|
Summary of Catholic Teaching on the Use of Vaccines
Produced with Aborted Fetal Cell Lines
In June 2005 the Vatican
Pontifical Academy
for Life issued a document Moral Reflections on Vaccines Produced from
Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses.
The Academy’s report on this issue was
approved by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Moral
Reflections on Vaccines offers the following guidance:
- It is morally wrong
to produce, market, and distribute vaccines derived from aborted fetal
cell lines because this could encourage the performance of other
voluntary abortions for the purpose of producing such vaccines.
- We have a duty to
request and use alternative vaccines which were produced in a morally
acceptable way, if such alternative vaccines exist.
- In the case of
vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines for which no
alternatives currently exist, it is morally permissible to use them
“on a temporary basis” and “insomuch as is
necessary” to ensure the health of individuals and the population
as a whole.
- It is right to abstain
from using vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines on condition
that this can be done without causing children, and indirectly the
population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.
- We have a responsibility
to “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 legal control of
the pharmaceutical industry producers.”
What does the Church say about the use of the rubella vaccine
specifically?
|
1) |
The vaccine for rubella (a component in MMR) has been
produced using an aborted fetal cell line and there is no alternative
vaccine for this disease currently approved for use in the United States.
Thus the third bullet point above is applicable to this case. A
memorandum from the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops quotes (with approval) a statement from the National Catholic
Bioethics Center:
“The Pontifical
Academy for Life
rejects the claim that Catholics have a moral duty to refuse the rubella
vaccine on the grounds of conscience and Catholic teaching. It
encourages Catholic parents to vaccinate their children against rubella and
other serious diseases despite the unfortunate origin of the cell lines
used in the manufacture of the vaccines.” |
|
2) |
As with all vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell
lines, we have a duty to lobby for the development of alternative vaccines
produced in a morally acceptable way. |
FAQ
Using Vaccines
Produced with Aborted Fetal Cell Lines
How
can aborted fetal tissue be involved in the production of vaccines?
The production of vaccines involves collecting samples of the actual virus,
then growing and altering them in the laboratory to make a weakened strain of
the disease, which is then put into a serum and administered into the
body. The development of a weakened viral strain requires a cell
culture in which to grow it. The cell culture consists of a “cell
line,” a single type of cell that multiplies itself and that can be
maintained in a laboratory setting for long periods of time. Some of
the original cells that started these cell lines have come from animals, but
in other cases the original cells have come from aborted human fetuses. (http://www.rtl.org/html/hot_topics_html/vaccines.html)
Sometimes the phraseology is used that a vaccine has been “made with
aborted babies.” Such a description may give the impression that
tissue from aborted fetuses is directly used as a component of the
vaccine. This is inaccurate. The vaccine is grown on a cell line
derived from an aborted fetus. Nevertheless, the use of tissue
from aborted fetuses in any stage of the production of a vaccine is a matter
of moral concern.
What vaccines have been produced with aborted fetal cell lines?
Poliovax for polio, Imovax
for rabies, and Acambis 1000 were
producedusing an aborted fetal cell line; however,
alternative vaccines for these diseases are available which were not produced
in this way. Similarly, Meruvax for
rubella, Varivax for Chickenpox, and Havrix and Vaqta
for hepatitis-A were produced with an aborted fetal cell line but, in these
cases, no alternative vaccine is currently approved for use in the United States.
. Meruvax is part of MMR
for measles, mumps, and rubella; of Biavax for
mumps and rubella; and of MR-VAX for measles and rubella. Twinrix for hepatitis A-B contains Havrix.
What is the teaching of the Catholic Church on vaccines produced
with aborted fetal cell lines?
In June 2005 the Vatican
Pontifical Academy
for Life issued a document Moral Reflections on Vaccines Produced from
Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses.
The Academy’s report on this issue was approved by the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Moral Reflections on
Vaccines offers the following guidance:
- It is morally wrong to
produce, market, and distribute vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell
lines because this could encourage the performance of other voluntary
abortions for the purpose of producing such vaccines.
