By Gavin Mackintosh-
An Oxford Professor’s criticism of tennis star Djokovic’s insistence not to take the vaccines has been criticized as flawed and unethical, on the grounds that he claims the publicly expressed views of the tennis star would influence others.
Professor Dominic Wilkinson said Novak Djokovic’s comments about Covid-19 vaccination will “cause harm”, because his views are “enormously influential” and could “reinforce beliefs” among people who are not as fit and healthy as the tennis star.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The professor of is a consultant neonatologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital, and Director of Medical Ethics at the University of Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Also, Associate Editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics and Managing Editor of the Journal of Practical Ethics, Professor Wilkinson is an accomplished academic at Britain’s top university, but appears to have jumped on the bandwagon of subjecting to open criticism and marginalization, those like Djokovic and others who feel uncomfortable with taking the vaccine, ignoring their many complex concerns they have.
Although the main voices heard in the mainstream media are critical against those minority of people who are unvaccinated(most people in the Uk are indeed vaccinated), the general view of the British public established through research is that the media narrative in victimizing those who are unvaccinated is unfair, and authoritarian. In many, but not all cases, the bashing or branding of those who do not subscribe to the louder voices, are not properly explained.
Professor Wilkinson said that the response to the coronavirus pandemic should be collective and suggested that libertarian views on vaccination of “my body, my decision, my choice”, presents a “fundamental ethical problem”, but himself failed to address the ethical problem of not addressing the concerns the tennis star and others who do not want to be vaccinated actually have.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The professor’s position was effectively that unless high profile individuals like Djokovic agree with the vaccination initiative, they are not ethical. The hypocrisy of the position is exposed in the unethical stance the implication of the professor himself reveals.
‘If somebody who is an incredibly high-profile, high-achieving sportsman doesn’t have the vaccine and says so publicly, and there’s lots of attention to it, even if that’s not his intention, that will have the effect of supporting those who are opposed to the vaccine’, he said.
‘Having a right to a view, and the potential effect of that view, are two different things, researcher and analyst Amie Smart told The Eye Of Media.Com. The fact people who already feel opposed to the vaccine may feel extra support from Djokovic’s words is totally separate from the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his expressed view to say his body is his choice.
‘Djokovic’s view can be said to be unreasonable if his decision not to be vaccinated can infect others in a way that will not occur if he were vaccinated. The problem is that even double vaccinated people are known to have been infected and to have spread the virus, which makes the idea of victimizing those who opt against the vaccine seem irrational and bullish’, she added.
The professor’s notion of ethics appears to be contradictory because he is criticizing Djokavic for expressing his position on not wanting to be vaccinated, and blaming him for airing views he claims will support others who are already opposed to the vaccine.
The view expressed by the academic is the direct opposite of what the tennis star told the BBC that he was “never against vaccination”. Djokavic said: “I’ve always supported the freedom to choose what you put in your body.”
He told the broadcaster that he had “always been a great student of wellness, wellbeing, health, nutrition” and said that he would be willing to forgo future tournaments if mandatory jabs are a condition to compete.
He added: “The reason why I was deported from Australia was because the Minister for Immigration used his discretion to cancel my visa based on his perception that I might create some anti-vax sentiment in the country or in the city, which I completely disagree with.”
Influence
Prof Wilkinson went on to state that Djokovic will pose a negative influence on others by expressing his views openly. He told the PA news agency: “It seems to me that he doesn’t have a political agenda, that he isn’t aiming to spread his views about vaccines, but nevertheless, his views – as evidenced in this high profile interview – are enormously influential.
“So one thing which he doesn’t take into account, which I think somebody who is in the public eye should take into account, is that their behaviour will influence other people.
“One ethical reason why people who are in the public eye ought to behave in a way that is in a sense, a kind of higher standard than everybody else, is because the behaviour is very influential, it teaches other people how to behave.
“So if somebody who is an incredibly high-profile high-achieving sportsman doesn’t have the vaccine and says so publicly, and there’s lots of attention to it, even if that’s not his intention, that will have the effect of supporting those who are opposed to the vaccine.”
Prof Wilkinson added: “The fundamental ethical problem with a libertarian approach to vaccines, which is ‘my body, my decision, my choice’, is that vaccines are not just about you – they’re about all of us’.
Unethical
The professor can be said to have been unethical himself by expressing opinions that could be said to be hypocritical. The professor does not have the same high profile as Djokovic, but himself wields influence through the media over other members of the media and the public, by influencing others to marginalize individuals who express their views about not wanting to be vaccinated, without having regard to the reasons of those groups of people who do not want to be vaccinated.
Professor Wilkinson does not address the fact that vaccination does not guarantee protecting people from catching the virus once double vaccinated, nor does it prevent people from spreading the virus. These concerns are spread among the British public but rarely addressed by those victimizing people who express discomfort in being vaccinated out of nit knowing enough about vaccines.
Many of the vaccines available today are indeed generally safe, but not everybody feels that safe taking them, which calls for better engagement with the public about those present concerns among such groups.
He continued: “And of course, that extends to the messages that he sends, because it’s all very well for him to say: ‘I don’t want to have the vaccine. I’m a super-fit athlete, I’m not at risk.’
“But when he comes out and says it in such a public way that does cause harm, because it potentially reinforces that those beliefs among other people who aren’t like him super-fit and healthy, and who may well be at serious risk of getting ill.
“So I think that’s the kind of problem with the short-sighted, self-centred libertarian view about vaccines.”
If the professor’s views are not short sighted, he needs to embody the wider picture and engage the British public about the real issues surrounding vaccine hesitancy among the relatively fewer proportion of those who are not vaccinated in the Uk. This should first occur before addressing Djokovic who like many of those in his country who are hesitant about vaccine uptake , have concerns of their own.
Professor Wilkinson was contacted by The Eye Of Media.Com to respond to questions about his position, but declined to comment.
Image:practicalethix.ox.ac.uk
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar