Vaccines from aborted fetuses

[Black_Jaque]

This dilemna has bothered me for quite some time.

I feel like a few moral theologians skimmed the vatican response and found this statement:

Quote:

. . . vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid *passive material cooperation *is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, *a. proportional reason, *in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.

Then put the paper down and quit reading/thinking about it. So now, just about every so-called expert I speak with says, “Yep, go ahead you can use 'em”.

I cannot find a single expert who addresses the following quotes:

Quote:
in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccines for their children, in spite of knowing their origin (voluntary abortion), carry out a form of . . . immediate *material cooperation], *with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells.

Quote:
However, in this situation, the aspect *of passive cooperation *is that which stands out most. It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the “culture of death” which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least . . . an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way.

Quote:
Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines13 (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection 14 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin.

boldface added

I sincerely question the Pontifical Academy for Life’s finding of a “proportional reason” to accept the use of such vaccines. Number 1) I don’t believe they are the authority on judging said proportionality. I believe that is up to the laity to determine.

Number 2) they offer no discussion as to the proportionality of the reasons. They do not compare the number of deaths cause by rubella against the scourge of abortion we face today. Perhaps abortion isn’t that great a scourge in Rome, but it seems out of proportion here in the U.S. And here’s the part that sticks in my craw. People are assuming that if a proportional reason exists for rubella the same proportional reason exists for Chicken Pox and Hep. A.!!!

Number 3) there is no discussion as to how these vaccines contribute to the culture of death. We are poised at a point in time where medical techology is flying in the face of morality. You can bet that this vatican document will be thrown in our faces whenever it comes time to justify fetal stem cell research and selling cures developed from them. I think the weak interpretation of this vatican letter has made the Catholic Church into a paper tiger.

Has anyone seen how medical ethicists address the IMMEDIATE, MATERIAL COOPERATION with the marketing of these vaccines?

Has anyone seen how a medical ethicist addresses the proportionality of the chicken pox vaccine?

 

[Jennifer_G]

When have vaccines started using stuff from aborted fetuses? I’ve never heard of that until now. What exactly do they use and why?

 

[canne]

When have vaccines started using stuff from aborted fetuses? I’ve never heard of that until now. What exactly do they use and why?

This may be helpful.
Vaccines currently produced using human cell lines that come from aborted foetuses

To date, there are two human diploid cell lines which were originally prepared from tissues of aborted foetuses ( in 1964 and 1970) and are used for the preparation of vaccines based on live attenuated virus: the first one is the WI-38 line (Winstar Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts, coming from a female foetus that was aborted because the family felt they had too many children (G. Sven *et al., *1969). It was prepared and developed by Leonard Hayflick in 1964 (L. Hayflick, 1965; G. Sven *et al., *1969)3 and bears the ATCC number CCL-75. WI-38 has been used for the preparation of the historical vaccine RA 27/3 against rubella (S.A. Plotkin *et al, *1965)4. The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for “psychiatric reasons” from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs *et al, *1970)5. Other human cell lines have been developed for pharmaceutical needs, but are not involved in the vaccines actually available6.
The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:7

cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm

 

[Black_Jaque]

My appologies. There was some formatting problems which made the quotes and my text difficult to distinguish. I’ll try again. How’s this:I feel like a few moral theologians skimmed the vatican response and found this statement:

. . . vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid *passive material cooperation *is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, *a. proportional reason, *in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.

Then put the paper down and quit reading/thinking about it. So now, just about every so-called expert I speak with says, “Yep, go ahead you can use 'em”.

I cannot find a single expert who addresses the following quotes:

in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccines for their children, in spite of knowing their origin (voluntary abortion), carry out a form of . . . *immediate *

material cooperation]*, *with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells.

However, in this situation, the aspect *of passive cooperation *

is that which stands out most. It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the “culture of death” which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least . . . an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way.

Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines13 (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection

14 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin.

boldface added

… and now I’m past the limit for a post so I’ll continue the rest below…

 

[Black_Jaque]

I sincerely question the Pontifical Academy for Life’s finding of a “proportional reason” to accept the use of such vaccines. Number 1) I don’t believe they are the authority on judging said proportionality. I believe that is up to the laity to determine.

Number 2) they offer no discussion as to the proportionality of the reasons. They do not compare the number of deaths cause by rubella against the scourge of abortion we face today. Perhaps abortion isn’t that great a scourge in Rome, but it seems out of proportion here in the U.S. And here’s the part that sticks in my craw. People are assuming that if a proportional reason exists for rubella the same proportional reason exists for Chicken Pox and Hep. A.!!!

Number 3) there is no discussion as to how these vaccines contribute to the culture of death. We are poised at a point in time where medical techology is flying in the face of morality. You can bet that this vatican document will be thrown in our faces whenever it comes time to justify fetal stem cell research and selling cures developed from them. I think the weak interpretation of this vatican letter has made the Catholic Church into a paper tiger.

Has anyone seen how medical ethicists address the IMMEDIATE, MATERIAL COOPERATION with the marketing of these vaccines?