- We have a duty to
request and use alternative vaccines which were produced in a morally
acceptable way, if such alternative vaccines exist.
- In the case of
vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines for which no
alternatives currently exist, it is morally permissible to use them
“on a temporary basis” and “insomuch as is
necessary” to ensure the health of individuals and the population
as a whole.
- It is right to
abstain from using vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines on
condition that this can be done without causing children, and indirectly
the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.
- We have a
responsibility to “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
legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.”
Why does the Catholic Church allow the use of a vaccine produced
with an aborted fetal cell line when no alternative vaccine exists?
In our imperfect world, good and legitimate pursuits can be intertwined with
evil. This occurs more frequently than one might think. As pointed out
by philosophy professor Don DeMarco:
Part of the meaning of the ‘global village’ in which we live
is that the contamination from various acts of wrongdoing has seeped into
almost every corner of our existence. Given what is shown on television
these days, can anyone justify owning one? Many food items one
purchases at the grocery store have a genesis that involves a worker
exploitation or even slave labor. Is one even allowed to watch an NBA
game, given the stories that exist concerning the making and selling of
sneakers? We pay taxes to governments that subsidize abortion and other
crimes. Too scrupulous a moral attitude can lead to paralysis and, as a
consequence, leave a great deal of good undone. (http://www.cogforlife.org/articles.htm)
To deal with situations in which good and evil are intertwined, Catholic
moral theology has developed the principles governing cooperation with evil.
These principles provide guidance as to when and to what degree someone may
legitimately cooperate with or benefit from an evil action. It is on
the basis of the principles governing cooperation with evil that the use of a
vaccine produced with an aborted fetal cell line is allowed, when no
alternative vaccine exists, in order to ensure the health of individuals and
the population as a whole. (See
Pontifical Academy
for Life, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Produced from Cells Derived from
Aborted Human Foetuses)
Has the Catholic Church said anything on the use of the rubella
vaccine specifically?
The document Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived
from Aborted Human Foetuses from the Pontifical Academy for Life begins with a
discussion of rubella:
Rubella (German measles) is a viral illness caused by a Togavirus of the genus Rubivirus
and is characterized by a maculopapular rash.
It consists of an infection which is common in infancy and has no clinical
manifestations in one case out of two, is self-limiting and usually
benign. Nonetheless, the German measles virus is one of the most
pathological infective agents for the embryo and foetus.
When a woman catches the infection during pregnancy, especially during the
first trimester, the risk of foetal infection is
very high (approximately 95%). The virus replicates itself in the
placenta and infects the foetus, causing the
constellation of abnormalities denoted by the name of Congenital Rubella
Syndrome. For example, the severe epidemic of German measles which
affected a huge part of the United States in 1964 thus caused 20,000 cases of
congenital rubella, resulting in 11,250 abortions (spontaneous and surgical),
2,100 neonatal deaths, 11,600 cases of deafness, 3,580 cases of blindness,
1,800 cases of mental retardation. It was this epidemic that pushed for
the development and introduction on the market of an effective vaccine
against rubella, thus permitting an effective prophylaxis against this
infection.
The severity of congenital rubella and the handicaps which it causes
justify systematic vaccination against such a sickness. It is very
difficult, perhaps even impossible, to avoid the infection of a pregnant
woman, even if the rubella infection of a person in contact with the woman is
diagnosed from the first day of the eruption of the rash. Therefore,
one tries to prevent transmission by suppressing the reservoir of infection
among children who have not been vaccinated, by means of early immunization
of all children (universal vaccination). Universal vaccination has
resulted in a considerable fall in the incidence of congenital rubella, with
a general incidence reduced to less than 5 cases per 100,000 live
births. Nevertheless, this progress remains fragile. In the
United States,
for example, after an overwhelming reduction in the number of cases of
congenital rubella to only a few cases annually, i.e., less than 0.1 per
100,000 live births, a new epidemic wave came on in 1991, with an incidence
that rose to 0.8/100,000. Such waves of resurgence of German measles
were also seen in 1997 and in the year 2000. These periodic episodes of
resurgence make it evident that there is a persistent circulation of the
virus among young adults, which is the consequence of insufficient vaccination
coverage. The latter situation allows a significant proportion of
vulnerable subjects to persist, who are a source of periodic epidemics which
put women in the fertile age group who have not been immunized at risk.
