← Quick Find
Menü
Concerns raised by groups practicing a lifestyle that avoids modern technology
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 comprises arguments raised by certain groups that reject modern practices, such as Mennonites (e.g., Amish and Hutterites) and Haredi Jews.
Although immunisation is not directly prohibited by their theological conceptions, these communities practise a lifestyle that avoids modern technology—including medical advances like vaccines.
Modern technology is not inherently good and, in fact, there are cases of technologies that may have detrimental effects and are currently strictly regulated, such as nuclear power—after all, tools can be used with good or bad intentions.
We all have the right to choose our own lifestyle and, therefore, we should respect people who voluntarily choose to limit the use of technological innovations. These lifestyles may even have positive effects, such as more physical activity or more meaningful interpersonal relationships.
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:
Modern technology is not inherently good and, in fact, there are cases of technologies that may have detrimental effects and are currently strictly regulated, such as nuclear power—after all, tools can be used with good or bad intentions.
We all have the right to choose our own lifestyle and, therefore, we should respect people who voluntarily choose to limit the use of technological innovations. These lifestyles may even have positive effects, such as more physical activity or more meaningful interpersonal relationships.
Inoculation is a very old practice and was common in China and India 1,000 years ago. Technological advances have eradicated many diseases and increased human life expectancy by several decades, with vaccines having saved more lives than any other medical invention—indeed, people who are not in favour of technological advances also benefit from vaccines.
Virtually no alternative lifestyle can do without certain basic technological advances that serve to protect the lives of the most vulnerable people—and immunisation against dangerous diseases is by no means more dispensable than electricity, safe drinking water or telephone communication. Lifestyles are not sacred, immutable or inherently good; they are constantly changing to adapt to our needs and ethical standards.
Additional information:
Academic references:
English 
French 
Spanish 
German 
Romanian