# Mandatory H1N1 shots for soldiers could violate Charter - CTV News



## Yrys

Mandatory H1N1 shots for soldiers could violate Charter

OTTAWA — The Canadian Forces reserves the right to order its soldiers deployed 
in Afghanistan to take the vaccine meant to prevent swine flu, says the military's 
surgeon general. But Commodore Hans Jung said it would be an order of last 
resort that will need to be studied to ensure it doesn't violate the Charter of Rights 
and Freedoms.

Just how far the military can go in ordering illness-prevention measures is a sensi-
tive topic given the bruising legal fights almost a decade ago over anthrax injections.
The current plan is to make the H1N1 vaccine, expected to be available in November, 
voluntary for soldiers, sailors and aircrew throughout the Canadian Forces, including 
those on duty in Kandahar and elsewhere around the world.

But the nightmare scenario of an army laid up with the flu isn't far from minds of 
commanders. "The option of mandatory (injections) is a hip-pocket issue. It's a card 
that would be played in a truly dire circumstances," Jung said in a recent interview 
with The Canadian Press. "We're going to be strongly recommending that everybody 
take the vaccine offered. Obviously depending on how the pandemic evolves in Canada 
and around the world, the government and the military may have to think about" 
ordering soldiers to take it.

Jung said the chief of defence staff, the country's top military commander, has the 
necessary legal authority to make it happen, as seniors commanders did during the 
1990s, when troops, sailors and air crew heading to the Middle East were required 
to take anthrax vaccinations. Those who refused were brought up on disciplinary 
charges and court martialed.

The practice of mandatory anthrax injections, which made some soldiers sick and 
raised fears among them of Gulf War Syndrome, ended in 2000 on the orders of 
military judge Col. Guy Brais. He ruled the program was violation of a soldier's 
constitutional rights.

Jung took over as surgeon general and head of the military's health branch in the 
summer. He said the possibility of a swine flu pandemic, with an army fighting in 
the field, presents National Defence and the military's health services branch with 
a unique challenge. He described the policy as in "evolution."

There is growing public skepticism about the H1N1 vaccine. Canada has ordered 
more than 50 million doses from GlaxoSmithKline. For military members stationed 
at home, the system of immunization isn't much different from that for ordinary 
citizens. Health Canada officials have repeatedly stressed that the swine flu 
vaccination will not be mandatory for Canadians and Jung said that includes members 
of the military.

But overseas it's a different matter, where the army's health services branch has set 
a goal of voluntarily immunizing between 60 and 70 per cent of the roughly 2,850 
Canadians serving in Kandahar. Jung said if they don't get that figure and the flu is 
severe, commanders would have to look at a mandatory system.

One of the complicating factors in that equation is that Canadian troops share the 
airfield with more than 15,000 other NATO troops and patrol through regions where 
Afghans have little access to basic medical care and sanitation. Jung said he's confident 
they'll get enough volunteers and said much depends on the severity of the anticipated 
second wave.

The military is watching the computer simulations on the potential spread H1N1. The 
contingency plans at National Defence range from a mild outbreak, similar to the seasonal 
flu, all of the way up to aid to the civil power in the event of a pandemic as serious as the 
1918-19 Spanish flu.


----------



## mariomike

I'm all in favour of vaccination. However, even though I don't personally support it, this has been challenged. I don't know if this is of interest to the discussion. Just FYI, not intended to provoke:
"In 2002, the Ontario government withdrew legislation that made it mandatory for paramedics to get flu shots, after the paramedics' union launched a legal challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/story_print.html?id=1820019&sponsor=


----------



## c_canuk

I may be completely mis remembering, but I thought the reason there was such a problem with the anthrax vaccines is that they had not passed testing, were still expermental and had not been approved for public use.

I don't think this is the case with the H1N1 vaccine.


----------



## PMedMoe

mariomike said:
			
		

> I'm all in favour of vaccination. However, even though I don't personally support it, this has been challenged. I don't know if this is of interest to the discussion. Just FYI, not intended to provoke:
> "In 2002, the Ontario government withdrew legislation that made it mandatory for paramedics to get flu shots, after the paramedics' union launched a legal challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
> http://www.edmontonjournal.com/story_print.html?id=1820019&sponsor=



Personally, my stance on this would be:  Here's the flu shot, it's not mandatory however, if you do not get it and you get sick, you will NOT be entitled to pay for your sick days, nor will you be entitled to sue the hospital (paramedic services, military) for any complications due to your illness.

