- Nov 8, 2016
- 2,058
- 3,430
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Topical question in light of what has gone on in the NRL and this announcement today from the Queensland Chief Medical Officer.
www.news.com.au
"Queensland Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young on Tuesday said the government will only grant flu-shot exemptions to NRL players on medical grounds.
She stated personal beliefs and ethical concerns are not covered in the list of exemptions.
Young says players who refuse vaccination for any reason other than medical necessity will not be allowed to train or play in what appears to be very bad news for Cartwright and Kelly as the NRL pushes on with a return on May 28."
From what I have seen the level of hate these players are getting is very high and any consequences going their way seem to have widespread support.
This decision regarding Queensland today may well impact the AFL unless both Queensland teams are moved to hubs.
There is a high chance this discussion will fall into an antivax direction. I hope a little nuance can be seen.
I will state there will be people supportive of vaccinations for diseases like polio, measles etc. But distinguish the flu as not being on that level.
I will state that for jobs like people in healthcare it is more essential for them to require the flu shot to work in those environments.
The flu is not equivalent to other diseases that people are vaccinated against. Professional sportspeople are not in a profession that places others or themselves at the same level of risk as healthcare workers.
Is it right to force people (AFL and NRL) and other workers to be injected and place serious consequences upon them for not doing so?
Does "my body, my choice" not apply to these individuals?
5 years from now in a different climate will these decisions be looked at on a different light than during todays state of fear and widespread compliance by the public?
What positions and views do bigfooty posters hold about the above?
EDIT: Some more information of interest that applies to immunisation providers.
immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au
"Valid consent is the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, which is given after sufficient, appropriate and reliable information about the procedure, including the potential risks and benefits, has been conveyed to that individual."
"
Criteria for valid consent
For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:12,14
Anti-vaxxers given flu jab ultimatum
Gold Coast Titans pair Bryce Cartwright and Brian Kelly have been given 48 hours to decide whether or not they will accept a flu jab and avoid being stood down for the season.
www.news.com.au
"Queensland Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young on Tuesday said the government will only grant flu-shot exemptions to NRL players on medical grounds.
She stated personal beliefs and ethical concerns are not covered in the list of exemptions.
Young says players who refuse vaccination for any reason other than medical necessity will not be allowed to train or play in what appears to be very bad news for Cartwright and Kelly as the NRL pushes on with a return on May 28."
From what I have seen the level of hate these players are getting is very high and any consequences going their way seem to have widespread support.
This decision regarding Queensland today may well impact the AFL unless both Queensland teams are moved to hubs.
There is a high chance this discussion will fall into an antivax direction. I hope a little nuance can be seen.
I will state there will be people supportive of vaccinations for diseases like polio, measles etc. But distinguish the flu as not being on that level.
I will state that for jobs like people in healthcare it is more essential for them to require the flu shot to work in those environments.
The flu is not equivalent to other diseases that people are vaccinated against. Professional sportspeople are not in a profession that places others or themselves at the same level of risk as healthcare workers.
Is it right to force people (AFL and NRL) and other workers to be injected and place serious consequences upon them for not doing so?
Does "my body, my choice" not apply to these individuals?
5 years from now in a different climate will these decisions be looked at on a different light than during todays state of fear and widespread compliance by the public?
What positions and views do bigfooty posters hold about the above?
EDIT: Some more information of interest that applies to immunisation providers.
Preparing for vaccination | The Australian Immunisation Handbook
Immunisation providers should screen people before vaccination, obtain valid consent, and ensure that the correct equipment and procedures are in place before vaccination
"Valid consent is the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, which is given after sufficient, appropriate and reliable information about the procedure, including the potential risks and benefits, has been conveyed to that individual."
"
Criteria for valid consent
For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:12,14
- It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of receiving a vaccine.
- It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
- It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
- It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person."
Last edited:
