Bioethical Dilemma: Researchers Demand Fetal Tissue Access for COVID-19 Treatment

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

blackforest

Well-known member
The Washington Post is generating outrage because of the Trump Administration’s ban on fetal tissue research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...d9f754-685c-11ea-abef-020f086a3fab_story.html

For those with adblockers: Trump ban on research using foetal tissue from abortions blocking potential coronavirus treatments

I’m curious how Catholics and other pro-lifers are to respond. I can’t find anything directly pertaining to this topic in the Catechism, but here is a statement from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...-research-and-vaccines-using-fetal-tissue.cfm

A similarly developed vaccine is also a possibility, but the researcherin this specific case is working on a treatment. A treatment may or may not be an actual cure; it may work simply to alleviate symptoms, so I’d like to know what this researcher has in mind.

If a treatment comes out for COVID-19 based on embryos recently killed - or at least tissue recently acquired - for said purpose, would you accept it?
 
Last edited:
I was going to immediately say no but then I thought, if God forbid my child was dying because he was high risk, could I really reject it to save his life? I’m a Catholic in love with the Lord and I have no idea if God would be ok with that. I think seeing the extreme anguish of a mother’s heart He would be compassionate and forgive. God would be ok with me saving my babies life if a cure were in front of me (?).
 
It’s the Washington Post. Quite literally, every single article they have online has political bias on the top of the page. I think it might be a wise idea to find another source
 
I am staunchly pro-life, and on this issue I want to maintain a consistent life ethic. However, I recognize the tragic reality that babies are being aborted regularly. Their remains are then presumably discarded considering that the parents probably don’t want them for any sort of burial. (Although aborted fetal remains should be buried regardless, I doubt that this is what abortion providers do.) As such, might it be okay then to use these fetal remains for something “useful” or “helpful” to save a life down the line (like with a coronavirus vaccine or treatment) if they are just going to be discarded anyway? Wouldn’t it be better for them to have at least some use, since they are already there and there is nothing you can do about it? Not as a condoning of the means of procurement (i.e., abortion) but just as a recognition of the reality and that there might be something useful there?

I read the USCCB statement, and I do not agree with the premise that “the taking of human life was done precisely in order to provide cells for research (and in some cases precisely to qualify for federal research grants).” Abortion providers (although they can be wily/manipulative) do not go out looking for fetuses to abort so that they can get fetal tissue for research. Women are out there getting abortions, and then the abortion providers decide to do something with it. (Nevertheless, those exposés on Planned Parenthood show that they sometimes sell fetal body parts to labs while laughing and drinking champagne, which is 100% wrong).

Anyway, I post these things not because I wholeheartedly believe them, but as musings for further discussion. Let me know what you think!

May God bless you all with a transformative Lent! 🙂
 
I dont think I would. I think this is the principle of “when it happens in my house”. It’s bad until it affects me. I definitely see how we need compassion, but I also don’t think we can abandon moral principles in times of difficulty. I think that is when morals are precisely in jeopardy.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
It’s the Washington Post. Quite literally, every single article they have online has political bias on the top of the page.
Click to expand...
It is an extremely biased article. I started this thread to discuss from a Catholic, bioethical standpoint whether this bias holds any merit.
MarthaSo said:
if God forbid my child was dying because he was high risk, could I really reject it to save his life?
Click to expand...
We don’t know what this treatment can or cannot do. We do not know whether it’s symptom-alleviating or directly life-saving. Those details are vague. I suppose that broaches another interesting question of what the treatment would have to do in order for you to feel OK accepting it.
Richard_White said:
Abortion providers (although they can be wily/manipulative) do not go out looking for fetuses to abort so that they can get fetal tissue for research
Click to expand...
I’m linking to a pro-choice-spun article to confirm that they are indeed selling the fetal tissue. I’d argue that this creates a conflict of interest in so-called “abortion counseling.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation...-fetal-tissue-acquired-from-abortion-clinics/
Richard_White said:
As such, might it be okay then to use these fetal remains for something “useful” or “helpful” to save a life down the line (like with a coronavirus vaccine or treatment) if they are just going to be discarded anyway?
Click to expand...
It’s an excellent point. Why shoot ourselves in the foot if the material is right in front of us to alleviate suffering and possibly save lives?

Here’s a different way to look at it. As pro-lifers, we don’t discriminate between the born and unborn. Would you feel comfortable if they used the tissue of a deceased loved one, without their consent or yours, and profited from it?

You might. But I think this issue gets bioethically murky. And without any clear Magisterial guidance, I love hearing the views of other CAFers.
 
A classic example of where situation ethics (to which I hold, as an unbeliever) provide far more straightforward solutions to moral issues than Catholic ethics. Catholics, no doubt, will say that this just goes to show we are taking the easy way out. And we will say that the easy way, that is, the way leading to the greatest good for the greatest number is the right way. Situation ethics are used in almost all law-making in democratic countries. Catholic politicians, even the most Catholic politicians, never for example propose legislation that follows Catholic teaching on abortion in every way. Situation ethics cannot accomodate this and therefore there is no practical point in putting such legislation forward.
 
Richard_White said:
As such, might it be okay then to use these fetal remains for something “useful” or “helpful” to save a life down the line (like with a coronavirus vaccine or treatment) if they are just going to be discarded anyway?
Click to expand...
No, this can’t possibly be right.

Among other things, something I recall with horror was the 2004 DNC convention. A part of it happened to be on the radio so I heard it. A woman was giving a speech about how they were going to roll back the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research the Bush Administration had imposed, and the cheers were absolutely wild.