No different than us offering DEET, permethrin treatment, sunscreen etc and strongly recommending their use and we still get people with diseases transmitted by insects and I'll bet my last dollar there are going to be some cases of melanoma "attributable" to service in Afghanistan*.

*Because it's closer to the sun, right, JM?


----------



## meni0n

H1N1 vaccine hasn`t been fully tested either. Think I will wait until after the mass vaccinations as there are already groups set up to see what side effects will be exeperienced.


----------



## CBH99

Personally, I would NOT want to get this vaccination for a multitude of reasons.

This vaccine hasn't been fully tested or trialled.  And even after it has been, some of the long-term side effects won't be seen for many years to come.

There are different versions of the vaccine being produced for different countries.  The FDA for example only requires that 3 out of 10 people don't suffer any serious reaction to the vaccine in order for it to be approved - pretty scary figure if you ask me.

If regular strains of flu kill tens of thousands of people a year, and the government could care less whether I get a flu shot....why do they care so much if I get vaccinated against a strain that has killed only a fraction of a fraction of that??  

*Putting on my tin foil hat* -- personally, I'm gonna stay away from that vaccine.  Big time.


----------



## ballz

CBH99 said:
			
		

> If regular strains of flu kill tens of thousands of people a year, and the government could care less whether I get a flu shot....why do they care so much if I get vaccinated against a strain that has killed only a fraction of a fraction of that??
> 
> *Putting on my tin foil hat* -- personally, I'm gonna stay away from that vaccine.  Big time.



My opinion exactly.... If I'm unlucky enough to die of a flu, then my ticket was punched and there was nothing anybody could have done. 2 guys on our platoon at St. Jean this summer were confirmed cases of swine flu and they were fine other then a few days of bed rest cause of a fever. The other 53 of us that ate, slept, and breathed with them the whole time didn't even catch it, and we were a particularly young course (average age probably 22 or 23) so throw that theory out the window too.

If I can be legally ordered to get it, then it is what it is. Other then that though, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prevent myself from getting your every day flu.


----------



## axeman

I recall the last time i was ordered to get a shot . It was called gammagoblin. in 94 prior to going over to Bosnia. not fully tested but REQUIRED , well it turns out a batch of the shots were POSSIBLY contaminated with the human variant of  CHJ. otherwise known as mad cow ... so now ever since then i have been forbidden to give blood documented on my med docs but never taken off  every time i go for   med check ups i ask if anything has beenworked out about this still to this date more then 15 yrs later no change we can neithe r confirm or deny etc.... i was up to 25 for the canadian blood bank . this can sit dormant for decades the get active , so now it comes time for anothe r nonfully tested shot , thanks ill wait in the getting charged line for refusing it ..


----------



## PMedMoe

axeman said:
			
		

> well it turns out a batch of the shots were POSSIBLY contaminated with the human variant of  CHJ. otherwise known as mad cow ...



Do you mean the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD)?



> New variant CJD *accounts for less than 1% of cases*, and *tends to affect younger people*. It can result when someone is exposed to contaminated products.
> 
> Some cases of nvCJD have occurred in *adolescents* who have received growth hormone made from the pituitary glands of cadavers (dead bodies). Prions cannot be destroyed by ordinary disinfection techniques used to prevent transmission of viruses and bacteria. As a result, the hormone remains contaminated. Cadaver-derived growth hormone has been replaced by synthetically manufactured growth hormone, so this source of contagion is no longer a problem.
> 
> Other nvCJD cases have occurred when people were given corneal transplants from infected donors, and from contaminated electrodes that were used in brain surgery (before it was known how to properly disinfect instruments).
> 
> There have not been any cases of nvCJD reported in the U.S.



Source:  Medicine Plus



> What is the risk of getting vCJD if a vaccine contained the BSE agent?
> 
> There is no evidence to date that vaccines have contributed to the cases of vCJD seen in Europe. Nor is there evidence that any vaccines harbor the BSE agent. Vaccines are given a very limited number of times via the intramuscular, subcutaneous or oral route. Even in experimental studies, these routes of administration are less effective at spreading the agent than the intracerebral route usually used to assess infectivity in animal studies. The amount of infectivity present and the efficiency with which the BSE agent passes from cow material to humans will also affect the likelihood of infection.



Source:  Vaccines and Variant CJD (vCJD) Questions and Answers

If the gamma globulin vaccines were live (that's a bit before my time as a Med Tech or PMed Tech), they would have been made with human plasma and therefore, not _contaminated_ by CJD per se.  There is an accompanying warning to the vaccine, that it may contain viruses that may cause disease.

