Search

Abstract While vaccine-critical activism has been widely documented and discussed, comparatively little has been said about the concerted response of pro-vaccine activists defending the majority view. This paper explores two case studies of pro-vaccine activism in Australia and the United States (US). It shows how pro-vaccine views and behaviours can take varying forms due to different aims and methods of engagement – oppositional counteractivities in favour of vaccination in Australia, and issue-based advocacy as part of a political alliance in the US. The focus in Australia comes from a pro-science stance and includes 'skeptics' against pseudoscience directly opposing vaccine-critical groups. In the US, the focus takes the form of an issue-specific campaign that has arisen from existing pro-vaccine parent blogs and discussion groups pushing for policy change rather than public confrontation. These case studies exemplify how pro-vaccine activism can take varying forms of either reinforcing the mainstream view or countering digression from it. Drawing on qualitative research, this paper aims to examine the types of practices and strategies employed by activists to voice their support of vaccination, and discusses the means, messages, and motivations of pro-vaccine activism. It ends with an argument for why a study – of public support for in addition to studying public opposition to vaccination – can help to better understand vaccination views and behaviours. These findings have wider implications for the study of counter-activism and the polarisation of civil society groups. Highlights • Pro-vaccine views and behaviours are understudied. • Case studies on pro-vaccine activist groups in Australia and the United States. • Pro-vaccine activism reinforces the mainstream or counters digression from it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper revisits the concept of medicalisation and considers its value as a framework for understanding the ongoing development of new reproductive technologies, and their impact on women’s reproductive decision-making. This evaluation is drawn from a qualitative discourse analysis of the public debate about the first extended cycle oral contraception (ECOC) to suppress menstruation in the United States of America in 2003/2004, and subsequent interviews with women living in Australia who had already extended their cycles without it being medically approved for widespread practice. Firstly, the debates about menstrual suppression are couched within a discussion of the ongoing usefulness of medicalisation as an analytical tool. It is posited that medicalisation occurs in a particular social and cultural moment, and is a dynamic process where dominant social relations can be both reproduced and challenged. Secondly, qualitative interviews with women about practices of menstrual suppression are used to explore the productive nature of agency in this particular medicalisation contest. Specifically, the ways in which these women engage with the discourses of ‘risk’, ‘choice’ and ‘nature’, as canvassed by menstrual suppression advocates, reveal accommodation and modification as much as resistance and contradiction. This paper suggests that if the concept of medicalisation is to have ongoing traction as a frame of analysis, such a critique must incorporate a generative discussion of agency. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]