EDMONTON — There is a “false balance” of opposing views in the media on the value of COVID vaccination before organ transplantation, according to a University of Alberta health law research team, who worry this misrepresentation of the scientific literature can skew public perceptions, behaviours and policies.
“This isn’t just about whether you put your mask on when you go to the grocery store. People are making life-and-death decisions based on misinformation,” says Timothy Caulfield, University of Alberta health law professor.
For the study, Caulfield and Health Law Institute colleague Marco Zenone looked at 74 newspaper articles from Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. that made reference to the vaccination requirement, with 80 per cent of them included arguments in favour, 94 per cent against.
In the presentation of the arguments, the researchers found a consistent pattern: positions reflecting a consensus body of scientific evidence, presented by various health experts, contrasted against views “rooted in personal beliefs or misinformation about the systemic, medical and ethical reasons for the requirement,” say the authors.
Those contrasting arguments — presented by candidates, their families, organ donors and in some cases a political actor or institution — were justified by personal values and beliefs such as freedom, religious rights, choice and self-principles.
“Our study found that the balance between the two positions was almost 50/50 — portrayed as if these are two equally reasonable positions,” says Caulfield.
“That’s not a fair representation of the scientific literature.”
That false balance contributes to “misperceptions about a consensus medical viewpoint and creates controversy where none exists,” say the study’s authors.
To read the full story, click here.
To speak with Timothy Caulfield about the study, please contact:
Debra Clark
U of A communications associate
debra.clark@ualberta.ca