Questioning and Disputing Vaccination Policies. Scientists and Experts in the Italian Public Debate

Most literature about vaccine hesitancy has been focused on parental attitudes. Less attention has been devoted to both scientists and experts (general practitioners, pediatricians, health care professionals and science journalists) who raise criticism about immunization policies and intervene in the public debate. This consideration aims to balance the current emphasis in the literature on parents’ attitudes about vaccination, offering a complementary angle to reframe and widen the controversy. Focusing on scientists and experts (who can shape and feed parents and people's attitude), an unattended complex picture of multiple attitudes towards vaccines and vaccinations has been discovered through a qualitative content analysis (QCA) of texts (appeared in the Italian press, TV and pop-science books) related to the harsh public debate, held between March 2017 and November 2018, triggered by the legislative proposal of making ten vaccinations mandatory for children. Unlike oversemplications that misleading dichotomies (such as orthodox and heterodox positions, Western science / Western medicine versus alternative medicine) reproduce, the analysis reveals nine different positions along the continuum of immunisation attitudes, ranging from radical acceptance of vaccinations (both compulsory and recommended) to radical rejection, which constitute a fuzzy set. Consequently, a twofold reality emerges: on the surface, the conflict seems between pro-vaxxers versus hesitant, pro-choice and anti-vaxxers; beneath it is amid standardized versus a varieties of contextual and personalised approaches to health.