Looking for R&P perspective re: origins of CV vaccines

2,227 Views | 40 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by PabloSerna
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LONG

Background. Most of my family is RC and I was raised in the Roman church.

One of my family members sent this to me today and I was interested in the board's take. RC and any others' thoughts welcome and appreciated.

---------

Statement of Daniel Cardinal DiNardo
On the Moral Permissibility of Recently Announced Vaccines for COVID-19

December 8, 2020

On December 2nd Governor Abbott announced that the federal government will be distributing an initial allotment of approximately 1.4 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines in Texas during the month of December. These vaccines will be administered by qualifying providers throughout the state.

Some individuals and groups are publicly asserting that if a vaccine is connected in any way with tainted cell lines, then it is immoral to be vaccinated with it. This is an inaccurate presentation of Catholic moral doctrine. I would like to offer some clarifications regarding the moral permissibility of using the COVID-19 vaccines developed by the companies Pfizer and Moderna.

Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine involved the use of cell lines that originated in tissue taken from the body of an aborted baby at any level of design, development, or production. However, these vaccines are not completely free from any connection to abortion, as both Pfizer and Moderna made use of a tainted cell line for one of the confirmatory lab tests of their products. There is thus a connection, but it is relatively remote and should not be the basis for refusing to receive the vaccine.

A third possible vaccine, this one produced by AstraZeneca, is morally concerning because of its origins. However, according to Catholic moral teaching, it is also acceptable to receive it for the sake of our own health and the health of others if it is the only vaccine available in a given place.

It is morally permissible to receive the COVID-19 vaccines, which will be available for distribution in Texas beginning this month.
On this Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we unite ourselves more closely to the intercession of the Mother of God as we pray for an end to the Coronavirus pandemic. Please be assured of my continued prayers for the clergy and lay faithful of the Church in Galveston-Houston.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are you Catholic?
Post removed:
by user
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No. Does it matter?
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just trying to figure out what the question was. Do you disagree that the vaccine is permissible?
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AstroAg17 said:

What's the question?


1. Does the connection to aborted tissue cause an ethical issue

2. Does the communication from the Cardinal seem to align with RC, or other Christian, dogma/doctrine?

Seeking perspectives.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure. trying to square the seeming contradiction and looking for other perspectives.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Didn't mean to come across as short in my response.

I am not RC, but I am very pro-life if that helps frame my question better.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No worries at all! Just wondering if you felt like he drifted from RCC dogma. Makes sense now.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I kinda do, that's part of what generated the question, to get some perspective from RC laity (or clergy if inclined)

I guess I sense some equivocation (maybe too strong of a characterization) in his missive.

I also guess, technically, something could be permissible, but still not good. Paul pretty much sums that up in Corinthians.

For as strong a stance as the RCC takes on abortion and the death penalty, this came as a bit of a surprise.

Post removed:
by user
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it depends on whether or not it is still happening. From what I've heard the original strain was from an aborted fetus. Apparently they still use those original cells. If the vaccine required continual abortions to reproduce to vaccine I think it would be morally abhorrent.

I'm still bothered by the fact that the original cells were from an aborted fetus but that deed is done and if we can save lives now using those cells then maybe what was meant for evil can be used for good.

ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

I think it depends on whether or not it is still happening. From what I've heard the original strain was from an aborted fetus. Apparently they still use those original cells. If the vaccine required continual abortions to reproduce to vaccine I think it would be morally abhorrent.

I'm still bothered by the fact that the original cells were from an aborted fetus but that deed is done and if we can save lives now using those cells then maybe what was meant for evil can be used for good.


Agree. If it were up to me, they would let all the fetal cell lines expire and use only cancer cell lines or reverted adult cell lines. Best I can tell there is nothing particularly special about fetal cell lines anymore. I think researchers use them because they are available and have been around a long time. Also, many researchers don't find any ethical issue with it, and they don't want the hassle of switching cell lines.

