“The “doctrine of double effect” has a pleasing ring to it. It is regarded by some as the cornerstone of any sound approach to end-of-life issues and by others as religious mumbo jumbo. Discussions about “the doctrine” often generate more heat than light. They are often conducted at cross-purposes and laced with footnotes from Leviticus.” C. Foster, J. Herring, J. Melham, T. Hope, “The Double Effect Effect,” Cambridge University Press.
INTRODUCTION
Faithful Catholics sin if they use vaccines tainted by use of fetal cells from aborted babies. If my inference is correct, that’s what Dr. Stacy Trasancos is saying in her Crisis article, “Awakening Consciences about Abortion-tainted Vaccines:”
“If we truly find it moral to benefit from abortion, then we are ultimately no different from the abortionist. And that is an insurmountable problem for the conscience of many good Catholics.”
Her argument is that by taking vaccines that may have used (to one degree or another) cell lines from aborted babies we tell the world that our Catholic opposition to abortion is only nominal, and when convenience requires, we are willing to turn our heads:
“It may satisfy the Catholic conscience to say that we oppose abortion even as we accept the abortion-tainted vaccines, but to the rest of the world the message we send is contradictory. It appears to put us in the same category as any pro-abortion advocate.”
I find that argument at best, facile, and at worst, harmful to those who should take a vaccine. Arguments have been given by Catholic theologians, Catholic medical ethicists, and Church hierarchy that it is indeed morally acceptable (in some circumstances) to take such vaccines. (I’ve summarized some of these arguments in a previous article, Covid-19 Vaccines and Catholic Ethics.) I’ll discuss below how the Doctrine of Double Effect (first proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas) supports such arguments.
THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT: SOME ACTS HAVE BOTH GOOD AND BAD EFFECTS
St. Thomas Aquinas observed that many actions have both good and bad effects. In his Doctrine of the Double Effect, he set forth guiding principles to help us decide how to act in such cases. Here’s some background material: factors affecting moral decisions, as outlined in the Catholic Catechism (CCC 1750-1761); an application to a famous ethical thought experiment, the Trolley Car problem (see “Catholic Ethics, the Trolley Car Problem, and Driverless Cars).
The featured image gives a pictorial summary of the Doctrine. (There are actually four conditions, rather than the three given in the image, but space was limited.) I summarize these below (as reproduced from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):
- The act, in itself, must not be evil;
- The person doing the act must intend good, not evil;
- The good effect of the act must proceed directly, rather than indirectly from the act (good ends don’t justify evil means);
- The good effects of the act must outweigh the evil effects (the proportionality condition)
Let’s see how that might be applied to the covid-19 vaccine problem. With respect to condition 1 above, we can certainly say that the act of vaccination in itself is morally neutral. (Just as hammering a nail into a wall is an act in itself that’s morally neutral.) With respect to condition 2, we can say that the intention is to do good, to prevent oneself from contracting covid-19. And certainly the good effect of the act proceeds directly from the vaccination itself, so condition 3 is satisfied. I contend that the good effects of the act are much greater than the evil ones, so condition 4 is satisfied. I’ll give my reasons for that contention below.
WOULD A VACCINE BOYCOTT AFFECT THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS?
Would boycotting the vaccine inhibit future use of fetal tissue cell lines in medical research? Would it minimize in the future the number of abortions? If the answer to these questions is “No,” then condition 4 above is satisfied and the Doctrine of Double Effect is applicable. I believe that boycotting vaccines will have little effect in achieving an intended goal, that fetal cell lines not be used in medical research. Moreover, it will not promote what should be an ultimate goal, that legal abortion should be eliminated. How could that happen, given that the current Democratic administration and Congress is giving more money to Planned Parenthood and planning to remove restrictions on use of fetal cells for medical research? If 100,000 people refuse to be vaccinated, will that make big Pharma decide not to use fetal cells when 100 million do take vaccines and when the national government now in power promotes fetal cell research and abortion?
