The Facts and Feelings of the Matter: A Look at the Vaccination Debate

The Facts and Feelings of the Matter: A Look at the Vaccination Debate

Imagine that you have a child -- a six month old girl. You are sitting in the waiting room at the doctor's office holding your daughter and looking over some of the literature for the immunizations she will need at this visit. You see some letters you do not understand: DTaP, Hib, PCV, Rota. The mother sitting next to you peeks at your papers and gives you a wide eyed look. She leans over and hisses, "You know those shots cause autism, right? I read a report about it on the Internet.... There's all sorts of poisons in those things, and they don't work anyways. Doctors just want to make money!"

You clutch your daughter to you. Autism? Poisons? You never went to medical school- the last real science class you took was in the first year of college. You don't know what to believe, but this woman says that vaccines are dangerous. There are even articles about it on the Internet. You would never do anything to harm your child; she is the most precious thing in the world to you. You are definitely considering refusing these vaccines.

This scenario, and others like it, is much more common than one might think. Ever since vaccination was introduced as a medical procedure, it has been challenged, misunderstood, and debated. Many sources, both scholarly and mainstream, claim to have information supporting one side or the other of the argument. These differing sources do actually have many similarities, including their general audience and their context. Where they truly show some variety is in their purpose, obviously, but also in the rhetorical appeals and strategies they employ to convince their more specific audiences and in the forms of media they choose to display their message. The contrasting purposes are the easiest to explain: arguments from the pro-vaccine side of the debate are clearly meant to convince people to get immunized, while arguments from the other side are meant to do the opposite. Where things get really interesting is in examining the different appeals and genres used in the arguments. There is a characteristic segregation of appeal types used on either side of the debate. These tactics are showcased in several different but typical forms, be they literary, visual, and otherwise. These forms, and the different tactics, are not chosen randomly: they are all used very deliberately in order to please a specific audience.

Many different genres are used in presenting the opposing sides of this debate. There are posters, articles, interviews, reports, advertisements -- the list goes on. A common medium used by the anti-vaccine side is the personal webpage, or Internet articles without any affiliation to a major medical source such as a hospital or academic group. One such webpage is Ian Sinclair's "vaccinationdebate.com," which offers several self-written commentaries on different aspects of immunization. Mr. Sinclair is an Australian author; he has no medical degree and reports no scientific training. His website, and most like it, is full of theories, allegations, and statements, but rarely are these linked to support from any scientific sources. His writing tends towards statements like the following, which is found under the heading "this is what I believe": "Vaccines are biological poisons, harmful to health, and a contributing factor in childhood illness." This bold accusation has no citations, no links, no sources, and no associated research. Most academics would be horrified by such outrageous unsupported claims, but that is the point of the personal webpage. This genre is directed at a specific audience, probably a portion of the less educated general population. These targeted readers are people who would put their trust in this source and would be easily convinced by its sensationalism. Those who make the webpages know that academics are less likely to read their work, while those who do run across it will be open to their message, and the creators know just how to exploit that demographic.

The pro-vaccine faction, on the other hand, definitely makes use of different genres: it is much more likely to find their information in scientific reports and factual handouts. Many times these are aimed towards physicians and academics, but they are also presented in layman's terms for the public. David Satcher, Surgeon General, presented a 1999 speech to the House Committee on Government Reform debating the risks and benefits of vaccination; this is a good example of a more scholarly report. A mainstream source would be the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's handout for parents about commonly asked vaccine questions. These reports also make bold statements, but they are usually accompanied by a citation for a scientific study, or a quote by a respected medical professional. For example, David Satcher introduces his speech by saying, "Vaccines are among the 20th century's most successful and cost-effective public health tools for preventing disease, disability, and death." He follows this with paragraphs of support, including studies and statistics. He also references many recommendations made by academic and scientific associations such as the National Institute of Health. When so many supports and citations are used, the speech naturally takes on a more professional tone, a tone that carries through the other literary forms most often used by the pro-vaccine group. Vaccination advocates know that the people who are more likely to agree with them tend to be more educated, upper class people who have access to and understand such genres as reports and speeches, and who view these sources as more credible, so this is how they generally present their information.

The appeals used on either side of the argument separate just as purposefully as the genres do. The main techniques used are logical and emotional persuasion: both sides employ