That being said, I don't think it's a reason to refuse a vaccine. People die and our natural components become the building blocks of something else. If an apple tree grows in the location of a large battle with a lot of bloodshed and death two decades ago, are the apples from that tree tainted? Would a starving person be committing a sin by eating them? Does it matter if it was a just or unjust war that lead to the battle? That's how I look at fetal tissue in vaccines. The fetus died and its natural components are providing for those who are living. If it was aborted, then that was an evil act. Just like an unjust war is an evil act that causes the death of many. However, the vaccine is no more tainted than the apple tree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Frok said:

I think it depends on whether or not it is still happening. From what I've heard the original strain was from an aborted fetus. Apparently they still use those original cells. If the vaccine required continual abortions to reproduce to vaccine I think it would be morally abhorrent.

I'm still bothered by the fact that the original cells were from an aborted fetus but that deed is done and if we can save lives now using those cells then maybe what was meant for evil can be used for good.


Agree. If it were up to me, they would let all the fetal cell lines expire and use only cancer cell lines or reverted adult cell lines. Best I can tell there is nothing particularly special about fetal cell lines anymore. I think researchers use them because they are available and have been around a long time. Also, many researchers don't find any ethical issue with it, and they don't want the hassle of switching cell lines.

That being said, I don't think it's a reason to refuse a vaccine. People die and our natural components become the building blocks of something else. If an apple tree grows in the location of a large battle with a lot of bloodshed and death two decades ago, are the apples from that tree tainted? Would a starving person be committing a sin by eating them? Does it matter if it was a just or unjust war that lead to the battle? That's how I look at fetal tissue in vaccines. The fetus died and its natural components are providing for those who are living. If it was aborted, then that was an evil act. Just like an unjust war is an evil act that causes the death of many. However, the vaccine is no more tainted than the apple tree.
Both interesting perspectives. Now, consider the profit component for the pharma sector.

I guess what is nagging at me is the seeming HUGE compromise. It appears the position shifted from "Abortion is wrong in any instance and the harvesting, sale, and use in research of aborted fetal tissue is abhorrent and sinful."

When confronted with our OWN mortality and threatening circumstances we shift our position to "Well, what's done is done and all of humanity can get some "good" out of this evil practice so, in this instance, OK"

Is this a logic/moral disconnect? We condemn the mother who sees no other way and the profiteers who benefit from her abortion, but we stay silent, or even condone (maybe even persuade in favor of), an equally, if not more, evil practice when we, or those we love, may benefit.

Having a hard time squaring this though process.

cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Astro- see above.

Is there really no other way to do this research? Is "modern medicine" truly dependent on this practice? I don't know, serious question.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frok said:

I think it depends on whether or not it is still happening. From what I've heard the original strain was from an aborted fetus. Apparently they still use those original cells. If the vaccine required continual abortions to reproduce to vaccine I think it would be morally abhorrent.

I'm still bothered by the fact that the original cells were from an aborted fetus but that deed is done and if we can save lives now using those cells then maybe what was meant for evil can be used for good.


If it's true that the original cells were from an aborted fetus then the line is tainted and Christians should not take it.

This is from the Orthodox Church -"The Church believes it to be definitely inadmissible to use the methods of so-called fetal therapy, in which the human fetus on various stages of its development is aborted and used in attempts to treat various diseases and to rejuvenate an organism. Denouncing abortion as a cardinal sin, the Church cannot find any justification for it either even if someone may possibly benefit from the destruction of a conceived human life. Contributing inevitably to ever wider spread and commercialisation of abortion, this practice (even if its still hypothetical effectiveness could be proved scientifically) presents an example of glaring immorality and is criminal."
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think most vaccinations originated using some of these cells. So it's quite possibly we've already been taking them. (Someone who actually knows can hopefully confirm or deny)

I'm certainly not supporting the use of abortion to develop better medicine. From what I understand we know other ways to get those cells.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know nothing about vaccines so someone else would have to comment. I thought it was a conspiracy theory at first when someone said they were using aborted fetuses. I would be very curious to know if there is a wide spectrum of vaccines that contain them.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Larry Lajitas said:

I know nothing about vaccines so someone else would have to comment. I thought it was a conspiracy theory at first when someone said they were using aborted fetuses. I would be very curious to know if there is a wide spectrum of vaccines that contain them.
There are a lot of stages in developing a medication. If something works in a free floating solution, then the next step is to try it in a cell line. If that works, then you move on to animal or human testing. These cell lines come from a variety of different sources. Some come from cancer cells that are taken from sick people. Some come from fetal stem cells, and some of that fetal tissue comes from abortions. Some cell lines come from adult stem cells that they have been treated chemically to revert back to fetal-like stem cells.

To my recollection, George W Bush stopped federal funding for creating new cell lines from aborted fetal tissue. So to my knowledge there hasn't been a new fetal cell line in almost 20 years. All the fetal cell lines date back to the 90's or earlier. So I don't really get the argument that using these older cell lines creates some incentive for abortion.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Post removed:
by user
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There was a lot more stated than just the incentives for abortion. An explanation should probably come from a priest, theologian, or ethics professor.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Larry Lajitas said:

There was a lot more stated than just the incentives for abortion. An explanation should probably come from a priest, theologian, or ethics professor.
Sorry my credentials aren't good enough for you. I've met plenty of medical ethicists and have never been impressed. The level of critical thinking used was always quite a bit shallower than I expected from people who are supposed to be practical philosophers (which is already an oxymoron).
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Post removed:
by user
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I meant I shouldn't try to explain what the church's stance is on this subject. I'm sure you have enough credentials to make a statement haha.
Post removed:
by user
Post removed:
by user
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is an old statement but I see plenty of relative sentences for example " benefit from the destruction of a conceived human life." The benefit is saving lives from covid while the destruction originated in using cell lines from aborted fetuses.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is from the Russian Orthodox Church (which many churches in America are under)- Bioethics
https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/

With that said I haven't seen anything directly related to covid but I'm sure we will see something soon.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AstroAg17 said:

A Christian MD is about the most qualified person you're going to find on this forum.
I'll take it but Christian means a lot of things to many different people lol.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Larry Lajitas said:

I meant I shouldn't try to explain what the church's stance is on this subject. I'm sure you have enough credentials to make a statement haha.


I was just giving you grief
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Let me try a less abstract example. Imagine an organ donor gets murdered walking home from work. That person's organs get donated to five sick people and ends up saving their lives.

Was it wrong for the doctors to use those organs or the sick people to accept them? After all, that person was murdered. Evil was committed. Otherwise there would be no organs to give. I'd say the only person who did anything wrong is the murderer. Same with fetal cells from abortion. The only people doing anything wrong are the person getting the abortion and the person performing it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ramblin_ag02 said:

Let me try a less abstract example. Imagine an organ donor gets murdered walking home from work. That person's organs get donated to five sick people and ends up saving their lives.

Was it wrong for the doctors to use those organs or the sick people to accept them? After all, that person was murdered. Evil was committed. Otherwise there would be no organs to give. I'd say the only person who did anything wrong is the murderer. Same with fetal cells from abortion. The only people doing anything wrong are the person getting the abortion and the person performing it.
I don't think it's wrong in the case of the murdered person since they gave consent to donate when their life ended. A fetus can't give consent, therefore it's wrong. Consent appears to be a big factor in Christianity. Mary's free will and choice was a necessary part of the incarnation. If free will is necessary for the incarnation then I would assume it's required for any other life saving process. Death is not the end all according to Christianity and I think that's something we have to accept. I think the Orthodox saying is something like "if you die before you die then you won't die when you die"
Post removed:
by user
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll ask my priest next Sunday, skipping this weekend to kill some mule deer.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You hit the key difference between the fetus and the murder victim, and that's consent. I don't follow Astro's assertion about parental consent in this case. I think any mother going in for an abortion pretty definitively waives any parental rights including the ability to consent for their child.

This difference doesn't bother me much though. Many places are opt-out for organ donations, and then consent is assumed in all cases unless explicitly stated otherwise. I also think organ donation is a complete no-brainer for Christians, but that's a bit of a tangent
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.