Source:  http://www.cangene.com/pdf/2006/Healthcare%20info%20for%20website%20070109.pdf


----------



## mariomike

According to The Ottawa Citizen -September 24, 2009: "City won’t force front-line workers to get H1N1 vaccine":
"Front-line city workers, including police and firefighters, will not be forced to get the H1N1 flu vaccine."
That's nice of them. 
Then it goes on to say, "*The only exception to the rule *in Ottawa is paramedics, who must get flu shots unless they have experienced bad reactions in the past."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/City+force+front+line+workers+H1N1+vaccine/2025965/story.html


----------



## medicineman

To all the anti-vaccinationists out there -  :crybaby:.

I'm likely getting my shot on Monday - I'll give day by day updates about my health status and if holes are being bored in my brain by a prion or something.

Speaking of prions, axeman, I got that same batch of ISG in '94, and I'm still (reasonably) normal...that immunization has been in use on humans since long before either of us had joined the service, so has been thoroughly tested in my view - and is still in use today.  We don't routinely give it in the CF anymore, since the reason we did - to prevent Hepatitis A - has several vaccines available now for long term use.  If you recall, the ISG was only good for the duration of the tour, hence the reason we usually got it just before getting on the plane or as close to it as possible.  And even once the Hep A vaccine came out, we still used ISG for short notice deployments until all had been immunized for Hep A - the last time I gave it was for Op Assurance in '96, the same time we started getting a Hep A vaccine online.  The people on the recce party all got it, since the actual Hep A vaccine wouldn't have been in their systems long enough for a take.  To be honest, we had a far higher risk of getting blown up on a land mine in Yugo than our lifetime chance of developing CJD from our ISG shots.

We vaccinate people in the CF simply so we can ensure highest operational capability - imagine a flu epidemic on a ship at sea or at a FOB in Afghanistan - those pers would be out of the picture for AT LEAST 5-7 days, and that's when treated right away with anti-virals.  A unit could be literally incapacitated - imagine fighting a pitched battle where even a quarter of your troops can barely lift their weapons, see straight or even comprehend orders from fever or simply getting a ship safely from point A to B in a high sea state, etc.  Alot of people equate the flu with a cold and they really aren't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.  The actual illness not withstanding, influenza can debilitate for some time after the formal disease state has ended - it can cause depression, long term post-viral cough, general weakness and other sorts of nastiness.  I've seen the result of what happens when a large group of people living in close quarters en masse don't get their flu shots - it's pretty work intensive for me and my colleagues and downright unforgiving to the souls who get sick.

Fact is folks, there is always a risk of some sort of side or adverse effect with ANY medication you take - even natural ones.  As it stands at this time, everyone is going to be offered, but not ordered, to get the vaccine.  Choice is yours - at least for now  .

Cheers.

MM


----------



## Brasidas

medicineman said:
			
		

> We vaccinate people in the CF simply so we can ensure highest operational capability - imagine a flu epidemic on a ship at sea or at a FOB in Afghanistan - those pers would be out of the picture for AT LEAST 5-7 days, and that's when treated right away with anti-virals.  A unit could be literally incapacitated - imagine fighting a pitched battle where even a quarter of your troops can barely lift their weapons, see straight or even comprehend orders from fever or simply getting a ship safely from point A to B in a high sea state, etc.  Alot of people equate the flu with a cold and they really aren't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.  The actual illness not withstanding, influenza can debilitate for some time after the formal disease state has ended - it can cause depression, long term post-viral cough, general weakness and other sorts of nastiness.  I've seen the result of what happens when a large group of people living in close quarters en masse don't get their flu shots - it's pretty work intensive for me and my colleagues and downright unforgiving to the souls who get sick.
> 
> Fact is folks, there is always a risk of some sort of side or adverse effect with ANY medication you take - even natural ones.  As it stands at this time, everyone is going to be offered, but not ordered, to get the vaccine.  Choice is yours - at least for now  .
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> MM



All well and good. But when I see a vaccine being fielded over hype rather than real threat, I'm a bit skeptical. Check out the story of the 1976 swine flu outbreak and the deaths caused by a rushed and unnecessary vaccine.


----------



## Loachman

Not getting either one.


----------



## ModlrMike

What you're overlooking is that your relatively self limiting (given your age and gender) infection is someone else's life threating disease. We don't need millions of "typhoid marys" giving babies, young women, and old folks a potentially fatal disease. As someone who works in emergency medicine I can tell you first hand... it's not a good way to die.