Therefore, the reduction to the point of eliminating congenital rubella is
considered a priority in public health care.
Applying the principles governing cooperation with evil, the Pontifical Academy judges that there is a
sufficiently serious reason to justify the use of the vaccine against rubella
(German measles):
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.
A textual note adds:
This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German
measles, because of the danger of Congenital Rubella Syndrome. This
could occur, causing grave congenital malformations in the foetus, when a pregnant woman enters into contact, even
if it is brief, with children who have not been immunized and are carriers of
the virus.
The State of Iowa
is experiencing an epidemic of mumps. Why isn’t it enough to be
vaccinated only against mumps, especially since the vaccine Mumpsvax is produced in a morally
acceptable way?
Although Iowa
is dealing with an epidemic of mumps, there must be concern with the totality
of an individual’s immunization program, for the sake of both
individual and public health, in order to prevent outbreaks of diseases in
the future which are preventable through vaccination. Even if Iowa were not dealing
with an epidemic of mumps, the need to be protected against rubella would
still exist. The Iowa Department of Public Health recommends using the
MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine unless an
individual can document already existing immunity against rubella by previous
vaccination or physician diagnosed disease. (Archdiocesan
correspondence with the Iowa Department of Public Health, April 14, 2006)
As pointed out by the Pontifical Academy for Life, the “progress
[against congenital rubella] remains fragile.” For example,
“in the United
States…after an overwhelming
reduction in the number of cases of congenital rubella to only a few cases
annually…a new epidemic wave came on in 1991…”.
Moreover, “such waves of resurgence of German measles [rubella] were
also seen in 1997 and in the year 2000.” The Pontifical Academy’s
statement goes on to say that “these periodic episodes of resurgence
make it evident that there is a persistent circulation of the virus among
young adults, which is the consequence of insufficient vaccination
coverage” (italics added). The statement further adds that
“the reduction to the point of eliminating congenital rubella is
considered a priority in public health care.”
As of 2005, rubella is no longer considered “endemic” in the United States
(Centers for Disease Control, “Achievement in Public Health: Elimination
of Rubella and Congenital Rubella Syndrome – United States, 1969-2004 MMWR Weekly 54/11 (March 25,
2005): 279-282). Because of this, some have argued that there is no
real need today for Americans to be vaccinated against rubella, and that such
vaccination can be forgone without risk to individual and public
health. From a medical and public health point of view, this is
mistaken.
Rubella outbreaks once were common in the
United States
. Today, because
of widespread use of the vaccine,
U.S.
cases are rare. In
early 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared rubella
eliminated in the
United
States
, but cautioned parents to make
sure their children are vaccinated. (“Rubella,”
MayoClinic.com; italics added).
Because vaccination has suppressed certain diseases, some are now becoming
neglectful of receiving vaccinations against these diseases, a practice which
provides fertile ground for the recurrence of the diseases in the
future. As already mentioned, the Pontifical Academy
for Life notes the periodic recurrence of outbreaks of rubella and congenital
rubella, attributable to a lack of vaccination.
Moreover, “rubella continues to be endemic in many parts of the
world” (CDC, “Achievements in Public Health”), a fact which
must be kept in mind in view of the increasing degree of international travel
and immigration. Indeed, “since 1998, most non-U.S.-born cases of
rubella reported in the United
States have occurred among persons born in
countries where rubella vaccination has not been or was only recently
implemented.” (CDC, “Achievements in Public Health”).
In sum, although rubella is presently under control in the United States,
Americans should not take this for granted.
Can someone voice conscientious objection to the use of the
vaccine for rubella based on the teaching of the Catholic
Church?
