Struggles Between Anti-Vaccine Parents and Pro-Vaccine Parents

Vaccination is considered by health and medical scholars as one of the greatest achievements of in modern day health. It has allowed for saving of lives of people in many areas in the world. However, even with the great advantages that vaccines have on human health, they have had negative reception by some groups in many regions in the world. Vaccine critics, formally known as anti-vaccine groups have taken different stances when relating to different vaccines. Much of the difference that exists between these two groups comes from the difference in social, political and economic backgrounds of people (Offit, 2010). From an anthropological perspective, human beings are entitled to give their own reactions to different things depending on the understanding of the knowledge that is provided in regard to the issue at hand. With the development of new vaccines from time to time, different social movements have made new assumptions and methods for which they could deter or encourage the use of it in health care. Many theories in anthropology can be used to describe the nature and source of the difference that exists between the anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine group. A comprehension of this difference helps to gain a perspective for which a person may understand the roles that both groups play in modern-day health vaccines. Additionally, the social phenomenon that manages to play a role in vaccine reception in different environments helps propagate the positioning of information that would, in turn, develop important realization of the pros and cons of vaccines in the life of a person. Various definitive anthropological theories have helped researcher around the world to understand why people would resist the use of vaccines which is inherently considered a lifesaving technique in a normal human beings life.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Even when a conflict of interest between anti-vaccine parents and pro-vaccine parents exist in the society, a community stays together through the assembly of ideas and thoughts for which the issue in the debate is resolved. For instance, when a disagreement arises between the wellness and proficiency of a certain vaccine, a society is obligated to provide resources for which scientific research is to be done and conclusive information provided. In this manner, a society creates a platform which ideas can thrive (Offit, 2010). The existence of social classes in society also contributes to the way that people react to different vaccine announcements or provisions. For instance, in some cases, the working class may or may not engage in certain social movements. This is attributed to the fact that such a class in the society is more inclined into occupations that require total dedication. At the same time, the way that different classes in the society interact varies. For the case of anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine groups, many people would sometimes opt to stay and watch as the two groups tussle on which one is more correct than the other. In this manner, these classes try not to overthrow the order that is in society.

Bruno Latour has created an interpretation into the actor-network theory that is relevant to the study of the difference between pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups in the world. However, this theory has its fair share of denigrations. Since the theory is constructive in nature, it has been criticized for negating human agency (Kinch, 2018). He counters this argument by making it clear that the interpretation is to be seen as an enabling factor in the understanding of the social phenomenon and the collection of factors that have implications in the way that human beings relate to different situations. This theory extends not only to human individual actors but also non-human entities. In this manner, Latour describes that the theory is not to explain the relationship that exists between nodes but rather incite in the construction of methods for which a person will understand social movements in the world. In relation to social movements involving vaccines, much of this theory gives an introductory platform for which these networks can thrive. What this means is that through the conceptualization of social network and movements, the theory notes identifiable nodes that play a role in the difference between pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups.

Assumptions that drive different populations to accept new factors and concepts as being fundamentally true to relate to how pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups interact. For instance, there was some opposition to the invention of the first smallpox vaccine in England in 1800. The way that a person would perceive a proposition would vary depending on the set of accepted value and behaviors (Durbuch, 2005). In the case of vaccines, when certain assumptions are made, different groups will have different views on the efficiency, safety, and efficacy of a vaccine. This is one of the reasons that has led to the rise of pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups. One group has to support a vaccine that is considered unsafe or disallowed to other is considered a limitation to the way that people would accept medicine in the health industry. With close relation to the actor-network theory, the assembling of different forces in the society will have various effects to the general balance that exists in the society (Durbuch, 2005). Various non-human elements would, therefore, play an inspecting role in the way that people understand new models. For Latour, when certain non-human and human elements fail to stand, the move is neither political nor radical. What this means is that the relationship between vaccines and human beings is sometimes recognized as automatically good or bad. Social movements such as the anti-vaccine groups understand that some of the invented vaccines have effects that are considered unethical or dangerous to the health of a person. Considering the social nature of the scientific debate between the uses of new vaccines, much of the arguments are found in the entanglement of different human factors that closely complement each other in the proposition of different views in the society. On the other hand, pro-vaccine groups understand that some of the vaccines would have different effects on the human body but try to see the bigger picture in terms of the health benefits and the effects the vaccine would have in the general medical scenario.