Would not protests by Catholics laymen, priests and bishops against those Catholic politicians (Catholic in name only?) who support such actions be a more effective way of showing that Catholics stand with Church doctrine on the sanctity of life? And should we not also protest against those Catholic priests and hierarchy who give such politicians Holy Communion and congratulate them on their election? And would it not be more effective to oppose abortion by supporting the efforts of pro-life priests, like Fr. Frank Pavone?
Boycotting vaccines may make oneself feel virtuous, but it is not, I claim, a realistic way to advance the pro-life cause. And speaking of feeling virtuous–I don’t feel virtuous about taking the covid-19 vaccine. It is too complicated an ethical issue, involving both good and bad moral effects, to have such feelings. I’d like now to give a personal account of why I decided to take the vaccine, and why it was not an easy decision.
VACCINES AND MY BATTLE OF CONSCIENCE
When I first learned several months ago that vaccines were to be available, I was 90.7 years old, and therefore at high risk (fatality) should I contract covid-19 (despite looking younger than my age—but you should see the disgusting picture of me up in the attic!) Moreover, my wife was 85.5 years old, suffering from three co-morbidities, and was therefore at even higher risk than I. Also, I am the main support for my wheelchair bound wife, who is adamant that she will not be consigned to a nursing home. Accordingly, if I were to contract the virus, my wife would almost certainly be infected, be left helpless and almost certainly would die.
As I pondered whether to take the least offensive of the vaccines, Moderna or Pfizer (these used fetal cell lines only in testing, not in research or production), I wondered: would I be following Catholic moral teaching if I took the vaccines so that my wife and I did not get ill. I did an internet search—Catholic morality of vaccines—and found these two resources: a catalog (up to date as of November, 2020) by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier agency about the use of fetal cell lines in covid-19 vaccines; a document (2005) from the Pontifical Academy for Life,“Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Human Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses,” that gave ethical guidelines about use of vaccines involved with fetal cell lines. The article linked above gives my summary of those two resources, and what I concluded from them, so I won’t repeat that here, other than to say I found them very helpful in my decision to be vaccinated.
Let me make two other points regarding this decision. Had I been 30 years younger, and both I and my wife been in good health, I would have decided not to be vaccinated. This would have been my protest against the use of fetal cell lines from an aborted baby, even though it was only in testing. And had I believed that one less abortion would occur in the future if I refused to be vaccinated, I believe I would have asked my wife to stay with me in our semi-quarantine or at least that she be vaccinated and I not. (Granted, this is easy to say after the fact.)
Here’s a story—The old man, the flood, and God’s help—that buttresses my argument. An old man, sitting on the roof of his house during a flood, finally drowned after refusing multiple offers of aid, with the explanation each time, “God will save me.” In heaven he asked God “why didn’t You help me?” And God replied “I sent a pickup, a boat and a helicopter. What more could you ask?” God has sent a vaccine to help us, if we need it.
Finally, let me repeat: I would have avoided the vaccine were my wife and I younger and in good health (I believe I still have some years to contribute to doing God’s will on earth). And let me add this prayer: that those arguing against use of the vaccine don’t convince those at risk to avoid the vaccine; or if the anti-vaccine arguments do convince those at risk, that God will send His pickup, boat and helicopter to rescue them.
The so called ‘vaccine’ carries its own risks as well and there have been many deaths and side effects. To argue that to take an experimental injection that was developed or uses aborted baby cell lines is just double effect does not seem to me to pass the ‘does the end justify the means’ question.
Agree with Madgalene. No one should take the vaccine for all of the reasons we are aware. Taking is a death wish. This is another work of the devil. Our government–especially now–cannot be trusted, Dr. Fauci in particular.
It’s a very personal issue imo.
I too have a spouse who has medical issues plus a brother in law who moved in two years ago. He has health issues as well. My workplace has 67 patients that are fragile.
