Say Anything Blog

Right on Neiman.

I want to know more about the “vaccination derived from the lung of an aborted child”. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

Likwidshoe: “a number of vaccines are grown on human cells from aborted fetuses. The new chicken pox vaccine made by Merck Frosst Pharmaceuticals is grown on the MRC-5 cell line derived from the normal lung tissue of a 14-week-old male fetus aborted “for psychiatric reasons.” So are the polio and hepatitis A vaccines. The rubella virus in the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) three-in-one shot is grown on the WI-38 cell line-developed in 1961 from an aborted three-month-old female fetus.”

I do not question anyones right to refuse to do anything that they might consider supporting or justifying abortion. I am only concerned about how it impacts combat readiness and how Christians should deal with the issue, including accepting just punishment under the UCMJ if they refuse. As I said in the text above, I don’t think they should be forced to take these vaccines if they are morally opposed and I don’t think they have a right to complain if they are subjected to punishment for standing firm in their beliefs.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

No one should be forced to be vaccinated by something like that. Military or not. As long as there are other alternatives out there, which I bet there are other alternative vaccines. Embryonic stem cells are no more powerful or effective than adult.

I know something about this issue.  A few points of clarification might help.

First, the vaccination is not “derived from the lung of an aborted child.” Rather, the vaccination is cultured on a cell line derived from an aborted child decades ago.  Basically, the cell lines are kind of the medium for the culturing of the vaccine.  The vaccine itself does not come from the aborted child’s cells and nothing from the aborted child’s cells pass to the vaccine cells.  I will leave it up to you whether that makes a moral difference.  Some say it does, some say it does not.

Second, this has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells, Zsa Zsa. (Though you are right about the effectiveness of ESC v. adult stem cells—that is another issue.)

Third, unfortunately for those that oppose using vaccines that were cultured on these cell lines, there are not many alternatives and for some vaccines, there are no alternatives.

Fourth, these cell lines were developed decades ago.  Chances are that if you have been vaccinated anytime during the last three decades, you received a vaccine that was cultured on these cell lines.

Fifth, the Coast Guard is right that Catholic teaching “does not state that these immunizations are against the religious tenets of the Catholic Church.” The story is also right in that the Vatican noted that people have the right to refuse.  That is because while getting the vaccines is not morally illicit, people have the right to act heroically—beyond what is necessary—especially when following their conscience.  In this case, a person might refuse the vaccine in the hope that doing so will force drug companies to develop new, non-problematic cell lines for culturing future vaccines.

The case raises several legal questions.  How much right of conscience does a person give up when engaged in a public service?  People have the right to refuse fight, but are expected to give up that right when they enlist in the military.  People may have a right to strike, but not if doing so would endanger public safety.  This is one of those issues.

The other issue is distinguishing between conscience and religious doctrine.  Just because the religious doctrine is not absolute, does a person lose the right to individually try to interpret the teaching?  One would think not, but our courts have long denied the right of individuals to seek protection based on their own understanding of the faith.  Example, Catholic tradition allows for just wars, but at the same time acknowledges that pacifism is an acceptable tradition in the faith.  Catholic pacifists, however, are not allowed to obtain conscientious objector status.

Not receiving the Hepatitis A vaccine does not increase the risk to fellow military members.  The vaccine only protects the individual who receives it.  Anyone, vaccinated or not, who comes in contact with the virus can spread it (be a carrier). 

Also, 80% of those exposed develop no (zero) symptoms, yet they then become immune to Hep A.  Of the remaining 20%, most will develop minor to severe symptoms, but will get over it and will also develop an immunity to Hep A. Less than 2% will be in danger of dying.

Also, the way you get Hep A is to get fecal matter in your mouth.  Most at risk are those in “Third World” countries where the sanitation systems aren’t that great.  Others at risk are those who lead a lifestyle other than monogamus.  The last group at risk are drug users. I highly doubt that LCDR Healy falls into any of these categories.