Working in healthcare, especially with everything going on with the new CDC vaccine recommendations, is a little scary and frustrating. A few things have come up for me as I listen to the things anti-vaxxers say and how some people in the medical community respond. One that has been on my mind is whether it is worthwhile to debate conspiracy theorists and some of these staunch anti-vaxxers. The common argument is that it’s not worth it. You are not going to change their minds, and you are giving a platform to baseless and completely meritless ideas. The cynical part of me agrees with this and thinks there are more valuable ways to spend time and attention.
That said, I’ve always wanted to believe in the better nature of other people, and I do believe that at each person’s core is someone who wants to do good based on the information (and intellectual capacity) they have at a given moment. And that anyone can be convinced of anything with enough information (one way or another). The idea that someone’s perspective is beyond reproach or without merit is, I think, arrogant and contributes to a harmful culture of discourse, something that I think significantly plagues progressive movements. Progressive ideas are heralded (by progressives) as these absolute moral high grounds, and if you don’t agree with them, you are a “shit person,” which is usually not the case.
Some of the words of Dr. Paul Offit, vaccine champion and legend over at CHOP, helped sway me back towards the idea that it is worthwhile to debate the “undebatable.” He argues that these are not opportunities to convince the “undebatable” person, but rather to educate those who witness the debate.
There is a Jubilee series (which is somewhat controversial) called Surrounded, where 1 person from one POV takes turns debating 20(?) people from the opposing (often at the far extreme) POV, or vice versa. People make the argument that I mentioned about giving a platform to meritless ideas. I was watching clips from one of the recent episodes with Dr. Mike vs. MAGA/RFK Jr. people. At least from the clips I saw (I still need to watch the whole thing), Dr. Mike does a good job of addressing the concerns of the people without being judgmental or condescending. He finds common ground and areas of agreement and then builds his arguments from there. He acknowledges the validity of people’s concerns and fears, which is key—if not for the 20 people in the room, then for the millions of people who are watching at home. I imagine the Jubilee viewership is predominantly left-leaning, but based on the comments, there are some viewers from the extreme other side that likely will not be convinced. This indicates to me there are more moderate people in between that may be swayed if Dr. Mike did a good job, because, at the end of the day, I do believe that facts and consistent reasoning win out in the hearts and minds of most people.
When I am in clinic talking to patients and parents about vaccination (either childhood vaccines or adult vaccines), there is no audience watching that I am trying to convince; there is only the patient (or parent) in front of me. I will say a huge number of them are not open to discussion when they decline vaccines. They don’t have questions; they don’t want information; they just say no. While that is within their right, I can’t help but think about if there is anything I can do to create a more open environment in which they would be comfortable enough to share their fears or help me understand their point of view. A lot of that comes from trust that is built over a long time, which is hard to do as a resident, but I will keep trying.
nANIMOv 