----------



## medicineman

In response to the worry about Guillain-Barre Syndrome in the 76 epidemic, yeah, about 500 people were affected of the 46 million vaccinated, to varying severities.  I guess what alot of people fail to look at are how many people are affected by GBS yearly - and most often the result of a some sort of viral infection, most frequently the flu.  In the 76 outbreak, ~530 cases were attributed to the vaccine - out a total of 46 million people vaccinated.  That is roughly equivalent to the percentage of people that are affected yearly of 1-2/100,000 - vaccinated or not.  Of note, many flu vaccines have been given over the years since without huge outbreaks of GBS.

Anyways folks, just make an informed decision.  I'll keep y'all updated - if you don't hear from me much, I'm on a ventilator  ;D.

Cheers.

MM

Modified contradictory stats.  MM


----------



## OldSolduer

H1N1 - much ado about nothing.

Much wringing of hands and knickers in a twist.


----------



## mariomike

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> H1N1 - much ado about nothing.



I'm getting mine this week, just in case it's not.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Here's an interesting historical comparison:

On 22 September 1915, 9224 Sgt John Woodcock, "B" Boy, The RCR, was tried by District Court Martial at Shornecliffe, England.  Woodcock was found guilty, sentenced to be reduced to the ranks (i.e., demoted to Private) and to undergo 42 days of detention.

His crime: "Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, inciting men against Inoculation."


----------



## mariomike

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> On 22 September 1915, 9224 Sgt John Woodcock, "B" Boy, The RCR, was tried by District Court Martial at Shornecliffe, England.  Woodcock was found guilty, sentenced to be reduced to the ranks (i.e., demoted to Private) and to undergo 42 days of detention.
> His crime: "Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, inciting men against Inoculation."



Regarding John Woodcock. I was curious to see if he survived the war. He is not listed in the CWGC register, so apparently he did survive. 
I attempted to look up his Attestation paper to see where he agreed, like everyone else in the C.E.F., to be "vaccinated, re-vaccinated or inoculated". But, I could not find his Attestation paper.
I also attempted by S/N, but 9224 was assigned to a man named "Mertens":
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/cef/001042-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=fbugnnv3icdgnrigcqojafiu92&q1=&q2=&q3=9224&interval=20
I am guessing that perhaps because he was already a Sgt in 1915 and with such a low Service Number, that perhaps he joined when the paperwork was different? 
My guess is that _perhaps_ he himself may have been exempted from inoculation? Although men junior to him were not exempt. 
I came across this on the subject:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=cXm7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=war+refuse+inoculation&source=bl&ots=d7kqIISgqC&sig=u6OeQtnJxojT_fuj0_3Y0-iPkNs&hl=en&ei=WczlSrqMCoPOlAfT-ajoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=war%20refuse%20inoculation&f=false

Let me modify. Thanks for the update below, Mike!


----------



## Michael OLeary

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding John Woodcock. I was curious to see if he survived the war. He is not listed in the CWGC register, so apparently he did survive.
> I attempted to look up his Attestation paper to see where he agreed, like everyone else in the C.E.F. to be "vaccinated, re-vaccinated or inoculated". But, I could not located his Attestation paper.
> I am guessing that perhaps because he was already a Sgt in 1915 and with such a low Service Number, that perhaps he joined when the paperwork was different?
> My guess is that _perhaps_ he himself may have been exempted from inoculation? Although men junior to him were not exempt.



Attestation paper here. The 9224 regimental number is his Permanent Force (i.e., pre-War) number, the Regiment had not yet converted to the CEF number block before that record was made.

He survived the war and was eventually promoted to CSM (WO II).


----------



## Armymedic

Regardless of historical context, which is quite interesting, this particular pandemic has potential to be very bad.

Right now, in the US, the CDC is giving a fatality rate from H1N1 at about 1 in 1000 cases, with almost all being people who are under 40 years old.

Given that our military population is in the majority under 40, it would be prudent for all of us to get the vaccine when it finally arrives on base. It should no debate what-so-ever for anyone who is on a base where young troops are living tightly in barracks (i.e. St Jean, Borden, Kingston, Wainwright, Gagetown, etc)

We have approx 50, 000 people in the CF. Without vaccination, if 10% get H1N1 (5000 people) we can expect about 5 people will die from the disease, 500 will be hospitalized by serious lung issues. 

Anyone want to be responsible for those deaths, cause they want to be a rebel?