Not taking the vaccine would be a sign of cowardice on my part.
I wrote a letter to the CFO of Moderna expressing my deep disappointment that aborted fetal cells, even though they were garnered some fifty years ago, was not ethical. This suggestion, to send a letter, was from my parish priest.
If my decision helped to protect the fragile of whom I’m in contact with every day then I can sleep well at night. If I had chosen the other route and I contacted and spread the virus to my family or patients resulting in their deaths…well.
I would have a very difficult time facing myself in the mirror.
Thank you Bob Kurland.
and laced with footnotes from Leviticus
I can’t help but be delighted by something about this….
The moral issue with vaccines manufactured via deliberately killed children is the same as with cannibalism.
There are several vaccines my kids or myself have not gotten, because they are not a high enough risk to justify the wrong; there are some we’ve gotten even though they are basically cannibalism, because there is no other option.
The second part of using such vaccines would actually solve the objection– be noisy in demanding alternatives.
When someone bemoans how the Orthodox Jews of New York (to choose an oddly popular example) are not vaccinated for this or that, demand why the wailer is not urging a morally licit option for them. Because if they truly want to increase vaccination, that would do it– and the vaccines exist, they just aren’t in the US.
There’s a reason that the debunking websites choose a thing almost nobody is saying– that the vaccine contains dead baby tissue– to debunk.
That is because most people do not know about fetal cell lines, nor that they have to be replaced.
That is part of why I give people details– WI-38, if she had not been killed, would be a Swedish lady in her 50s. RA273 would be a man in his 60s. HEK-293 would be a teen to twenties Chinese girl. (and if you think that “elective abortion” was voluntary, you’re incredibly generous)
These folks have pretty good lists, to work with the site you found:
https://cogforlife.org/
I think the vaccine is a bad idea. HOWEVER– as you point out, you are high risk.
You are taking an additional risk, since it is experimental.
You’ve put your money were your mouth is, in this case– it’s an easier case than most, because you clearly believe that the chance of reward is worth the risk of using an entirely new type of vaccine.
Oh, the number at the end of those names?
That’s how many dead children they attempted to get a line from before, and failed.
I highly suggest that anybody weak of stomach not look too hard at what kind of folks were involved in the development.
Foxfier: HEK293 was from the Netherlands; others: The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines do not contain tissue or cells from dead babies. They were tested on a fetal cell line HEK293, from a baby that might have been aborted and possibly (perhaps unlikely) might have been a miscarriage. Certainly it would have been better, although perhaps less likely to prove reliable results, to use cell lines from placental sources or adults. But this is what we should urge big Pharma to do. Alas, vaccines using such are not available.
I too am aware of the risks involved in this new mode for vaccination, but they are, if I may be a statistical liar, evidently statistically insignificant–which is to say they may be deaths from other sources or again, from an unlikely genetic makeup and the incidence of bad results is very, very low. I did indeed ponder those risks. What finally convinced me to take the vaccine (this wasn’t an ethical argument) was this account from my primary care physician, who also happens to be co-chair of the Bioethics Committee of the Catholic Medical Association. A few months before vaccine availability was announced there was an outbreak of the Wuhan flu at a local nursing home/rehab/Alzheimer’s treatment center: 85% of the elderly patients were infected (many of them nuns); 18 of his patients died within a two week period. The Wuhan flu is not just the flu, it is deadly to the elderly and those with co-morbidities!
Dr. K, I read different analyses of the COVID -19 Vaccines: The Brit Astra Zeneca used a female aborted baby’s kidney x number years ago in the development of the vaccine.
Brit Moderna and US Pfizer may have used aborted baby cells in testing. US bishops okayed use by Catholics.
US Johnson & Johnson – American bishops deem it unacceptable because of aborted baby tissue used directly in the vaccine. The makers deny it.