No. A memorandum from the Committee on Doctrine of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops quotes (with approval) a statement from the National Catholic
Bioethics Center:
“The Pontifical
Academy for Life
rejects the claim that Catholics have a moral duty to refuse the rubella
vaccine on the grounds of conscience and Catholic teaching. It
encourages Catholic parents to vaccinate their children against rubella and
other serious diseases despite the unfortunate origin of the cell lines used
in the manufacture of the vaccines.”
How is use of the rubella vaccine consistent with a
“pro-life” stance?
As pointed out above, congenital rubella syndrome can cause very serious
abnormalities in the fetus, and even result in spontaneous abortion
(miscarriage), induced abortion, or neonatal death. Nothing can be done
to restore the life of the aborted fetus from which the cell line was derived
that is used in the production of the rubella vaccine. However, through
immunization against rubella, we can prevent abortions and neonatal deaths in
the future.
In fact, the Pontifical Academy of Life has a strong warning for those who
refuse vaccination against rubella:
|
|
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 [rubella], because of the danger of Congenital
Rubella Syndrome. This could occur, causing grave congenital
malformations in the foetus, when a pregnant
woman enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not
been immunized and are carriers of the virus. In this case, the
parents who did not accept the vaccination of their own children become
responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion
of foetuses, when they have been discovered to be
malformed. [Moral Reflections on Vaccines Produced
from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses; italics
added.] |
|
In allowing the use of the rubella
vaccine, isn’t the Catholic Church “giving in” to an
immoral action?
The teaching of the Catholic Church has two prongs. While allowing use
of the rubella vaccine for the present time, the Church affirms a serious
obligation to work for change in how the vaccine for this disease is produced.
A memorandum from the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops points this out: “The Pontifical Academy
calls for appropriate expressions of protest against the origins of these
vaccines as well as for vigorous efforts to promote the creation of
alternatives. ‘There remains a moral duty to continue to fight
and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the
pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically.’”
Clarification of Catholic Teaching on the Use of
Vaccines Produced with Aborted Fetal Cell Lines
Archdiocese of Dubuque,
Iowa
April 2006
In dealing with the current mumps epidemic in the state of Iowa, the combined
vaccine MMR for measles, mumps, and rubella is being administered.
Questions have been raised about the moral permissibility of using this
combined vaccine since the rubella component, Meruvax,
is produced in a cell culture using a cell line derived from an aborted human
fetus (http://www.merck.com).
In response to an inquiry posed by the organization Children of God for
Life, the Vatican Pontifical Academy for Life prepared a statement Moral
Reflections on Vaccines Produced from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses in June 2005 (http://www.academiavita.org >
documents). This document was approved by the Vatican Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith and offers the following guidance:
- It is morally wrong
to produce, market, and distribute vaccines derived from aborted fetal
cell lines because this could encourage the performance of other
voluntary abortions for the purpose of producing such vaccines.
- We have a duty to
request and use alternative vaccines which were produced in a morally
acceptable way, if such alternative vaccines exist.
- In the case of
vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines for which no
alternatives currently exist, it is morally permissible to use them
“on a temporary basis” and “insomuch as is
necessary” to ensure the health of individuals and the population
as a whole.
- It is right to
abstain from using vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines on
condition that this can be done without causing children, and indirectly
the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.
- We have a
responsibility to “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
legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.”
How do these principles apply to vaccination during the current mumps
epidemic? Since the mumps component of MMR, Mumpsvax,
is produced in a morally acceptable way and can be obtained alone from its
manufacturer Merck, it might seem that Catholics should opt for the use of Mumpsvax alone. However, the total context of
immunization must be considered before making such a judgment.
In response to the question, “Can the single mumps antigen be used
to vaccinate?”, the Iowa Department of Public
Health indicates that “the preferred vaccine is the MMR
combination” (http://www.idph.state.ia.us/adper/cade.asp).
More specifically, “MMR is the preferred vaccine when there is no
documentation of immunity either by vaccination or physician diagnosed
disease. …If the recipient has acceptable evidence of immunity to one
or more components, monovalent or bivalent vaccines
may be used.” (Archdiocesan correspondence with the Iowa Department of
Public Health, April 14, 2006). In other words, although we are
currently dealing with an epidemic of mumps, there is concern with the
totality of an individual’s immunization history. This is a
legitimate concern in order to prevent outbreaks of diseases in the future
which are preventable through vaccination.