Some of the differences that lie between the groups lie in the effect of vaccines on the social constructs of the society such as the family. For instance, when an anti-vaccine boycotts a vaccine, the pro-vaccine group would perceive this move as an attack on the wellbeing of the people around them (Wakefield, 2010). Through biomedical research into the creation and effects of vaccines, both groups are obligated to understand the factors involved in the production process of a vaccine. When a pro-vaccine group becomes part of the vulnerable population, anti-vaccine groups become a threat to them due to the transitive nature of some health problems that can be immunized. Having a basis for which the debate between anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine groups could debate has become one of the greatest problems. Insufficient tactics to make the spread of information in regard to different vaccines is a problem. What this means is that some of the information that is provided about a vaccine is more inclined into making the public see it as a danger to health. This may, however, be the case and therefore a form of certain anti-vaccine groups could be useless to the course of bettering human lives in general.

To understand the reasons behind the formation of certain social movements, Latour's interpretation of actor-network theory theorizes the position that human beings stand in making sure that knowledge is not misunderstood (Williamson, 2007). For this reason, Latour advises scholars on social movement rhetoric to describe the failure in objectives that are existent in the social movements. With this, the difference in anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine groups is realized in a more comprehensive manner that makes the ideologies and thoughts of both groups are represented. Institutional beliefs relating to how vaccine production is controlled by cooperations may also be a concept of debate when trying to understand anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine groups.

Many questions arise in the description if the role that emotion plays in the examination of the difference between anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine populations. Interest in the way that emotion relates to the roles of social movements in society has greatly increased over the years. Specifically, the way that different advancements in the world of vaccination influence decision making in regard to different health care options to fight diseases. The role social-cultural experiences in the society make emotion at the center of the difference that exists between the anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine groups (Linderbaum & Lock, 2003). When a society is presented with a new idea, there are obvious levels of dissatisfaction that would arise from different groups. In many cases, the new idea has an effect in the way that that group perceives it. Additionally, social science has been able to make important inferences to the way that anti-vaccine groups work. The occupational approach in the way that groups relate to vaccines may sometimes be explained by the way that emotion would lead to the use of certain approaches that some would consider rather unprincipled. This, therefore, means that the psychobiological review of the way that emotion affects the human brain is a major field of study in regard to understanding social movements (Linderbaum et al, 2002). Certain values and principles that affect the human experience in a society make pro-vaccine groups seem unscrupulous to human life. For instance, when a vaccine has more defects than advantages, there is no need for it to be endorsed. It is through such situations that both anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine groups have acted to make sure that their principles and ideologies are based on reliable scientific evidence. At the same time, the divergence that exists between emotions regarding idealism and materialism could contribute to the debate on which group is better than the other.

The continuum of debates that verify the existence of certain social movements is based on research regarding emotion literature. One of the causes of the creation of social movements concerning vaccines is the spread of propaganda. For instance, in 1998, Andrew Wakefield proposed further investigation of the effect of the MMR vaccine to a child. This doctor suggested that the vaccine could be linked to bowel disease and autism in a child. The media took this opportunity to spread stories that would ignite fear and confusion in the public. At this time, the safety of the vaccine become a point of questioning to its relevance in the health industry. The situation escalated into campaigns against the MMR vaccine (Salleint & Genest, 2007). At the same time, the General medical council in Europe made comments saying that Doctor Wakefield had a major conflict of interest. Later on, Andrew Wakefield was found to have committed several medical frauds that would later cost him his job. Research into the matter showed that there was no relationship between the MMR vaccine and children born with autism or bowels disease. This situation explains the role that certain institutions in the society play in the creation of social movements that would rather be right or wrong. When the legitimacy of information behind the formation of an anti-vaccine group is in question, its purpose in the spread of wrong ideas in the society is brought to light. It is through emotions s...