness caused by any workplace,
but that they are also “...free from risk of death, injury or illness
caused by any workplace”.(3) Influenza is an annual and predictable
workplace danger in all healthcare settings: it diminishes the safety of
patients and HCWs, can prolong hospitalisation of any patient, and can
cause serious morbidity and mortality in both the vulnerable and the
normally healthy – including HCWs. This risk can be minimised, if not
removed entirely, by the application of universal workplace immunisation.
It is simply unacceptable to allow individual HCW autonomy to be given
precedence over workplace safety. As a risk management action, hospital
superintendents and others managing any healthcare institution should ask
their lawyers for a legal opinion about whether voluntary influenza
workplace vaccination programs for HCWs meet the local requirements
imposed on them as a “person in control of a relevant workplace area” by
workplace health and safety laws.
The ethical, health economic, and, indeed, legal arguments all point
to healthcare institutions requiring, as opposed to recommending, that
their workers receive influenza vaccine. Why is it that we continue to
allow optional influenza vaccination of HCWs with its associated low
coverage? The unfortunate fact of the matter is that we have become lazy
in prosecuting the case for mandatory HCW vaccination. Healthcare
institutions accept the arguments of personal freedom over patient safety
because it is easier to stick with the status quo, and avoid upsetting
staff. But if, in some healthcare settings, vaccinating eight HCWs is all
that is required to prevent one patient death during moderate influenza
seasons,4 how can we continue to allow individual staff, without a serious
and documented medical contraindication, to refuse?
Stephen Lambert
sblambert@uq.edu.au
References
1. Helms CM, Polgreen PM. Should influenza immunisation be mandatory
for healthcare workers? Yes. BMJ 2008;337:a2142.
2. Isaacs D, Leask J. Should influenza immunisation be mandatory for
healthcare workers? No. BMJ 2008;337:a2140.
3. Workplace Health Safety Act 1995 (QLD). s22. Accessed at:
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WorkplHSaA95.pdf.
4. Hayward AC, Harling R, Wetten S, Johnson AM, Munro S, Smedley J,
et al. Effectiveness of an influenza vaccine programme for care home staff
to prevent death, morbidity, and health service use among residents:
cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2006;333:1241.
Competing interests:
Stephen Lambert has been a co-investigator for industry-sponsored vaccine studies, received a travel grant to attend a conference, and been a member of vaccine advisory boards for GSK and Novartis.
Competing interests: No competing interests
A key argument of Isaacs and Leask [1] is that mandatory immunisation
for seasonal influenza may alienate staff and damage morale. There is a
risk this effect could extend beyond seasonal influenza to pandemic
influenza preparations and response. The availability of human H5N1
vaccines, which can induce heterotypic immunity, now means it is possible
to prime individuals at the highest risk (eg, health workers) [2]. But
there needs to be high levels of support from those health workers if
optimal use is to be made of both pre-pandemic vaccines and pandemic
vaccines, and even the pre-pandemic use of pneumococcal vaccine [3]. The
importance of pandemic preparedness makes it highly desirable to avoid
coercive approaches around seasonal influenza immunisation that may
prejudice health workers against such measures. Instead, the emphasis
should entirely be on making seasonal influenza immunisation extremely
easy for these workers ie, freely delivered at a convenient time and
place.
References
1. Isaacs D, Leask J. Should influenza immunisation be mandatory for
healthcare workers? No. BMJ 2008;337:a2140.
2. Jennings LC, Monto AS, Chan PK, et al. Stockpiling prepandemic
influenza vaccines: a new cornerstone of pandemic preparedness plans.
Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:650-8.
3. Gupta RK, George R, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS. Bacterial pneumonia and
pandemic influenza planning. Emerg Infect Dis 2008;14:1187-92.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Further points to consider in mandatory influenza vaccination of healthcare workers
Many of us remain unconvinced of the alleged efficacy of 'flu
vaccination- a belief borne out by the belated admission that it doesn't
work in those most in need of protection, the sick and elderly. Now we are
asked not only to swallow the assertion that inoculating health workers
might do the job, but that this should be compulsory. A look at the paper
quoted in support of this (Hayward et al, BMJ 2006; 333:1241)reveals the
extraordinary omission of any record of the 'flu (or suspected flu) rates
in the staffs of the nursing homes with high and low vaccination rates. If
we don't even know that, the extended conclusions about the effect on the
inmates seem a bit excessive. Also, as is often the case in this sort of
study we have no information about whether the deaths or the 'flu like
illnesses were in fact due to properly identified influenza infection.
Whatever one's feelings about the relative merits of duty or utility
ethics, to impose draconian conditions on employment on the basis of this
level of evidence would be totally unjustifiable- unethical, in fact!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests