Escaping chaos

Throughout the 2016 election cycle, it seemed as though political factions could not even agree on objectively verifiable facts. As a medical student, the tone was reminiscent of another familiar debate where opposing sides disagree on the facts and emotions run high: vaccination. The consternation and debate over vaccines is not novel to the modern era. Cotton Mather, a proponent of smallpox inoculations in colonial Boston, had his house firebombed for his troubles. Recently, a large measles outbreak in California and subsequent legislation strengthening vaccine requirements thrust the topic into the national spotlight again.

The reliance on personalized social media feeds for communication and information was cited as a potential contributor to the tenor of election discourse. Feeds are tailored to feature individuals of similar opinions creating echo chambers of consenting opinions and facilitating isolation from opposing views. It is likely that the same reliance on social media also fuels divisions in the vaccine debate. As a medical student, I strongly believe in the efficacy and safety of vaccines. While a vocal minority contend this point, on social media, I have never seen a friend question my views. This may be an organic product of the demographics of my friends or the product of an algorithm. Nevertheless, it seemed time to learn about those who disagree with my position.

I reached out to Megan Heimer a mother of five, a law school grad, a naturopath and blogger. Her blog topics cover a variety of topics including parenting, nutrition and vaccines. Megan made the decision not to vaccinate her children and writes extensively about the factors that led her to that decision. While we knew we would disagree on several points, she was game to find time for a conversation.

Both Megan and I agree that there are risks and benefits to vaccines; however, we disagree on which is greater. Our disagreement is not due to a deficiency of research on either side. We have read the same papers and the same books. It is abundantly clear when talking with Megan that she is not ignorant or illogical. Rather her logic stems from a fundamentally different context for understanding of the same data. In our two worlds, different organizations are trustworthy and outcomes are evaluated through different historical contexts. Some of the sources that I find most authoritative are the same that Megan finds most questionable. As a law graduate with a background in government she sees information from the CDC and the American Association of Pediatrics as tainted by financial conflicts of interest, while I see them as valuable and trusted sources.

In talking with Megan, I asked her why she thought this debate is so deeply emotional. In my experience, few topics in medicine seem to raise the same level of anger, frustration and suspicion. Her answer stated the obvious in an elegant way: because we make it emotional. On both sides of the debate we use an emotional narrative to frame our arguments. Furthermore, the narrative pushed by the opposing side seems to directly invalidate the lived experience of the other.

Those concerned about the safety of vaccines highlight the experiences of children who experience regression in cognition, serious illness or death around the time of vaccination. To some parents, the link could not be clearer, a devastating consequence tied to a concrete event. A medical establishment that argues the outcome is merely a function of correlation repudiates their lived experience as a parent. A medical establishment that assures that vaccines are safe and effective seems to callously disregard the suffering of their child and their family.

However, on the other side of the equation are the lived experiences of medical providers and researchers. The insinuation that doctors are unquestioningly regurgitating a script dictated by the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of a child’s health is an affront to those who dedicate years of their lives to the study of learning to heal. The suggestion that doctors have been either duped by corporate interests or are knowingly pushing a treatment that harms children seems to malign their intelligence and character.

My conversation with Megan confirmed my belief that those on both sides of this debate come to the table with the intention of protecting the health and wellbeing of children. I find it highly unlikely that those who chose not to vaccinate their children are part of some sinister plot to reintroduce deadly childhood diseases. On the other hand, I also find it hard to believe that doctors are party to some sinister plot to put children in danger just to turn a profit.