← Quick Find

Conspiracist Ideation

Distrust

Unwarranted beliefs

Worldview and politics

Religious concerns

Moral concerns

Fear and phobias

Distorted risk perception

Perceived self interest

Epistemic relativism

Reactance

When it comes to vaccines - why are people talking about 'Absence of liability' ?

Pharmaceutical companies are not liable for vaccine damage

One of the strongest predictors of vaccine hesitancy is people’s general mistrust of authorities and those perceived as working for them.

The distrust is often expressed in claims about vested interests, or it reveals itself as a lack of knowledge about vaccinations.

It can be directed towards different targets, for example:

  • Health and medical professionals and organisations.
  • Pharmaceutical companies.
  • Governments.
  • Scientists.
  • The ‘medical establishment’.

It can also be directed towards the scientific process and to vaccines themselves.

Although distrust is related to conspiracist beliefs, arguments framed within this attitude root are distinct in that the reasons for distrust may be due to a person’s lived experience (e.g., having experienced discrimination in the healthcare system). Arguments stemming from distrust also need not relate to conspiracies. Instead, distrust often manifests as vague statements, full of suspicion and uncertainty, with conclusions drawn based on the source of the message.

In this theme, distrust stems from a perceived lack of accountability. For example, companies and healthcare providers may not be liable for ‘vaccine damage’. Authorities may display a lack of transparency about vaccine-related decisions, and regulation may be seen as either lacking or poor. Authority figures such as healthcare professionals and politicians not getting vaccinated also leads to distrust.

Is there any truth in it?

Distrust towards authorities is sometimes justified. For example, some people may be concerned about vaccines because, due to the emergency use authorisation of the COVID-19 vaccines, pharmaceutical companies were temporarily shielded from liability. People may be told that pharmaceutical companies involved in developing and manufacturing vaccines sign liability waivers. This generates confusion about the risks involved. It is good to be curious about what the true risks are and what they mean when making vaccination decisions.

What could I say to someone fixed on this belief?

Dialogue between patients and healthcare professionals is most productive if it is guided by empathy, and an opportunity for the patient to affirm the reasons underlying their attitudes and to express understanding for that. That’s why it is important to understand the attitude roots behind people’s overt opinions. To affirm a person’s underlying attitude root does not mean we need to agree with the specifics of their argument. For example, we can acknowledge that:

Distrust towards authorities is sometimes justified. For example, some people may be concerned about vaccines because, due to the emergency use authorisation of the COVID-19 vaccines, pharmaceutical companies were temporarily shielded from liability. People may be told that pharmaceutical companies involved in developing and manufacturing vaccines sign liability waivers. This generates confusion about the risks involved. It is good to be curious about what the true risks are and what they mean when making vaccination decisions.



Having set the stage through this (partial) affirmation, we can then proceed to correct the patient’s particular misconception.

Liability is a complex issue that varies across countries and across vaccines and other infection control measures. For example, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the US gave manufacturers liability immunity for all kinds of protective measures (not just vaccines). In an emergency, this can help us tackle the disease—it is important to remember that people are more likely to suffer damage from catching the disease than from getting vaccinated.

In the UK, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK gave vaccine manufacturers immunity against being sued. However, companies are never exempt from their duty to ensure vaccines meet regulatory safety standards and will be held liable if they produce defective vaccines.

In addition, the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme in the UK is a compensation scheme in place for the rare occasion when people suffer adverse effects from an authorised vaccine. Similar compensation schemes exist in other countries, and are sometimes even funded by contributions from pharmaceutical companies.

Where can I find out more?

Additional information: 

Academic references:

en_GBEnglish
fr_FRFrench es_ESSpanish de_DEGerman ro_RORomanian en_GBEnglish

MISINFORMATION & DISTRUST

One of the strongest predictors of vaccine hesitancy is people’s general mistrust of authorities, pharmaceutical companies, scientists, the medical “establishment”, and scientific research methods and findings. The distrust is often expressed in claims about vested interests or a lack of knowledge about vaccinations. It can be directed towards different targets, for example, health and medical authorities or professionals, pharmaceutical companies, the government, and the scientific process and vaccines themselves.

 

Although distrust is related to conspiracist ideation, arguments framed within this attitude root are distinct in that the reasons for distrust may be due to a person’s lived experience (e.g., having experienced discrimination in the healthcare system). Arguments stemming from distrust also need not relate to conspiracies. Instead, distrust often manifests as vague statements, full of suspicion and uncertainty, with conclusions drawn based on the source of the message.