← Quick Find
Menü
Vindication of civil liberties against medical authoritarianism and overreaching states
Political leanings are a known driver of people’s attitudes towards scientific findings that are politically charged, and vaccination has become politicised in many countries.
A large body of research has established that across the globe, people with right-wing political views are presently more likely to reject scientific findings than people on the left. In the case of vaccinations, the association tends to be small and finds expression in different ways.
Vaccine opposition in European countries including the UK is related to nationalism, right-wing populism, and individualistic and hierarchical worldviews. Politically-motivated opposition to vaccinations can become particularly acute in the case of mandates.
This theme reflects a worldview that one’s personal choice and civil liberties should not be infringed upon by an overreaching state excessively exercising or abusing its power. There may be concerns that personal and individual freedoms may be overridden by the state.
This worldview places importance on the individual and is also related to the moral stance that individuals should not be sacrificed for the greater good.
Civil liberties are a very sensitive and relevant issue, and there are always political movements trying to restrict them while others are trying to defend them. It is also true that, in the past, there have been isolated but regrettable cases of medical misconduct, in which the rights of patients have not been properly respected. That is the reason why the rights of patients are a central issue in medical ethics, and medical interventions are strictly monitored and regulated. We must always be vigilant and defend our freedoms and rights, which are the basis of a democracy.
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:
Civil liberties are a very sensitive and relevant issue, and there are always political movements trying to restrict them while others are trying to defend them. It is also true that, in the past, there have been isolated but regrettable cases of medical misconduct, in which the rights of patients have not been properly respected. That is the reason why the rights of patients are a central issue in medical ethics, and medical interventions are strictly monitored and regulated. We must always be vigilant and defend our freedoms and rights, which are the basis of a democracy.
Under normal circumstances, there is no inevitable conflict between civil liberties and public health campaigns. Nevertheless, individual liberty needs to get balanced in the context of a pandemic, because fighting the disease benefits society as a whole and that fight may require infringement of individual liberties. We must bear in mind that, in democratic countries such as the UK, public health actions are monitored by independent organisations that ensure compliance with individual rights.
Vaccination campaigns are particularly common in countries with high indices of freedom and economic success whereas they are less common in authoritarian and anti-democratic states. In some of those states, vaccines are not made available to the entire population.
When we think about freedom, we must not only take into account our own freedom of choice, but also that of others; no one is free unless we all have a healthy and safe environment.
Additional information:
Academic references:
English 
French 
Spanish 
German 
Romanian