We are not anti-vaccination. Kate was fully vaccinated ’til her first birthday, and though I do think it is the parents’ right to choose whether to vaccinate or not, we want our children protected both from diseases and from spreading them to others who might not be able to fight them off, though probably on a more delayed schedule than the average pediatrician’s office pushes.
What is bothersome to me is the use of aborted fetal tissue in the development of many vaccines Kate *should* be getting now. MMR, Varicella (Chicken Pox) and Hep-A vaccines were all developed using aborted fetal tissue lines. That’s just a fact. With all the money spent on changing drugs slightly before they lose their patents so they can make more cash, I wonder why the big pharmaceutical companies haven’t made these vaccines from animal tissue or cultures from infected children and adults, which is perfectly safe, done in other countries and is far less morally objectionable. Well, I don’t wonder why, I know that parents don’t know and don’t care and Merck (the biggest offender), GlaxoSmithKline and the others aren’t going to spend money they don’t have to.
The Vatican has taken a stand, but it got very little media coverage when it was announced last month. There are websites devoted to the issue and petitions to sign, but I wonder if it will make any impact at all. Interestingly, the fact that fetal tissues were used to develop many vaccines (including some of the oldest vaccines, such as polio) has been an argument for using embryos in stem cell research, citing the vaccines as a precedent for how fetal cells can be used positively to help living people.
No new fetuses have to be aborted to make the vaccines today, so maybe people, even pro-life advocates, just don’t care. I do. I don’t know what implications it will have on what we decide to do about those vaccines, but I’m talking about it here, and that’s a start. We have a few faithful med school student readers (*ahem*) and I’d love to hear their takes.
Yeah, that’s a topic that we’ve been considering also, and haven’t really come to any firm conclusion on.
Fetuses aren’t still being killed for these vaccines (the ones that exist already, anyhow… who knows what goes on in those labs). They have cell cultures (that were obtained from aborted fetuses) to use in the production the vaccines. But, as I understand it, there are methods to make the vaccines that don’t even use those cell cultures. And that’s where the discussion lies.
So it’s a question of how far back does our responsibility go. I discussed the issue with Phil a while back, and he used Nazi concentration camps as a parallel example… Horrible things happened there, things that no one would be supportive of. But, doctors have been able to use those horrible things in a helpful way… to learn and gain knowledge about our bodies, etc. So, should we throw out all the knowledge gained from those horrible things? Are we guilty of those crimes if we don’t?
How horrifying! I didn’t know about this at all! Thanks for the post, but now what to do about this? I suppose that was your point.
Richard,
What is bothersome to me is that *NEW* vaccines in production (HIV, Ebola and Flu) are also using cell lines from aborted fetuses (and new ones, at that) and I wonder what impact we as a Christian community can have on the pharmeceutical industry to pressure them to use animal or other human (non-aborted fetus) cell lines to make vaccines. So I wonder if saying “no vaccines developed from aborted fetal cell lines, we’re even going to reject your precious MMR” would be more effective than saying “just don’t do that anymore in the future.”
Phil,
I don’t disagree with you about the murder-organ donation analogy at all, my big beef is that no one caring has lead to the continued use of new aborted fetuses in current vaccine development (see my comment #3). My limited understanding of the way vaccines are made indicates that there are certainly other perfectly safe and far less morally objectionable ways to develop vaccines. But I don’t see how or why the pharmaceutical companies will change their policies without people caring enough to take a stand.
Also, the Vatican statement does allow for parents to still vaccinate their children, it just implores them to lobby for alternatives.
The problem with using vaccines developed in other cell lines is that we have a working vaccine now that is safe and effective, and only possibly morally questionable. Vaccines derived from other sources have their own risks (e.g. animal viruses, other reactions due to allergies) which are not present in a human cell-derived vaccine.
And when it’s all said and done, I’m still not sure that it’s really worth our time and energy to lobby for alternatives when I would say the moral reasoning does not clearly and reasonably show the use of vaccines to be sin. Not that it’s a sin to think that it is a sin, but merely that I’m not sure it’s worth that much time and energy given the ambiguity.
Additionally, to clarify, the bigger problem I have with the entire controversy is not with the pursuit of alternatives or the unwillingness to vaccinate with morally questionable vaccines, but the sloppy moral reasoning, which, taken to the logical conclusion, means we cannot derive any good from any sinful act, including the death of Christ.
Phil, I think that your argument has one small hole. Instead of asking if you’d use the organ of a person murdered, you should ask, “Would you use the organs of a person that was murdered specifically for the use of his organs?” Or you should ask, “Would you use the organs of someone who was murdered for their organs when there are perfectly good alternatives? Like the organs of someone who died in a car accident, or something like that.”
Why can’t drug companies develop their immunitzations from cord blood stem cells? Does anyone know if there is any information on that?
Now my information is a little old, and the news that the RCC has condemned vaccines derived from aborted fetal stem cell lines is new to me. My research from several months ago includes an article from the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (Maher, Daniel P. Vaccines, Abortion, and Moral Coherence. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Spring 2002), where the author did not condemn the use of such vaccines, saying that we must be careful how we define “complicity” in this regard, as many good things have been derived from outright sin. Proximity to the sinful event is also another consideration, as is the nature of the controversy. He does say we must be careful given society’s increasing acceptance of use of aborted fetal stem cells and so forth.
First, let me offer a thought experiment. If someone is murdered by a shot in the head, do you refuse the organs that are being donated because you don’t want to appear complicit with the act of murder? After all, the idea is to avoid supporting an evil act by not partaking of the benefits derived from such acts.
Now the complicating factor in this bit of moral reasoning is the nature of the evil as seen by society. Society DOES condemn murder of people for their organs. There is not that same level of consensus against use of fetal stem cells. Does that make a difference? Strictly speaking in terms of moral reasoning, I don’t think so. Now can people accuse me of being hypocritical and inconsistent? Possibly, but again, the nature of the evil and proximity to the evil come into play. Those aborted fetuses were aborted before even R vs. W, IIRC (I might be wrong). The point is that the evil was perpetrated decades ago.
It is hard to be complicit over decades, again, unless you want to forego many other goods that are the results of evils. We could be absurd and say we don’t want to accept the US and all the benefits of being in the US because of the evils perpetrated on the Native Americans that resulted in the US we have today, and so on. After all, there are alternatives to living in the US – other countries that have not so flagrantly used immoral means to seize land. Does that mean you won’t feed your child orange juice from Florida because of the way the Spaniards enslaved the native Floridians?
At least that is my position. As alternative vaccines become reasonably available (not just in the US), and as the stem cell controversy continues/matures/devolves/loses any semblance of critical thinking, Christians will have to decide whether or not solid moral reasoning is enough to put their conscience at rest when others may see them as inconsistent pro-lifers. Don’t forget that there are many Christians in other countries who may not have an option/luxury about which vaccine to use if they want to protect their children from diseases that cause significant morbidity and mortality.
As a side note, pharmaceutical companies don’t usually see vaccines as cash cows, namely because a large number of companies donate millions of doses of vaccines to developing countries. If anything, the case cows are your GERD drugs, your Botox, allegra, and other quality of life drugs. Why do you think there’s both claritin AND clarinex? They’re basically the same molecule, but just tweaked a little to get a new patent.
It may not seem to be as big of a deal in a developed country like the US, where herd immunity can often protect the unvaccinated, but children still die from measles in the US. The question then becomes whether or not refusing vaccination then qualifies as neglect, not merely “the right of the parent.” Of course, if you choose to vaccinate with the alternatives due to conscience, more power to you. The key is, plase vaccinate your children! It’s not simply an exercise of your autonomy and your “right to choose.”
Devona – do you know if the fetuses were aborted expressly for the purpose of vaccine development? I really don’t know much about the development of vaccines, but will try to read on the topic when I have time. One possible explanation for the continued use of established cell lines from aborted fetuses is that they are well-characterized. That is, scientists have been working with them for years and know their properties quite well. To begin anew with new cells could delay the development of new vaccines.
My research showed that the records are shoddy/spotty, and we don’t know why the original fetuses were aborted back in the 1960s, IIRC. It is doubtful that they were aborted (speaking of the parents’ decision) for scientific research, although there was obviously someone around that that to take some tissue for that reason.
So for the sake of the moral argument, I don’t think that you can definitively show that the fetuses were aborted expressly for the harvesting of tissues for cell cultures. Again, someone along the process thought of it, but I don’t think the parents chose to abort to donate the tissues.
So we’re back to an act of evil committed, but not as the means to achieve the good that we are now deriving from that past action. I would never say ends justify the means.
Haha. that was me. Kathleen just changed my name to her’s.
-Phil
I also refer you to a blog post of mine almost a year ago on the subject.
Here is a more direct link to the post.
Pingback: danger blog
To me, the issue still boils down to the fact that new vaccines are being developed using new cell lines from aborted fetuses. If it was *ONLY* MMR and it was all said and done with, I probably wouldn’t have as much of a moral objection to it. I would wonder why, with two working, patented Rubella vaccines, they needed to develop a new one with fetal tissues. But I wouldn’t feel the need fly my kids to Japan to get their version of the MMR developed from rabbit cells and a swab of an infected child’s throat.
I do see the continued use of aborted fetal cell lines in developing vaccines as an unnecessary bioethical slippery slope. That’s what I am sure of at this point.
I see. To me, that is a separate issue. For example, I do not have a problem with using existing fetal stem cell lines to do research. The damage is done, the sin is committed. I do not think that any good we obtain from that it necessarily wrong. Again, I think I can take this stance consistent with my other pro-life stances, based on the concept that you would never be able to accept any good if your prerequisite were ALL prior means to be morally acceptable.
I also agree that there is a possible slippery slope regarding “encouraging” the acquisition of additional fetal stem cell lines by taking this position, for whatever reason (more vaccines, or other research). But that’s the question. Where will we draw the line. I think the existing line works for me – we can use existing lines, but no more. At least that’s the federal funding stance per Bush. For once, I agree with the philosophical backing of his decision on this issue.
So I haven’t done much research but is there a MMR that is not derived from fetal stem cell lines? If so, I’d like to see evidence that separate vaccinations (splitting up your M, M and R) is equally (or more) effective and safe. If there is such a thing, that would be a very nice alternative. If not, there are other considerations, as I mentioned before, with vaccines derived from other sources, such as allergies (especially to egg, since chick embryo cell lines are commonly used) and other issues.
Slightly off topic: Can one even get M, M, and R separately nowadays? Last I checked, they weren’t manufacturing that anymore, and MMR was the only option.
We vaccinated our first until doing some research, then halted after about 12 months. Our second, now 5.5 months, has not received any vaccinations. I think we’ll delay, not avoid altogether.
At any rate, I’m enjoying this discussion.
Phil,
Takahashi is an MMR vaccine used in Asia and Europe derived from a rabbit cell line. One of the Catholic groups is trying to get the FDA to approve it for importation (in the event of an outbreak) but I doubt it will happen.
Serina,
I think you can get the M and M but not the R seperately, last time I checked.
I’m confused. My Catholic ped–8 kids type Catholic–says that the cells were from spontaneously aborted fetuses. He emphatically said that he researched it because he would not want to endorse anything that promotes abortion culture. Has anyone else heard this?
Everything I’ve read says the contrary. The MMR case is well documented, they were advising women during the Rubella outbreak in the mid ’60s to abort babies that might be born with Congenital Rubella syndrome and the 27th fetus they tried actually had the virus. According to websites that cite medical journal articles, that particular abortion was elected by parents who said they had too many children already.
What journal articles did they cite? I can try to get the original articles, now that I’m back on my computer with my school’s VPN library access.
Serina,
Out of curiousity, why are you delaying vaccinations and not outright refusing them?
Secondly, delaying is not recommended because concentrations of maternal antibodies drop off significantly around 6 months of age, leaving a child with little immunity to this diseases. While it may not be fatal for your child, the fact that your child has one of these preventable diseases also means your child can transmit it to someone else, who MAY be very seriously affected by it. Vaccines aren’t just for the child who is vaccinated, but for the general population as well.
G. Sven, S. Plotkin and K. McCarthy, Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines, American Journal of Diseases of Children, vol. 118, August 1969
unfortunately, articles that old are not accessible online, and there doesn’t seem to be anything more available online except people citing the studies (mostly people opposed to the use of the vaccines). If you’ll give me some time, I’ll try to find the actual articles, and read up on them. My impression has been, and continues to be, that the abortions were not done for the reason of donating the tissue. They weren’t spontaneous abortions either.
Again, the question returns to the degree of complicity we have for ANY evil committed in the past that results in clear good for many of us in the present. Where is the line drawn? Why? What other goods are people who decide against using the vaccine willing to forego to not be complicit in other evils?
I finally had the chance to read the Vatican document completely, and while I appreciate certain aspects of the analysis, I still feel as though they do not deal with the larger question that I pose above – the nature of our material cooperation in evil whenever we derive all sorts of goods from remote events. I feel as though my examples above are good examples of how this could be taken to ridiculous logical extremes, leading up to all sorts of theological implications regarding God’s use of evil and the good that results from that evil that does benefit us.
I don’t think the abortions were done *just* to collect the tissue, but I do think it might have been a factor in encouraging so many women to abort fetuses that might have been exposed and had CRS upon birth. I continue to agree with you about the moral complicity *in the MMR case* but I do think that as the practice is ongoing, we do have a moral obligation to let vaccine researchers and manufacterers know that we won’t stand for them to develop vaccinations in this manner when there are other ways to reach the same end.
Our pediatrician delays all his patients a bit himself by never giving more than 3 vax a visit, and we plan on not starting Lexi’s until she is at least 3 months old, which should push her back significantly on their schedule so that her 1 year vaxes (MMR and Varicella) would be about 18 months at earliest. Pertussis is a concern, so I like DTaP to be close to on schedule. My doctor is super comfortable with that, as they did delay MMR in that office until 2 years old for several years when the initial mercury scare came out and he just wants her fully vaccinated at some point in her toddler years, not necessarily on the AAP schedule. Since I *really* breastfeed a lot more often and longer than the average mother, I am also not as concerned with decreased immunity. I know it happens to some degree, but I’ve seen Kate ward off colds that Mike and I get nursing 4 times a day at a year, so… I know it is still some amount of protection.
I agree that we all have a moral obligation to speak out against new stem cell lines, but I do not see a problem with new research on existing stem cell lines. In case there are any readers who do not know me, I will state for the record that I do not believe abortion to be an option except in the situation where the mother’s life is clearly threatened (e.g. ectopic pregnancies). As such, retrieving new stem cell lines from abortions happening today is not an option, and I do oppose research done using such methods.
So to sum up until I have more information, PLEASE vaccinate your kids with MMR, and other vaccines that we already have, not merely for your child, but for everyone that comes in contact with your child, like other pregnant mothers. PLEASE oppose new fetal stem cell lines derived from abortions.
Oh yeah, just so everyone knows, big studies have shown that the thimerosal (mercury preservative, which is no longer in MMR) was actually associated with a slightly DECREASED risk of autism (the risk ratio was something like 0.94 if you got MMR with thimerosal).
Kristen, it was very important to me to pursue extended breastfeeding with our youngest, because of our move to Ukraine when he was 12 months. He was very healthy the whole time we were there, and I’m certain the breastfeeding antibodies played a key role.
Serina, here’s a delayed vax schedule, if you are interested.
What a great discussion.
Thank you all!
Donna
One small thing about the immunity from breastfeeding. The antibodies you pass in breast milk is only one type of antibody, which is NOT the type that is induced in vaccination. Those antibodies, IgA antibodies, are known to do the job of mucosal protection (meaning GI/resp tract protection, your first-line defense, if you will), and are only passed on passively from mom. The child’s immune system does not know how to make those antibodies yet because the child has not exposed itself to the actual bug. They’re not the same sort of active immune response that you would want for a robust and fuller immunity to things like measles.
I am fully in support of your decisions to breastfeed longer than the average US citizen. I think most people should breastfeed children much longer than they do. I just want to make sure people understand the mechanisms that are at work.
Pingback: a new era » Vaccines and abortion, revisited