----------



## PMedMoe

I'm getting mine tomorrow.   :nod:


----------



## mariomike

How's this for a coincidence? On 21 Oct 2009, Walmart starting selling caskets online:
http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_constraint=0&ic=48_0&search_query=caskets&Find.x=10&Find.y=11&Find=Find


----------



## Braver.Stronger.Smarter.

SFB said:
			
		

> Anyone want to be responsible for those deaths, cause they want to be a rebel?



Although I'm not a soldier living on a base, for me, and probably for a lot of those soldiers that you are speaking of, it's not about being a rebel. It's simply about a lack of information and testing. Right now, with the amount of information that I don't have, I wouldn't feel comfortable getting the vaccine injected into my body. One of my biggest worries is the lack of long-term testing. It's possible that there could be major health problems later on for everyone that did get the vaccine and I'd prefer to remain vaccine-less until I see the results of some more studies.


----------



## medicineman

As promised, I'm giving my sitrep - arm is sore, but otherwise I'm still alive and well.  Just going to snivel for a bit at home.

TTFN.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:
			
		

> As promised, I'm giving my sitrep - arm is sore, but otherwise I'm still alive and well.  Just going to snivel for a bit at home.
> 
> TTFN.
> 
> MM



hahaha....well you are a medic aren't you?? joke!


----------



## medicineman

Oh well - really, it's no worse than a tetanus shot - feels like a bruise.  Can't snivel too much though - wife has me beat as we had to put one of her dogs down today.

Now gotta organize a needle parade at my current adoptive unit.

MM


----------



## stukirkpatrick

My arm is sore as well after I got it today - that's why I had them inject my non-gun arm.

Mind you, I got the "real" vaccine, rather than the one for the paranoid masses ;D


----------



## PMedMoe

According to an email from our Adj, the CF has adopted an active refusal policy that requires members to attend an immunization parade but can accept or refuse the vaccine.  So don't be surprised if you are _ordered_ to a needle parade.

For those of you who think this is an "untested" vaccine, it's the exact same as the influenza vaccines of the past several years.  This year's (H1N1) will be a more effective vaccine because they _know_ what strain is dominant.

Here is some info from Health Canada:

FAQ H1N1

Edit to add:  Just got both shots (H1N1 and regular flu vaccine).


----------



## medicineman

Forgot to update yesterday - still alive and not incapacitated  umpkin:.

MM


----------



## PMedMoe

medicineman said:
			
		

> still alive and not incapacitated



Me too.  Both arms slightly sore, not as bad as last night.  Same as any other IM vaccine.


----------



## Journeyman

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Edit to add:  Just got both shots (H1N1 and regular flu vaccine).


So you got the NWO tracking chip as well?!  Zombie!!


----------



## medicineman

There isn't really a tracking chip - just makes you more paranoid about one if you forget to keep the GPS jammer on your cell phone activated...

MM


----------



## PMedMoe

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So you got the NWO tracking chip as well?!  Zombie!!



And a free tinfoil hat, too!!   ;D


----------



## Braver.Stronger.Smarter.

From the Health Canada page that PMedMoe posted - emphasis added:

"Prior to market authorization of a new vaccine, the manufacturer must file a submission with scientific and clinical evidence that demonstrates that the vaccine’s *health benefits outweigh the risks* and that the vaccine is effective and of suitable quality for Canadians." 
As we are currently in a pandemic, Stage 6, I can see why the health authorities would believe that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, however, I don't believe that that necessarily means that it is safe. It is simply safer than having the whole world break out with H1N1.

"In Canada, data required to support approval of the pandemic vaccine will include at a minimum...clinical data in humans from a *small * safety and immunogenicity study to indicate that the H1N1 flu vaccine is safe..." 
This was honestly one of the few things that I could find on that webpage that gave details about the testing that was done. I think people would feel a lot more comfortable with getting the vaccine if Health Canada would release the results of some of the studies that were done. It would probably sway all of the people that are "sitting on the fence" and from my first-hand experience, that's a lot of people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So, lets pretend you are ordered to get the shot, to prevent you from becoming sick - N/S.  You don't get it, and get sick...

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

http://admfincs.mil.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.31

Probably a long shot but....


----------



## Occam

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, lets pretend you are ordered to get the shot, to prevent you from becoming sick - N/S.  You don't get it, and get sick...
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmm.
> 
> http://admfincs.mil.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.31
> 
> Probably a long shot but....



A very long shot, IMO...as the QR&O is currently written.  Who is to say that someone who refused the vaccine wouldn't have been infected even if they had been vaccinated?


