What Would Be A Respectable Definition of an ‘Anti-Vaxxer’?

Written by Ian Brighthope on September 1, 2025. Posted in Current News

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

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

1. The right to voluntary and informed consent in all medical interventions.
2. The right to access transparent, accurate, and independent scientific information.
3. The right to pursue personal and family health decisions free from coercion or stigmatization.

Shared Responsibilities

1. The responsibility to respect the autonomy and choices of others, regardless of position.
2. The responsibility to engage with scientific evidence in good faith and to support open, civil dialogue.
3. 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.

See more here substack.com

Header image: Getty Images

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.