Recently I’ve had the opportunity to research the topic of immunization with respect to the wisdom, safety and morality of receiving vaccines. I haven’t investigated this topic in depth in recent years so I thought it would be a good chance to review the subject matter myself and present a summary for my readers. It is not exhaustive. Hopefully, this could serve as a good starting point either for bringing this topic to the forefront or for further personal research. (I am not in the medical profession so what follows should not be taken as “professional advice” in any form.)
…
As regards those who need to use such vaccines for reasons of health, it must be emphasized that, apart from every form of formal cooperation, 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 very remote mediate material cooperation, and thus very mild, in the performance of the original act of abortion, and a mediate material cooperation, with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions, and immediate, with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells. 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. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least a mediate remote passive material cooperation to the abortion, and 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 vaccines (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 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
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 measles.
…
The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia (They used to be in Massachusetts) is a trustworthy resource in this area. They are the contact point for the US Catholic Bishops. Here’s their response to a query:( Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses, Pontifical Academy for Life, June 9, 2005)
“Am I free to refuse to vaccinate myself or my children on the grounds of conscience?”
“One must follow a certain conscience even if it errs, but there is a responsibility to inform one's conscience properly. There would seem to be no proper grounds for refusing immunization against dangerous contagious disease, for example, rubella, especially in light of the concern that we should all have for the health of our children, public health, and the common good.”
On the scientific dimensions …(National Catholic Bioethics Center FAQ on Vaccines )
“It's important to note that today, with the exception of some flu vaccines, no U.S. vaccines used to protect preschool children against infectious disease contain [mercury-based] thimerosal as a preservative. A preservative-free version of the inactivated flu vaccine (containing trace amounts of thimerosal) is available.”
On the civil law dimensions …
Updates:
No Link Between Measles Vaccine And Autism (September 3, 2008)
Is the issue with vaccination only about where do the vaccines come from?
Posted by: Rafael Millet | November 13, 2008 at 09:18 PM
There are many links provided that will allow one to drill down deeper. Usually people do not even consider moral dimensions. That's whay I was sure to emphasize it/
Posted by: pazdziernik | November 14, 2008 at 02:41 PM