The State of Iowa
requires two doses of MMR for enrollment of children in school (http://www.dubuque.k12.ia.us/schoolnurse/index.htm).
Similarly, health care workers should have immunity against measles, mumps,
and rubella (Archdiocesan correspondence with the Iowa Department of Public
Health, April 14, 2006). The vaccine against rubella, Meruvax, was produced using aborted fetal cell lines.
However, there is no alternative vaccine for rubella currently approved for
use in the United States,
a fact explicitly noted in the document from the Pontifical Academy
for Life. Hence, Catholic teaching allows use of this vaccine for the
present. Indeed, the Pontifical Academy for Life makes a strong statement
about the need to undertake vaccination against rubella (German measles):
“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, because of the danger of
Congenital Rubella Syndrome. This could occur, causing grave congenital
malformations in the foetus, when a pregnant woman
enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not been
immunized and are carriers of the virus. In this case, the parents who
did not accept the vaccination of their own children become responsible for
the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of fetuses,
when they have been discovered to be malformed.” (Moral Reflections
on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses)
In sum, even though we are currently dealing with an epidemic of mumps,
use of the MMR combination is permitted by Catholic teaching when
administered as part of an individual’s comprehensive immunization
program. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that we have an
obligation to lobby pharmaceutical companies and legislators for production
of all vaccines without the use of aborted fetal cell lines.
It should be noted that, following the release of the document Moral
Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses, the organization Children of God for Life
circulated an interpretation of the document which was questionable. A
copy of the corrective statement issued by the chair of the Committee on
Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops may be obtained
from the Office of the Health Care Consultant at the Archdiocesan Pastoral
Center.
Approved by Most Rev. Jerome Hanus,
OSB Archbishop of Dubuque
April 2006
Commonly Used Vaccines and their Method of
Production
The vaccines for the following diseases are produced in a
morally acceptable way, without using aborted fetal cell lines:
- diphtheria
- tetanus
- pertussis
(whopping cough)
- haemophilus
influenza type B
- hepatitis B
- anthrax
- influenza.
The following list concerns diseases for which vaccines have been
produced using aborted fetal cells lines and the existence or non-existence
of alternative vaccines.
|
Disease |
Vaccine |
|
|
Polio |
Poliovax
[Aventis-Pasteur/Pasteur Merieux Connaught] |
produced using aborted fetal cell line |
|
|
IPOL [Aventis-Pasteur] |
morally acceptable alternative |
|
|
Orimune [Lederle] |
morally acceptable alternative |
|
|
|
|
|
Rabies |
Imovax
[Aventis-Pasteur/Pasteur Merieux Connaught] |
produced using aborted fetal cell line |
|
|
RabAvert [Chiron] |
morally acceptable alternative |
|
|
RVA [SmithKline Beecham] |
morally acceptable alternative |
|
|
|
|
|
Smallpox |
Acambis 1000 [Acambis] |
produced using aborted fetal cell line |
|
|
Acambis 2000 [Acambis-Baxter] |
morally acceptable alternative |
|
|
|
|
|
Rubella |
Meruvax II [Merck] |
produced using aborted fetal cell line *No morally
acceptable alternative currently approved for use in U.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measles, Mumps, Rubella |
MMR II [Merck] |
Contains Attenuvax (morally
acceptable),Mumpsvax (morally acceptable), and Meruvax (produced using aborted fetal cell line) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mumps & Rubella |
Biavax II [Merck] |
Rubella component produced using aborted fetal cell line. |
|
|
|
|
|
Measles and Rubella |
MR - VAX II [Merck] |
contains a Attenuvax (morally acceptable) and Meruvax II
(produced using aborted fetal cell line) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chickenpox |
Varivax [Merck] |
produced using aborted fetal cell line *No morally
acceptable alternative currently approved for use in U.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hepatitis-A |
Havrix [SmithKline Beecham/Glaxo SmithKline] |
produced using aborted fetal cell line *No morally
acceptable alternative currently approved for use in U.S. |
|
|
Vaqta [Merck] |
produced using aborted fetal cell line *No morally
acceptable alternative currently approved for use in U.S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hepatitis A-B |
Twinrix [Glaxo
SmithKline] |
Contains Havrix (produced
using aborted fetal cell line) and Engerix-B (morally
acceptable) |
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that the vaccines produced from morally acceptable
sources are comparable in cost to the vaccines they replace.