----------



## dangerboy

Of course if you are ordered to get the shot and refuse then there is this:

103.58 – REFUSING IMMUNIZATION, TESTS, BLOOD EXAMINATION OR TREATMENT
   103.58 – REFUS D’IMMUNISATION OU D’EXAMENS MÉDICAUX

(1) Section 126 of the National Defence Act provides: 
   (1) L’article 126 de la Loi sur la défense nationale prescrit :

  "126. Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, revaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment."


----------



## Occam

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Of course if you are ordered to get the shot and refuse then there is this:
> 
> 103.58 – REFUSING IMMUNIZATION, TESTS, BLOOD EXAMINATION OR TREATMENT
> 103.58 – REFUS D’IMMUNISATION OU D’EXAMENS MÉDICAUX
> 
> (1) Section 126 of the National Defence Act provides:
> (1) L’article 126 de la Loi sur la défense nationale prescrit :
> 
> "126. Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, revaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment."



Ah, but keep on reading QR&O 103.58 ...

NOTES

(A) No authority exists whereby a person can be forced actually to undergo inoculation, etc., although he can be ordered to submit himself to such a procedure. Failure of a person to submit to inoculation. etc., in spite of an order requiring him to do so, would constitute an offence on his part. “Reasonable excuse” is a defence to a charge under section 126 of the National Defence Act. 
(5 June 2008)

Can anyone elaborate what the difference is between "undergo inoculation" and "submit to inoculation"??


----------



## PMedMoe

Yeah, well, no need to jump the gun yet.  No one is being ordered to get the vaccine, although, they are being _encouraged_.

Occam, I think that's just bad writing.  I think it means that you can be ordered to an Immunization Parade but you are not under any requirement to actually receive the vaccine.

Of course, a lot of people would be DAGged "red" if they refused required vaccinations.


----------



## mariomike

Here is a CF story on the subject from about ten years ago:
"Antivaccine advocates line up to support airman:
A member of the Canadian air force who refused to
take anthrax vaccine finds himself stuck squarely
in the middle of 2 strongly opposing factions. On
one side is the armed forces, which has launched courtmartial
proceedings against Sgt. Michael Kipling, and on
the other is a small but vocal antivaccine lobby that praises
him for taking his stand. The case has sparked a national
debate over the military’s use of vaccines."
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/160/6/883.pdf

Speaking of World War One earlier in this thread, I came across this:
"In 1917 a number of Canadian soldiers refused to submit to re-inoculation against
typhoid fever. One of them was court-martialed for "refusing to obey a lawful command"
and his conviction was quashed by direction of the [British] Judge Advocate General –
Mr. Felix Cassel, K. C., a very able lawyer, who gave the Canadian legal staff every
consideration and assistance at all times.
On enquiry as to the reason for this decision he stated that the British authorities
have always refused to compel a soldier to submit to a surgical operation (Manual, p.
397), and that inoculation, involving a puncture of the skin by needle, was regarded as
such operation.
It was pointed out in reply that no soldier could be sent to France without a
certificate that had been inoculated against typhoid and that such a decision would enable
a considerable number of men to escape service at the front. He was obdurate. It was the
law, and he had no power to change it. But we had the power to change it, and in a very
brief space of time obtained an order-in-council from Ottawa, passed under the
provisions of the Army Act, aided by sec. 177 of the Army Act, making it a military
offence for a Canadian soldier to refuse to submit to inoculation. The Judge Advocate
General at once admitted the validity of the enactment, and undertook the quash no more
convictions on the ground previously taken, but he was never called to rule upon the
point a second time, for on publication of the new law in orders, the recalcitrant soldiers
submitted without exception, and disciplinary action was no longer necessary."
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/ahqr-rqga/ahq091.pdf

Bottom Line: SARS demonstrated that laws/orders/rules can be changed with the stroke of a pen. eg: "Working Quarantine"


----------



## Occam

Never mind, the answer to that question just came in.  The implementation order for the voluntary H1N1 vaccination campaign just hit the inbox.  I won't post the whole thing, but here's the pertinent section:

ALTHOUGH THE PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED ABOVE WILL
BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND CLINICS, THEY RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE
H1N1 VACCINATION. 

PMedMoe - you nailed it.   ;D


----------



## ModlrMike

For me the decision was easy:

the risk of my kids dying from me not getting the shot were greater than the chances of me dying from getting it; and the chances of them dying from getting the shot were less than from them not getting it.

Shots all round in my house.


