Post-Pandemic Ethos: Reframing Medical Expertise in an Era of Distrust

Jessie Wiggins

Advisor: Heidi Y. Lawrence, PhD, Department of English

Committee Members: Cathryn Molloy, McKinley Green

Horizon Hall, #4225, https://gmu.zoom.us/j/96678119451?pwd=0TqrU45TCRBkuHX6SZWg2w9Seav0vS.1
April 17, 2026, 11:00 AM to 01:00 PM

Abstract:

Public trust in doctors and hospitals declined by more than 30% between April 2020 and January 2024 following the COVID-19 pandemic (Perlis et al., 2024), presenting a kairotic moment to examine medicine’s ethos. Alongside the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, a new phenomenon emerged: concerns about blood donated by individuals who had received these vaccines. This dissertation explores how the rhetoric of expertise shapes and informs patient hesitancy and skepticism surrounding “vaccinated blood.” 

Employing a rhetorical lens, this dissertation asserts that attunement to the rhetorical concept of ethos, or perceived credibility, helps make sense of this phenomenon. Using a framework of ethos to unpack and destabilize appeals to expertise, this project demonstrates the need for a rhetorical approach to patient conversations surrounding controversial topics in medicine. This study analyzes interviews with clinicians and survey responses from patients with vaccinated blood concerns to understand the consequences of increasing distrust in medical institutions. These findings suggest that, in a post-pandemic world: 1) appeals to biomedical expertise, when treated as a self-sufficient ethos, fail to persuade the public; 2) the operationalization of expertise, through principles of objectivity and neutrality, can directly damage medicine’s ethos; and 3) invitational rhetoric offers a promising framework for navigating these challenges. This dissertation argues that medicine’s reliance on expertise alone as a persuasive tactic can ultimately undermine and damage its ethos amid lingering post-pandemic distrust.