Has anyone seen how a medical ethicist addresses the proportionality of the chicken pox vaccine?

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

Here is some good information on which Vacines you should and should not use.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Thanks E.P.

I didn’t find much information on the chicken pox vaccine. Perhaps they don’t have it in the U.K.?

 

[gardenswithkids]

Maybe the Fall 2006 issue of National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly might offer what your looking for. I haven’t read all of it, but here’s a link to it: [http://ncbcenter.metapress.com/(zgx...sp?referrer=parent&backto=journal,2,24;homema(name removed by moderator)ublications,1,2](http://ncbcenter.metapress.com/(zgx...sp?referrer=parent&backto=journal,2,24;homema(name removed by moderator)ublications,1,2);

There is increasing awareness that aborted fetuses were used in developing some vaccines. The Janaury 2007 issue of The New Oxford Review had a letter to the editor they titled “The Vaccine Question” (about a quarter of the way down the link) which I think addressed the matter well.

newoxfordreview.org/letters.jsp?did=0107-letters

“…I think that there is increasing clarity in the Catholic medical ethics literature on the topic. …The problem of vaccines manufactured using human cell lines from aborted babies is not going to go away, and it’s not going to be a matter solely for parents of small children anymore, with everyone else watching from the sidelines. It’s going to explode into every aspect of medicine very soon. ”

 

[tjm8]

I’m wondering why there is a concern over what is done with the remains from an abortion. No matter what you believe about the abortion itself, the remaining tissue is headed for some form of disposal. If a doctor can create something that is good for society from those remains, why should anyone object? Cadavers are used in medical schools aren’t they?

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

I’m wondering why there is a concern over what is done with the remains from an abortion. No matter what you believe about the abortion itself, the remaining tissue is headed for some form of disposal. If a doctor can create something that is good for society from those remains, why should anyone object? Cadavers are used in medical schools aren’t they?

Because it encourges further use of it and turns abortion into a further industry.

 

[tjm8]

Because it encourges further use of it and turns abortion into a further industry.

And your point Is?

 

[Black_Jaque]

If a doctor can create something that is good for society from those remains, why should anyone object? Cadavers are used in medical schools aren’t they?

Because the abortionists sell the bodies of their victims for research fodder. When you use these vaccines, you pay for them, either directly, through insurance or by taxes. That money ultimately supports abortion.

Same as buying a shirt that was made by a slave-child in 3rd World countries. You money supports the people committing the sin.

In some respects though, you are correct. The vatican has said that we can make use of these vaccines because we’re only passively and materially cooperating. In situations of grave inconvenience we are not obligated to refuse passive material cooperation.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m wondering why there is a concern over what is done with the remains from an abortion. No matter what you believe about the abortion itself, the remaining tissue is headed for some form of disposal. If a doctor can create something that is good for society from those remains, why should anyone object?

Part of my objection simply comes down to the “eww” factor-I learned that some vaccines used aborted fetuses and say, “Eww! I don’t want that injected into my child!” Sort of like someone who learns what goes into a hot dog and decides they’d rather have something else for lunch–except in the case of some vaccines, there aren’t always non-tainted vaccines available.

And that brings another objection–when medical research directs it’s money and energy into the remains from an abortion, that means that their energy isn’t directed towards less objectional sources. I want treatments and vaccines to cure illnesses and prevent disease, but I don’t want pharmacetical research to become dependent on the destruction of some humans in order to save others.

Supporting existing vaccines made from aborted fetuses seems that it might encourage pharmacetical companies to continue that line of research for other treatments as well. When I get sick, I don’t want the only treatment available to be derived from aborted baby parts. And I don’t want there to always be an endless supply of aborted fetuses for medical research and treatments, because I hope one day that abortion will be illegal. The pregnant women who are exploited by abortion industry shouldn’t also have their unborn babies treated as guinea pigs by the pharmacetical industry.

 

[Sandi]

I would think that a Catholic would NEVER use a vaccine, or any other kind of medicine, derived from abortion. They’d just have to go without (and not allow it for any of their spouses or children), if they really want to live their morals.

 

[Black_Jaque]

I would think that a Catholic would NEVER use a vaccine, or any other kind of medicine, derived from abortion. They’d just have to go without (and not allow it for any of their spouses or children), if they really want to live their morals.

Oh, I wish it were that simple. But unfortunately, Catholics also have a duty to protect the society as a whole from dangerous diseases. If you refuse to innoculate yourself from Rubella, then a pregnant aquaintence gets infected from you, her fetus could die. You’re involvement with that must be weighed against the involvement with the procured abortion.

It’s not easy, something that needs to be considered because you’re sort of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

And then there’s the problem that parents face because though they may choose to take risks for themselves, they have a more difficult time subjecting their children to risks…

If you accept the fact that the issue isn’t black and white, and you focus on what things to consider when making the decision you can actually have a healthy discussion. But if you make it sound like a person is evil for leaning towards a certain course of action you end up being divisive and counterproductive.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

This whole thing about using aborted babies
is beginning to remind me of that old movie
called SOYLENT GREEN. Yuck.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)