Disclaimer:
The above information represents the best of our knowledge as of
January 2005.
Sources:
http://www.rtl.org/html/hot
topics html/vaccines.html
http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccines.htm
http://www.dgwsoft.co.uk/homepages/vaccines/usvaccines.html
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic2/biavax.htm
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic2/mrvaxii.htm
http://vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/June2001/VaccineIngredients.htm
Pharmaceutical companies Chiron, GlaxoSmithKline, Lederle,
Merck, SmithKlineBeecham.
Acknowledgements:
Bob Ripley, Clinical Coordinator of Pharmacy at Mercy Medical Center —
Dubuque and Dyersville, Iowa, and Diane Reist,
Director of Pharmacy at Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, provided
assistance to the Medical-Moral Commission in determining the availability
and cost of various vaccines.
OPPORTUNITY FOR POLITICAL ACTION
on the use of
vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines
Moral Reflections on Vaccines Produced from Cells Derived from Aborted
Human Foetuses from the Vatican Pontifical
Academy for Life affirms that we have a responsibility to “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
legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
An opportunity to send a letter regarding vaccines produced with aborted
fetal cell lines to U.S.
senators and representatives from the State of Iowa is provided on the web site of the
Iowa Catholic Conference:
http://www.iowacatholicconference.org
> Opportunity for Political Action on the Use of Vaccines Produced with
Aborted Fetal Cell Lines > Send a message to US senators and
representatives from the State of Iowa
OR click on the link below:
http://capwiz.com/iowanasccd/issues/alert/?alertid=8802046&type=ML&show_alert=1
The following sample letter is provided by the Medical-Moral Commission of
the Archdiocese of Dubuque:
As a resident of Iowa,
I am writing to urge Congress to prohibit pharmaceutical companies and their
suppliers from using cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses in the
production of vaccines.
Use of the MMR vaccine (Merck) during the mumps epidemic in Iowa has raised
awareness of the fact that the rubella component, Meruvax,
was produced using an aborted fetal cell line. The same is true of the
vaccine Varivax (Merck) for chickenpox and the
vaccines Havrix (SmithKline Beecham/Glaxo SmithKline) and Vaqta
(Merck) for hepatits-A. No alternatives to
these vaccines, produced without the use of aborted fetal cell lines, are
currently approved for use in the United States. I am
concerned about this method of producing vaccines because it reduces the
human fetus to commercial research material, and thus erodes our respect for
human life in all its stages.
While some vaccines for polio (Poliovax),
rabies (Imovax), and smallpox (Acambis
1000) were produced using aborted fetal cell lines, other vaccines for the
same diseases have been produced using monkey kidney and chick embryo cell
lines. Moreover, Japanese researchers have produced alternative vaccines for
rubella and hepatitis-A using rabbit and monkey kidney cell line, vaccines which
are available in the U.K. (http://www.rtl.org/html/hot_topics_html
/vaccines.html and http://www.cogforlife.org/
fetalvaccines.htm ) This clearly demonstrates that it is not
necessary to use aborted fetal cell lines in the production of
vaccines.
Please advise me of steps you and others in Congress are taking to
address this moral issue.
Please note: Heightened security measures have dramatically increased the
time it takes for a letter sent by U.S. mail to reach the offices of
federal or state legislators. More and more, citizens are using emails
to communicate their concerns, and increasingly elected officials’
offices prefer electronic communications for constituent contact.
Janine Marie Idziak, Ph.D.
Health Care Consultant
Archdiocese of Dubuque, Iowa
|
