A Respectable Definition of “Anti-Vaxxer”
My definition moves away from division and reframes the debate ethically: not “anti” versus “pro,” but a plurality of perspectives bound by shared rights and mutual responsibilities.
The term “anti-vaxxer” can be reframed from a divisive insult into a description of a philosophical position: one that prioritises choice, accountability, and innovation in medicine — while still leaving room for dialogue with those who support vaccination.
A Respectable Definition of Anti-Vaxxer
Anti-vaxxer (noun):
An individual who questions, hesitates about, or declines one or more vaccines, often out of concern for safety, effectiveness, personal health circumstances, or principles of voluntary informed consent. Rather than being defined solely by opposition, many in this group advocate for:
Choice and Autonomy: The right to voluntary, fully informed consent in medical decision-making without coercion.
Scientific Rigor: More transparent and independent research into both vaccine-induced immunity and natural immunity.
Safety and Innovation: The development of safer, more effective vaccines and the exploration of complementary or alternative preventive measures.
Public Dialogue: Open debate without stigmatisation, where dissent is respected as part of scientific progress.
Respecting Rights and Responsibilities
Rights of “anti-vaxxers”:
To refuse or accept vaccines without coercion.
To advocate for informed consent and medical transparency.
To raise concerns about vaccine policy, industry influence, or long-term safety and effectiveness.
Responsibilities of “anti-vaxxers”:
To base their advocacy on credible evidence when possible.
To recognise the role vaccines may have played in controlling disease historically.
To respect the rights of others who choose vaccination.
Rights of “pro-vaxxers”:
To protect themselves and their families through effective vaccination.
To expect access to safe, effective, and affordable vaccines.
To participate in evidence-based health programs.
Responsibilities of “pro-vaxxers”:
To acknowledge that no medical intervention is without risk.
To respect the principle of voluntary informed consent for others.
To support continued research into both vaccine and natural immunity.
Shared Values
Both groups — those skeptical of vaccines and those supportive — ultimately share several important values:
Health and safety for families and communities.
Better science, better transparency, and better therapeutics.
The importance of respecting human rights while advancing public health.
Vaccine Perspectives: Ethical Definition
Vaccine perspectives represent a spectrum of legitimate positions on immunization, encompassing both supportive and critical viewpoints. These perspectives, when framed within the principles of medical ethics, human rights, and scientific integrity, are essential to a balanced and respectful public discourse.
Pro-vaccination positions affirm vaccines as a proven means of reducing infectious disease burden and protecting public health. Adherents emphasize broad and equitable access, reliance on scientific consensus, and the integration of vaccination into established preventive health measures.
Vaccine-critical positions raise questions or decline one or more vaccines, often citing concerns of safety, efficacy, necessity, or ethical principles of autonomy and informed consent. Many within this group advocate for medical choice, transparency, improved independent research into both vaccine-induced and natural immunity, and the continuous development of safer, more effective immunization strategies.
Shared Rights
The right to voluntary and informed consent in all medical interventions.
The right to access transparent, accurate, and independent scientific information.
The right to pursue personal and family health decisions free from coercion or stigmatization.
Shared Responsibilities
The responsibility to respect the autonomy and choices of others, regardless of position.
The responsibility to engage with scientific evidence in good faith and to support open, civil dialogue.
The responsibility to contribute to the advancement of safe, effective, and ethical public health practices, acknowledging both the benefits and limitations of current medical interventions.
This definition moves away from division and reframes the debate ethically: not “anti” versus “pro,” but a plurality of perspectives bound by shared rights and mutual responsibilities.
Ian Brighthope
My experience with "antivaxxer" was in my "Fairwork" mediation with my workplace's lawyer and an arbiter.
Work's lawyer called me an anti-vaxxer at the "mediation", and no reprimand to him by the "mediator"...
Despite the guy screaming the term at me like he was a triggered looney (correction, he was a triggered looney).
It's a strange term to spew out anyway, for a professional ...
That w@nker didn't know me... Especially that I HAD taken other vaxs in the past without thought really, so how does refusing a rushed genetic potion that's not a vaccine make me antivaxxer?
Yet there he was like a frightened kid, using some term he'd been brainwashed to use...
Just goes to show you can be smart in one area like law, yet dumb as rocks when it comes to science and biology.
For fair work I provided science, true science from established journals eg Lancet, British Medical Journal, other facts and figures... My workplace , oh, they provided nothing.
No surprise that mediation wasn't successful, but I thought who would want to work for a bunch of idiots who can't respect bodily autonomy? My boss is not a doctor... Nor is he "boss" of my body.
To the point, I had already experienced a mild (PCR "proven") covid anyway, so I was immune to the latest variant... Better than any sort of vaccine could supply.
Why risk your health with an extinct Wuhan virus injection?? Let alone the cellular dangers of mod mRNA transfection.
I have a better immunity (IgA mucosal antibodies) that an outdated and known-to-be dangerous/fatal injection just can't supply.
I could go on all day with various points and flaws in their logic, not to mention we weren't a mandated industry either...
And also, already had an employee down with doctor confirmed covid vaccine induced PERICARDITIS...
On OH&S grounds any mandate should have been terminated.
Since leaving work, four sudden cancer cases... Three are dead within months, one a sudden pancreatic cancer, the other a sudden lymphatic cancer (also in the bowel and organs), another one was a brain tumour... One is still alive and has B cell lymphoma...
So sad for those deceived, and I thank God I studied microbiology briefly at uni...
Yeah, antivaxxer... lol...
But it's worked on the ignorant sadly.
Good article and an elegant way forward. But my feelings and thoughts are that those who use the term pejoratively are very unlikely to understand the nuanced point of finding common ground. They prefer to keep it as a dumb and ill-informed insult. It serves them well, and there is no need to engage in any complex discussions possibly harder with their Vax affected brains and failing critical faculties.