Fast forward to 2021 Doctors on FOX shows state that number of people refusing the vaccine is higher than expected. Other networks claim it’s the Republicans and members of the military in that group. No one mentions the use of aborted baby cells/tissue as a reason. Duh.
I was not going to have the vaccine. Then my husband, though a good weight, failed his stress test in late Jan. The earliest cardiologist appt is 20 April. His primary dr. vaccinated his patients with Pfizer in Feb. Now husband has had both shots. So I did receive the 1st Moderna vaccinarion in early Mar through a local Catholic clinic because I did not want to bring COVID 19 into our home. We don’t know what is causing my husband’s shortness of breath. Second shot is 3/31 for our church members.
We think we had the virus late Jan and Feb 2020. We sat opposite a coupe in late Jan who had flown on China Air to US Jan 25th. We had breathing problems, extreme coughing for 4 weeks, fatigue; antibiotics did not work but steroids did. My husband was diagnosed with bronchitits after a chest xray. My dr. said I had RSV. After the xray I was followed by a pulmonologist for 2 months. We wanted to be tested but in Feb 2020 no tests were available in our rural area. In 2021 my friends have been told that the virus antibodies are only in the body for 3 weeks after a mild illness so they are not tested. My question is if the anti-bodies don’t last that long how does herd immunity work? BTW we are both type O+. Take 50mg of zinc and 4000-5000 units of D3 daily.
It seems to me the real question is not “Are these vaccines moral licit?” but “Are we a people who uses them, and what does God think about that?” (Incidentally, Dr. Trascanos admits to using these products. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/03/opinion-its-time-to-get-beyond-vaccines/)
.
If you want a world where you don’t need to ask the question–“May I morally use a vaccine (or any other medical product) with ties to abortion?” then there is only one answer: refuse to use abortion-tainted medical technology. Buy the non-abortion tainted product, if it exists. (Bonus: help to fund research if it does not.) But do not use abortion-tainted medical tech even if there is no alternative.
.
Sure, person can take the vaccine and file a complaint about being deeply wounded, but in the end the manufacturers and medical community do not care. Letters of that kind go straight to a trash can. They might send a letter back explaining their position, and maybe a coupon for an OTC drug like aspirin, but they really do not care what their customers think and feels. Why should they? They are doing what is currently acceptable, even to our Pope, and making money, which is what they are there for. The Medical Industry has been using these products for years.
.
They are there to make money: money that pays for their salaries, which is turn puts food on their table, a roof over their heads, and their kids in college. They are there to make money for their stockholders, who are stockholders because ultimately they get money to put food on the table, a roof over their head, and their kids in college.
.
And these products are very profitable–especially now that they are basically mandated. I imagine that the use of HEK cell line probably is “safer” from a legal, regulatory, and production standpoint than, say, money kidney or chicken egg or whatever was used in the past. If HEK was not good for the bottom line, they would not use it.
.
The manufacturers will continue to use HEK until it is no longer acceptable to use it, possibly because of moral outrage, lawsuits, or technological advances that make using HEK a failure for the bottom line. Profit signals the market place to got in one direction. Loss signals it to cease going in that direction and try something else. When people use HEK products, even if they object, they signal the market to continue to doing the same. When those products are not used and are wasted, that signals the market to go elsewhere.
.
I don’t think we members of the laity should ever have been put in this position. The time to nip this in the bud was when it first came to light decades ago, with strong condemnation from the celebate Church authorities–the ones who don’t have to worry about spouses and children, who are suppose to be able to take on greater risks to defend the faith and morality.
.
The parochial schools should have refused to require the use of these vaccines for attendance at the schools. Catholic-run hospitals and healthcare systems, including Catholic health care workers, should have refused to distribute these vaccines.
.
But they accepted them. And here we are.
.
Bob–
Sorry, Walvax-2, I screwed up when editing the number/letter designations.
The Wuhan flu is not just the flu, it is deadly to the elderly and those with co-morbidities!
