Mandatory H1N1 shots for soldiers could violate Charter - CTV News

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

  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]

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.

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]

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]

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 implanted.

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]

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.