When public health debates become abusive

Brian Martin

Abstract


Ideally, public health debates are conducted civilly and focus on the evidence and the public good. In practice, many debates deviate markedly from this approach, for example with personal denigration of opponents. To help assess methods used in public health debates, a classificatory system of ideal types is introduced, with the categories of deliberative democracy, marketplace of ideas, marketplace of abusive comment, dominant orthodoxy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. To illustrate how methods can be fitted into these ideal types, instances of opposition to the Australian Vaccination Network are examined. Being able to identify the types of methods used in particular debates provides public health advocates with opportunities to reflect on the impact of different methods deployed and how they relate to public participation and free speech.

Keywords


public health, controversies, free speech, debates, vaccination

Full Text:

PDF

 

Please feel free to comment on this article:

blog comments powered by Disqus


Editorial Offices:

Department of Family and Social Medicine
Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center
Bronx, New York, 10461

Asociación Latinoamericana de Medicina Social (ALAMES)/Latin American Social Medicine Association:
ALAMES, Southern Cone Region, Cassinoni 1440 – 802, CP 11200 Montevideo, Uruguay.
ALAMES, Mexico Region, San Jerónimo 70 – 1, Col. La Otra Banda, CP 01090, México, D.F.