…
The flu is deadly to those with serious co-morbidities. Every year.
That’s why when I heard that there was a bad flu season, Halloween before last, I bought sanitizer and kleenex and such for our parish. Because our daughter had a collapsed lung at birth, and the flu could kill her. Just like anybody else that’s vulnerable. Since her immune system is fine, she is not at risk from the kung flu. My mother is also at risk from the normal flu, because of mask caused pneumonia. From back when Washington was having a lot of fires.
The hysteria is because people choose to ignore that the flu, or even just a normal cold, an and does kill those at risk, every year. Same way they ignored that Italy’s health system is overrun every flu season.
Part of what pisses me off so much about the kung flu hysteria is that it’s pushed by the same people who weeks before were mocking me for avoiding transmission vectors, and objecting to parents not being able to keep their kids home because they are sick but not sick enough to go to the hospital.
There is a freakin’ reason that the median age of death for COVID, even after ludicrous packing of numbers, is higher than life expectancy.
Thanks to both of you, Dr K and Foxfier. I have read reports that in the case of spinal injury, adult stem cells are helpful in research and baby stem cells are not. When my first child was born I asked to see the placenta and umbilical cord because I was curious. It never occurred to me to ask where that tissue went or how it is disposed. Which brings me to this: My late aunt and uncle had no live children. Sadly there were several miscarriages of twins and a still birth. I remember my mother telling me that if their babies were far enough along, the remains were buried in a cemetery per state law. I wonder how that works now for natural miscarriages and 3rd term abortions? Burial or hospital sells to PPH?
Foxfier said;
“You’ve put your money were your mouth is, in this case– it’s an easier case than most, because you clearly believe that the chance of reward is worth the risk of using an entirely new type of vaccine.”
I viewed a YouTube video of a caregiver who claimed to suffer from uncontrollable contortions after receiving the first Moderna vaccine. I read commentaries from Doctors who are vehemently against the vaccination of the public based upon their expertise in the field. Their recommendations included a postponement until sufficient time has lapsed to assure that the rdna has no prolonged consequences.
2 years was mentioned.
I love the elderly.
I was called, seriously picked, to enter into a vocation that has little financial rewards, but immensely rich in realms unseen.
To take a gamble for these children of God that have lived extraordinary lives and are nearing a new chapter of life eternal is a chance of reward that I take…..for them. Not me.
That their end of life is not expedited by my negligence.
My risk of life comes secondary to the possibility of prolonging the lives of my family and extended family at the group home.
As I stand in front of Planned Parenthood praying the Rosary for the future births of unknown children in the wombs of frightened mothers, please don’t equate me as being a co-conspirator with abortion practices or beneficiary thereof. The taking of an innocent life is not justifiable because it could benefit another. The unborn lives taken by an abortionist never had the consent of the victim.
I pray that they, the sacrificed,
understand why I have chosen to use a vaccine that they unwilling participated in in it’s conception.
I have to face them one day.
I go to Planned Parenthood unashamedly. I go so that one more may have Life. One more mother see’s a witness for life…and cancels her appointment with death.
I see problems with application of the double effect principles that Bob outlined in so far as it was intended to encourage others to follow his example and accept the vaccine.
First, the product is entirely experimental. Its safety and efficacy have not been proven in accordance with long established FDA protocols. It is not FDA approved, only authorized under emergency use. No one, including the manufacturers, is touting their product as anything other than something that “may prevent” Covid. Not that it will, or likely will. Further, in effect, everyone taking it is acting as a lab rat. And the long term side effects are a complete unknown, which the CDC admits. Informed consent is not being encouraged, but effectively discouraged IMO; lost amidst the non-stop encouragement to “get the shot” and protect yourself and your loved ones!
If it was proven that it did that, per FDA standards, that would be one thing. But it hasn’t been. Again, the product has not been proven to be safe and effective according to FDA guidelines. No one has an ethical duty to put anything into their body if there is any reasonable doubt as to its safety.