----------



## medicineman

Still alive, not in hospital (ill anyways - still working there...)

Now to organize a needle parade...

MM


----------



## Jungle

Received the shot yesterday... no problems yet.


----------



## medicineman

Arm is much better today  :nod:.

MM


----------



## PMedMoe

medicineman said:
			
		

> Arm is much better today  :nod:.



Mine too, it's only sore to touch now.  The other arm (regular flu shot) isn't sore at all.


----------



## medicineman

mariomike said:
			
		

> I envy you!   Did they do your family too, or just you?
> Did you see on the TV what the lineups were like today in the GTA? And that's for "Priority" cases!
> I've been told my wife and I can come in for ours tomorrow.



My wife is in the service too - if she chooses, she'll get it done with her unit.  Kids will likely get it at school.

MM


----------



## Armymedic

I got mine today at the ER I was working at.


----------



## mariomike

medicineman said:
			
		

> My wife is in the service too - if she chooses, she'll get it done with her unit.  Kids will likely get it at school.



I shouldn't have asked about your family, sorry. Seeing all those people on TV lined up for a shot. I've never seen anything like that.


----------



## PMedMoe

mariomike said:
			
		

> I shouldn't have asked about your family, sorry. Seeing all those people on TV lined up for a shot. I've never seen anything like that.



I heard on the radio this morning in Ottawa that they'll give people lined up for the shot a bracelet with a number.  Once you get a number, you won't have to stand there and wait but can come back later.  Don't know if that will work any better or not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Occam said:
			
		

> Never mind, the answer to that question just came in.  The implementation order for the voluntary H1N1 vaccination campaign just hit the inbox.  I won't post the whole thing, but here's the pertinent section:
> 
> ALTHOUGH THE PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED ABOVE WILL
> BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND CLINICS, THEY RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE
> H1N1 VACCINATION.
> 
> PMedMoe - you nailed it.   ;D



To add, the direction from our CoC is you will attend, can refuse, but your refusal will be annotated on your medical docs.


----------



## helpup

We have had high numbers through our UMS.  They had some hiccups where orriginally they were only giving the 2 days go home chits and then saying you have to suck it up.  a Push up the chain of command and voila 7 day chits are now flying out the window.  I understand the reasons and know some with just colds or not feeling well are being caught up in the same broom.  Fact remains that with out a blood test they are only assuming you have H1N1, and treating accordingly.  

Regardless you should still have a vaccination as you may not of had H1N1.  I am fully expecting more to come back from the field and not make it out for next week.


----------



## PMedMoe

helpup said:
			
		

> We have had high numbers through our UMS.  They had some hiccups where orriginally they were only giving the 2 days go home chits and then saying you have to suck it up.  a Push up the chain of command and voila 7 day chits are not flying out the window.  I understand the reasons and know some with just colds or not feeling well are being caught up in the same broom.  Fact remains that with out a blood test they are only assuming you have H1N1, and treating accordingly.
> 
> Regardless you should still have a vaccination as you may not of had H1N1.



Us too.  The 7 days S/L is not "automatic".  Personnel can return to work 24 hours after resolution of fever (without using medication).

But you're right, get the vaccine anyway.  Either way, it can't hurt.
Better to be safe than sorry and an ounce of prevention and all that.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Either way, it can't hurt.



Now I've stayed out of this because I would hate for everyone to be saying "I told him so" at the next "Meet and Greet" but I still can't buy [yet] that line of thinking,.......there is no proof that it won't harm you either.


----------



## Journeyman

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But you're right, get the vaccine anyway.  Either way, it can't hurt.
> Better to be safe than sorry and an ounce of prevention and all that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........there is no proof that it won't harm you either.
Click to expand...


And Moe would say that, since she's had the NWO tracking chip emplanted, 
and is turning into a Swine Zombie as we speak!


----------



## helpup

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now I've stayed out of this because I would hate for everyone to be saying "I told him so" at the next "Meet and Greet" but I still can't buy [yet] that line of thinking,.......there is no proof that it won't harm you either.



