IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v157y2016icp103-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Of natural bodies and antibodies: Parents' vaccine refusal and the dichotomies of natural and artificial

Author

Listed:
  • Reich, Jennifer A.

Abstract

Despite eliminating incidences of many diseases in the United States, parents are increasingly rejecting vaccines for their children. This article examines the reasons parents offer for doing so. It argues that parents construct a dichotomy between the natural and the artificial, in which vaccines come to be seen as unnecessary, ineffective, and potentially dangerous. Using qualitative data from interviews and observations, this article shows first, how parents view their children's bodies, particularly from experiences of birth and with infants, as naturally perfect and in need of protection. Second, parents see vaccines as an artificial intervention that enters the body unnaturally, through injection. Third, parents perceive immunity occurring from illness to be natural and superior and immunity derived from vaccines as inferior and potentially dangerous. Finally, parents highlight the ways their own natural living serves to enhance their children's immunity rendering vaccines unnecessary. Taken together, this dichotomy allows parents to justify rejection of vaccines as a form of protecting children's health. These findings expose perceptions of science, technology, health, and the meanings of the body in ways that can inform public health efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Reich, Jennifer A., 2016. "Of natural bodies and antibodies: Parents' vaccine refusal and the dichotomies of natural and artificial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 103-110.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:157:y:2016:i:c:p:103-110
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616301472
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Poltorak, Mike & Leach, Melissa & Fairhead, James & Cassell, Jackie, 2005. "'MMR talk' and vaccination choices: An ethnographic study in Brighton," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 709-719, August.
    2. Bell, Susan E. & Figert, Anne E., 2012. "Medicalization and pharmaceuticalization at the intersections: Looking backward, sideways and forward," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 775-783.
    3. Casiday, Rachel Elizabeth, 2007. "Children's health and the social theory of risk: Insights from the British measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) controversy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 1059-1070, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jordan Luttrell-Freeman & Timothy J. Bungum & Jennifer R. Pharr, 2021. "A Systematic Review of the Rationale for Vaccine Hesitancy among American Parents," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(8), pages 1-77, August.
    2. Cao, Yu & Li, Heng, 2023. "Everything has a limit: How intellectual humility lowers the preference for naturalness as reflected in drug choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    3. Rosenfeld, Daniel L. & Tomiyama, A. Janet, 2022. "Jab my arm, not my morality: Perceived moral reproach as a barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    4. Court, Jay & Carter, Stacy M. & Attwell, Katie & Leask, Julie & Wiley, Kerrie, 2021. "Labels matter: Use and non-use of ‘anti-vax’ framing in Australian media discourse 2008–2018," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    5. Sundstrom, Beth & Smith, Ellie & Delay, Cara & Luque, John S. & Davila, Caroline & Feder, Bailey & Paddock, Vincenza & Poudrier, Jessie & Pierce, Jennifer Young & Brandt, Heather M., 2019. "A reproductive justice approach to understanding women's experiences with HPV and cervical cancer prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 289-297.
    6. Katie Attwell & Samantha B. Meyer & Paul R. Ward, 2018. "The Social Basis of Vaccine Questioning and Refusal: A Qualitative Study Employing Bourdieu’s Concepts of ‘Capitals’ and ‘Habitus’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Skea, Zoë C. & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian & Russell, Elizabeth, 2008. "'Avoiding harm to others' considerations in relation to parental measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination discussions - An analysis of an online chat forum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1382-1390, November.
    2. Kasstan, Ben, 2021. "“If a rabbi did say ‘you have to vaccinate,’ we wouldn't”: Unveiling the secular logics of religious exemption and opposition to vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    3. Barker, Kristin K. & Galardi, Tasha R., 2011. "Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1351-1358, April.
    4. Gordana Tkalec & Iva Rosanda Žigo & Žarka Dolinara, 2017. "Film Reception by Means of New Media or How the Film Escaped from the Cinema," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 3, January -.
    5. Dew, Kevin & Norris, Pauline & Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2015. "Moral discourses and pharmaceuticalised governance in households," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 272-279.
    6. Manca, Terra, 2018. "Fear, rationality, and risky others: A qualitative analysis of physicians' and nurses' accounts of popular vaccine narratives," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 119-125.
    7. Başaran, Oyman, 2020. "“The self-making of the scientific circumciser (fenni sünnetçi):” the medicalization of male circumcision in Turkey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    8. Mamo, Laura & Epstein, Steven, 2014. "The pharmaceuticalization of sexual risk: Vaccine development and the new politics of cancer prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 155-165.
    9. Terrence D. Hill & Jason A. Ford & Harvey L. Nicholson, 2022. "Education and polypharmacy: A national study of racial and ethnic variations," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(7), pages 1687-1705, December.
    10. Kay Fullenkamp, Natalie, 2021. "Playing Russian roulette with their kids: Experts' construction of ignorance in the California and Ohio measles outbreaks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    11. Valentine, Kylie, 2010. "A consideration of medicalisation: Choice, engagement and other responsibilities of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 950-957, September.
    12. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    13. Jean Adams & Rebekah J McNaughton & Sarah Wigham & Darren Flynn & Laura Ternent & Janet Shucksmith, 2016. "Acceptability of Parental Financial Incentives and Quasi-Mandatory Interventions for Preschool Vaccinations: Triangulation of Findings from Three Linked Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    14. Sariola, Salla & Ravindran, Deapica & Kumar, Anand & Jeffery, Roger, 2015. "Big-pharmaceuticalisation: Clinical trials and Contract Research Organisations in India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 239-246.
    15. Blumenstock, Shari M. & Papp, Lauren M., 2021. "Substance use behaviors in the daily lives of U.S. college students reporting recent use: The varying roles of romantic relationships," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    16. Arribas-Ayllon, Michael, 2016. "After geneticization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 132-139.
    17. Çelik, Kezban & Turan, Sevgi & Üner, Sarp, 2021. "I'm a mother, therefore I question”: Parents' legitimation sources of and hesitancy towards early childhood vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    18. Chabrol, Fanny & David, Pierre-Marie & Krikorian, Gaëlle, 2017. "Rationing hepatitis C treatment in the context of austerity policies in France and Cameroon: A transnational perspective on the pharmaceuticalization of healthcare systems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 243-250.
    19. Manca, Terra, 2018. "“One of the greatest medical success stories:” Physicians and nurses’ small stories about vaccine knowledge and anxieties," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 182-189.
    20. Slagboom, M. Nienke & Bröer, Christian & Berg, Jonathan, 2021. "Negotiating ADHD: Pragmatic medicalization and creolization in urban India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:157:y:2016:i:c:p:103-110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.