Further, is it necessary? Many assume that it is, based on what they’ve been told. Yet there are plentiful reports of effective Covid treatment as well as well established preventative measures. Many treating doctors are on record endorsing them. Yet their voices are being censored. It appears that treatment is a disfavored option. Why? Could the pharmaceutical industry, marching lockstep with the medical establishment, be pushing these vaccines to the exclusion of treatment options? They stand to make a fortune with absolutely no liability if things go wrong. Have they earned anyones’ trust?
As to the matter of cooperation with abortion itself: it cannot be denied that the products currently being offered for use in the U.S. and overseas, made essential use of cell lines derived from murdered children. who were tortured to death in a most painful manner. This practice has cannibalistic overtones to it. And, the objections to the vaccine by those taking them have been muted at best. Have any of our bishops, priests and other prominent Catholics who have received the shots during highly publicized photo-ops taken the opportunity to condemn the immoral technology behind the development of them? Catholic teaching demands that those taking tainted products make clear their objections and their insistence on the use of moral means to develop them. Few if any who have taken these vaccines are doing so.
Those who are invincibly ignorant of the background behind the development, production, and/or testing of these vaccines certainly are blameless if they take them. Those who have fears of contracting Covid and who assume these products will protect them likewise, IMO are blameless. Those who believe that there are other options and who object to the use of abortion derived technology in the manufacture of them, do well to oppose them and to refuse to take them.
There is a fourth condition: does the good effect flow directly from the bad effect? If such is the case, the act is illicit. We may not try to exploit the results of the sin of abortion, no matter how long ago said abortion occurred.
The number of people who died from COVID-19 in MN (even with all the fast and loose reporting) is almost identical to the number who died in 2017-2018. I understand that in some areas it surpassed the flu, but here its lethality was on par with the flu.
This is not to diminish the deaths from either the flu or COVID. I have a very elderly grandmother who very nearly died from the regular flu so when I say that they are comparable I am not saying that COVID shouldn’t be avoided. But it is also not the black plague or Spanish Flu.
Janet Baker,I mentioned this in terms of causality. You have them mixed up I believe. The good effect does not proceed from abortion. Had the testing on fetal cell lines not occurred, the vaccine would still have been effective. The use of fetal cell lines did not cause the vaccine to be effective.
I agree with Janet that a tricky part of applying double effect here is that the good must not flow from the evil. In the case of vaccines that use aborted babies in production the answer is clearly that it does, so those are right out. If they are used in development or testing the question then becomes, could the vaccine be made as it is without using cells from murdered children? In development it is hard to see how it wouldn’t be necessary; while perhaps a vaccine just as effective could be developed it would be a different vaccine.
What about testing? The tricky thing is that companies will claim that it is necessary because they know the public is uncomfortable with using with material developed from dead babies. But this actually works against the morality. Let’s look at a parallel example: suppose you want to buy a gun for self defense. This is morally licit in and of itself. But suppose that the manufacturer you bought it from tested it by shooting a prisoner in the face. Since there are ways to test guns for safety and effectiveness that don’t kill anyone, that is solely on the manufacturer. There would be some question of your remote cooperation with evil in giving that manufacturer money for the gun, but certainly you would not be directly responsible for the manufacturer’s creative testing protocols and you could probably justify your purchase through double effect. But on the other hand if somehow the manufacturer was right and shooting a prisoner in the face was literally the only way to ensure a gun was safe to use, then you would be taking advantage of evil means in taking advantage of that test.
So in the same way if we can test vaccines effectively without using cells from murdered children, then vaccines that use this type of testing could be justified in the right situations. (Though note that helping compensate them, either directly or indirectly, is still remote cooperation with evil!)
I think part of what makes this hard to analyze is the fact that we are constantly working in remote cooperation with evil. If you buy a movie ticket for a mainstream movie, or if you open up a Disney+ or Netflix account, you are working in remote cooperation with evil.
