What is Church teaching on vaccines from aborted fetal cell lines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barricade
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Barricade

Guest
This is an issue I’ve read mixed messages on from Catholic sources and was hoping for some clarification by people knowledgeable of the subject here.

Long story short, I had to go to the hospital yesterday with a pretty bad leg injury that required stitches, and they told me they were going to give me a tetanus vaccination considering the circumstances and the thought came into my mind that maybe this vaccine was derived from an aborted fetal cell line. I wasn’t sure of what to do, if it actually was derived from such a line, if there were alternatives available, and if I was morally obliged to refuse the shot period (which might have been disastrous to my health) or in favor of an alternative. I ended up receiving the shot, but now have doubts about whether or not I did something wrong by going ahead with it without asking, or finding out if it was completely moral. When I got home I looked up what I thought the vaccine to be and it seems like it wasn’t derived from an aborted fetal cell line so that’s good news.

But, for future reference, particularly for check ups when I have the prior notice to research any scheduled vaccinations, what is Church teaching on this issue?
I’ve heard views ranging from it’s not permissible to receive these vaccines, only permissible if there are no alternatives, permissible because the process itself doesn’t involve continual abortions, etc. It seems the view that it is permissible if there are no alternatives is one I see most often, but this raises its own questions to me. What if the only alternative is at a doctor hundreds or thousands of miles away? What lengths are we required to go to in order to find an alternative if this is what we are called to do?
 
Barricade said:
This is an issue I’ve read mixed messages on from Catholic sources and was hoping for some clarification by people knowledgeable of the subject here.

Long story short, I had to go to the hospital yesterday with a pretty bad leg injury that required stitches, and they told me they were going to give me a tetanus vaccination considering the circumstances and the thought came into my mind that maybe this vaccine was derived from an aborted fetal cell line. I wasn’t sure of what to do, if it actually was derived from such a line, if there were alternatives available, and if I was morally obliged to refuse the shot period (which might have been disastrous to my health) or in favor of an alternative. I ended up receiving the shot, but now have doubts about whether or not I did something wrong by going ahead with it without asking, or finding out if it was completely moral. When I got home I looked up what I thought the vaccine to be and it seems like it wasn’t derived from an aborted fetal cell line so that’s good news.

But, for future reference, particularly for check ups when I have the prior notice to research any scheduled vaccinations, what is Church teaching on this issue?
I’ve heard views ranging from it’s not permissible to receive these vaccines, only permissible if there are no alternatives, permissible because the process itself doesn’t involve continual abortions, etc. It seems the view that it is permissible if there are no alternatives is one I see most often, but this raises its own questions to me. What if the only alternative is at a doctor hundreds or thousands of miles away? What lengths are we required to go to in order to find an alternative if this is what we are called to do?
Click to expand...
immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
 
I am not familiar with the use of human embryonic cells being used in this manner. Something I will have to catch up on. I would think it would not be the case, though I know that certain anti-rejection drugs use human DNA. (Humira)

My stand, we simply can’t be using embryonic tissues this way if they come from aborted fetuses. We could use these tissues if they are from the umbilical cord however. But who sorts this out and how well?

Now here is an aside: (My own thoughts). It is known that the reason Mad Cow Disease developed is ranchers were using reprocessed cow remains as part of the feed they gave to the cattle. (Blood, bone meal etc.) What is to say that we are not going to land up with a similar problem with the use of human tissues to treat human illnesses? Nothing at all.

I can’t help but think that at some point something is going to really back-fire with all of this stuff. It might take a generation to be expressed, but it will happen. And the scientific community will be scratching their heads in ignorance, because they don’t think beyond the immediate anymore.
 
cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm

From the Vatican:

"As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, 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.

"The cooperation is therefore more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines.

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. "

I take this to mean that if it is extremely inconvenient to procure an alternative, perhaps it is an emergency, or it would be too costly to travel, it would be acceptable to have the illicit vaccine administered.
 
Your tetanus vaccine was not one of those that uses the fetal cell lines…

FYI:
Current Vaccines Developed Using Human Cell Strains

Two main human cell strains have been used to develop currently available vaccines, in each case with the original fetal cells in question obtained in the 1960s. The WI-38 cell strain was developed in 1961 in the United States, and the MRC-5 cell strain (also started with fetal lung cells) was developed in 1965 in the United Kingdom. No new or additional fetal cells are required in order to sustain the two cell strains.

The vaccines below were developed using either the WI-38 or the MRC-5 cell strains.

•Hepatitis A vaccines [VAQTA/Merck, Havrix/GlaxoSmithKline, and part of Twinrix/GlaxoSmithKline]
•Rubella vaccine [MERUVAX II/Merck, part of MMR II/Merck, and ProQuad/Merck]
•Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine [Varivax/Merck, and part of ProQuad/Merck]
•Zoster (shingles) vaccine [Zostavax/Merck]
•Adenovirus Type 4 and Type 7 oral vaccine [Barr Labs] *
•Rabies vaccine [IMOVAX/Sanofi Pasteur] *

Source: historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top