And I knew the reason was that ESC research would provide a justification for abortion, and that that was what those cheers were for.

I mean, think about it. We are against abortion. We say that it is murder.

And yet we benefit from it?

(Not to mention, there is no need for embryonic cells, they can use adult or cord stem cells.)
 
blackforest said:
Would you feel comfortable if they used the tissue of a deceased loved one, without their consent or yours, and profited from it?
Click to expand...
A more appropriate question would be, would you feel comfortable if we used the tissue of people…

Who had been lynched?

Who had been gassed in concentration camps?

Who looks at something like this and says, Great! Lots of tissue for us to work with!
FiveLinden said:
situation ethics (to which I hold, as an unbeliever) provide far more straightforward solutions to moral issues than Catholic ethics. Catholics, no doubt, will say that this just goes to show we are taking the easy way out. And we will say that the easy way, that is, the way leading to the greatest good for the greatest number is the right way.
Click to expand...
The solutions are not more straightforward. Either way is straightfoward; it’s just that one way is more popular.

The greatest good for the greatest number is an absolutely horrible basis for morality. What stops the majority from abusing the minority in the name of the greatest good for us (the majority)?

Eugenics was touted as the greatest good for the greatest number, and it led to terrible things being inflicted on smaller numbers of people…
 
I’ve never undestood the obssession with embyonic stem cell resarch. It’s usually not the only way to research a cure nor the most practical one, yet it’s always discussed rhetorically as a binary ethical issue.

There are other more ethical, more practical and cheaper ways to find a cure, for Coronavirus or for any other illness.
 
FiveLinden said:
A classic example of where situation ethics (to which I hold, as an unbeliever) provide far more straightforward solutions to moral issues than Catholic ethics.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that utilitarian ethics are unique to unbelievers. Even people of faith understand that there’s a time and place to make personal sacrifices for some sort of greater good. If you doubt me, just look at all of the threads of Catholics staying home from public places. Conversely, deontological ethics are not unique to people of faith.

But yes, I do argue that it’s rather simplistic to apply on or the other 100% of the time.
AlbMagno said:
I’ve never undestood the obssession with embyonic stem cell resarch.
Click to expand...
To be fair, ESCR is different from (i.e a more specific form of), fetal tissue research. Assuming you’re pro-life, however, you won’t see any ethical difference, as both involve killing the unborn and harvesting their parts.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
I don’t think that utilitarian ethics are unique to unbelievers. Even people of faith understand that there’s a time and place to make personal sacrifices for some sort of greater good.
Click to expand...
This isn’t making a personal sacrifice; rather, it is sacrificing another person, and then using his or her remains to one’s benefit. One might liken it to cannibalism-the ingesting of another for one’s own sustenance.
 
jeannetherese said:
This isn’t making a personal sacrifice; rather, it is sacrificing another person, and then using his or her remains to one’s benefit. One might liken it to cannibalism-the ingesting of another for one’s own sustenance.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. And the Church and as far as I know this unbeliever agree that cannibalism is fine, even an imperative, if it is needed to sustain life.

I don’t have any theoretical objection other than cultural objections to cannabilism between a consenting donors and dinner but would not advocate this for the aforementioned cultural reasons. These include partial agreement with the Church (but for different reasons) not the need we have to protect and respect the bodies of the dead.

I had understood the Church’s position on the use of stem cells to be no, if there is an option but yes, if it is necessary and there is no option and no ‘person’ is killed for that purpose. Pleas correct me if I am wrong.
 
FiveLinden said:
I had understood the Church’s position on the use of stem cells to be no, if there is an option but yes, if it is necessary and there is no option and no ‘person’ is killed for that purpose. Pleas correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
No, the Church that if vaccines were grown on the “descendant” cells of an aborted baby (product of abortion?) and there was no alternative available, responsibility was remote enough from the patient that the user would not be sinning by being vaccinated with that vaccine, due to the proportionate danger of large numbers going unvaccinated.

This in no way condones using fetal tissue obtained by a direct abortion.
FiveLinden said:
And the Church and as far as I know this unbeliever agree that cannibalism is fine, even an imperative, if it is needed to sustain life.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, yes, but killing the person to eat him is not.
 
For decades, vaccines were created without the use of fetal tissue. I have a suspicion, based on two foundational issues, that may be driving the headlines:
  1. The Catholic Church, and what it stands for, is despised virulently - particularly in the area of moral theology.
  2. Any rules which the Trump administration makes are grounds for outright rejection.
I have not been following who is doing the research, although if limited testing has not been done, it likely will be proceeding within days, by at least one biological research team. Other, I presume, are also proceeding. No mention was made in what little I saw that anyone already proceeding is doing so based on fetal research.
 
I should have been more clear: this in no way indicates the Church condones abortion.

For example, the problem is that the tissue comes from babies who were intentionally killed.

If a woman had a natural miscarriage, those cells could be used, with the parents’ consent, just as I could consent to my body’s being used for research, etc, after my death–but this would in no way indicate that it would be all right to murder me.

Currently, fetal tissue or stem cells are obtained from aborted babies. This is supposed to act as some sort of justification for abortion, as I pointed out above.

Relying on miscarried babies would be difficult, so we don’t do that.
 
Annie said:
Currently, fetal tissue or stem cells are obtained from aborted babies. This is supposed to act as some sort of justification for abortion, as I pointed out above.
Click to expand...
I have never, in 50 years of following the debate on abortion, heard anyone say that obtaining stems cells is a ‘justification’ for abortion, or any idea like it. Do you have an example of this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top