I use to be a follower of that line of thinking but with the information I have been reviewing I no longer buy the reasons people use for not getting the shots.  I am not saying you are using those arguements Bruce but there are alot of " will not get this shot " people out there who are basing thier decision off of really faulty logic and reasoning.  Full disclosure I do not normally get the flu shot as I do not fit the high risk profile.  there has been and more then likely will be cases again that preventative measures cause more issues then they are preventing.  I do not see the coralation with this vaccine.  They are using a standard formula that has been proven safe and effective since the late 70's fiasco.  That SNAFU caused major changes in how the vaccine was procured and administered.  There are questions arrising from lack of local studies but as has been pointed out the technique used is the same as annual flue shots with the only differance being in the in-active virus.  The Adjuvant has been shown to be safe and with what we are seeing this disease although currently with a low mortality rate still maintains the ability to kill healthy individuals who should not have succumbed.  So in this case the plan of protect the herd through vaccinations is in my mind a valid response.  The more protected the less are able to pass on and hence protecting those who do not have.  

I will get my shots when the BG get's thiers. My wife will get hers soonest and once the clinics in our area are set up for our Daughter she will get hers ( she is 8 months and healthy )  It is our informed decision ( ok more my wifes piece of mind ) that inocculating her is safer then allowing her a chance exposure and relying on the odds to work in her favour.


----------



## PMedMoe

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And Moe would say that, since she's had the NWO tracking chip emplanted*,
> and is turning into a Swine Zombie as we speak!



Of course I am!  Isn't it a great Halloween costume?  Mind you, not having the "girth" required, I had to add a lot of padding.....    

*BTW, that would be *im*planted.

Seriously, Bruce, I respect your right to decide for or against the vaccine, although, I must admit, with all the anti-vaccine remarks that have been floating around the web these past few weeks, I'm surprised that the line ups to get the shots are so long.


----------



## vonGarvin

Occam said:
			
		

> Ah, but keep on reading QR&O 103.58 ...
> 
> NOTES
> 
> (A) No authority exists whereby a person can be forced actually to undergo inoculation, etc., although he can be ordered to submit himself to such a procedure. Failure of a person to submit to inoculation. etc., in spite of an order requiring him to do so, would constitute an offence on his part. “Reasonable excuse” is a defence to a charge under section 126 of the National Defence Act.
> (5 June 2008)
> 
> Can anyone elaborate what the difference is between "undergo inoculation" and "submit to inoculation"??


Upon further reading, what this means is this: they cannot hold you down and inject you.  That would be forcing a person to be innoculated.  They can order you to submit to the inoculation, e.g.: "Roll up your sleeve, Bloggins."  If Bloggins says no, then Smith and Johnson aren't going to do it for him.  So, instead of administering the vaccine, Bloggins could be charged under section 126 as listed above.

Having said that, consider this from the notes:


> *The main purpose of the section* is to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces will not evade important service by refusing to submit to inoculation, etc., when failure to be inoculated would mean that they could not be sent on duty to a particular area.


 (emphasis added)

The above should not be mis-read to mean "the only purpose" is to ensure that members don't evade service.


----------



## JesseWZ

I've just recieved orders that all members in the geographic Winnipeg region will be required to attend a H1N1 Vaccination parade. I'm not buying the hype on either side (the Oh **** H1N1 is going to kill us all, OR the anti-vaccinationists.) I was going to wait a couple weeks to see how the recipients of the vaccine fared up, make an educated decision and then get innoculated or not; however I guess that wont be the case anymore.

Oh well, soldier on.


----------



## JesseWZ

Oh I'm not worried about it. I'm going to show up, get stabbed, and carry on my merry way. Just thought it was relevant to the thread that orders are actually being passed down now in certain areas for mandatory vaccinations.


----------



## Occam

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Oh I'm not worried about it. I'm going to show up, get stabbed, and carry on my merry way. Just thought it was relevant to the thread that orders are actually being passed down now in certain areas for mandatory vaccinations.



The implementation order said voluntary - nationwide.  Do you have information to the contrary?


----------



## JesseWZ

Just an email from my superior that states 

"In order to comply with the administrative order provided to all CF
members in the geographic Winnipeg region, all members are required to
attend an H1N1 vaccination parade.

All ULO students are required to make themselves available for one of
the following times in order to attend the vaccination parade.  Please
note that this is a parade, hence attendance is mandatory, and will be
recorded."


----------



## Occam

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Just an email from my superior that states
> 
> "In order to comply with the administrative order provided to all CF
> members in the geographic Winnipeg region, all members are required to
> attend an H1N1 vaccination parade.
> 
> All ULO students are required to make themselves available for one of
> the following times in order to attend the vaccination parade.  Please
> note that this is a parade, hence attendance is mandatory, and will be
> recorded."



*Attendance* is mandatory.  *Inoculation* is voluntary.  See my excerpt from the implementation order above in reply #41.


----------



## JesseWZ

Ah, seen.


----------