That doesn’t in and of itself mean that your action is sinful, but it could mean that depending on the rest of the situation. (And it can be harder to justify than it first appears since while the benefit to large corporations is small, so too is the good obtained by this action.) But how many of us even bother to think about such things when getting our entertainment?
Problem:
the good result does not directly flow from the wrong.
The wrong is murder.
That is not required for the good that came; thus, the good cannot be said to flow from the wrong, directly.
If there was a moral way to get the cell lines, then the result would be identical.
Question.
If a good practicing Catholic chose not to get the vaccine because of the evil testing methods mentioned and past along the virus which ended the life of 48 year old who was suffering from obesity, is he, the carrier, culpable for not taking the vaccine?
My guess is no.
He didn’t intend to harm anyone.
Hummmm
It is my understanding that aborted foetal cells from 1960s have been used to make current childhood vaccines since decades ago (which the majority, basically nearly all, of the worlds population would have taken by the time they were 4yo) varicella- chickenpox rubella, and hepatitis A, in addition to one of the available rabies vaccines.
If you have been vaccinated from birth then you would have certainly had an aborted-foetus tainted vaccination…we don’t have an alternative or a choice for that matter. Schools and childcare providers refuse to allow children entry if they do not show proof of childhood vaccination.
So the current Covid vaccines are but an extension of a standard scientific practice. Whether an aborted foetus was used in the research or in the vaccine itself does not make a difference. Again, no alternative and no choice. And in the case of the elderly , those in the at-risk health category, healthcare workers and carers do not have a choice. There is no alternative. It makes no difference how much we jump up and down in protest.
That’s just how it is.
I agree with Rudolph Harrier above.
When you pay taxes and health insurance premiums, you also may cooperate in evil because tax money and health insurance money are used to pay for abortions, chemical contraception, gender reassignment surgeries, unjust wars, etc.
I think a legal principle was [note past tense], “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.”
In other news, lab rats are refusing vaccination until the human tests are completed.
Ezabelle wrote;
“And in the case of the elderly , those in the at-risk health category, healthcare workers and carers do not have a choice. There is no alternative.”
If your speaking about care providers within the nursing home environment, in Michigan they do have a choice.
About 50% of care providers are opting out of taking the vaccine. Seems that percentage and choice not to vaccinate is holding true in the local hospital as well.
The management has strongly suggested that all hands on care personnel receive the vaccination.
It’s not mandatory in our neck of the woods.
Ezabelle –
Please go look at the vaccine listing at the COG link I shared.
Your understanding is not entirely accurate, and I think it would be improved with better information.
Thanks Foxfier. I just looked up the international list. So Vaqta, Priorix and Varilrix are the only ethically compromised. My children had infanrix, menitorix, rotator and prevenar- they don’t use aborted fetal cell lines according to that list. This I hadn’t known. Our GP practice is founded on the principles of Jerome Lejeune (the practices namesake).
However, this practice has notified all patients that the “COVID Vaccine rollout is approaching and we will be at the forefront”…My doctor told me it will be the Astra Zeneca- they get what they are given…To date Australia only has the Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine (Oxford) because that is what the government has ordered. I know this one is derived from aborted fetal cell lines. So I’m not sure how that is being handled by Catholic-based GP practices …..Our Bishops have spoken up. They were told to shut up:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/24/australias-deputy-chief-medical-officer-dismisses-church-objections-to-promising-covid-19-vaccine
I know they are prioritising at-risk and over 70s for this first round. The irony is that there is currently a delay in shipments across the east coast because of the severe rain and flooding we are experiencing. Gods hand I guess.
Philip- it’s a tough one. Because you do have a choice, but really don’t have a choice if this is your line of work.
Thought experiment…
If Native Americans were murdered for their land, and a generation later, Catholics (or anyone) were benefiting from that land to peacefully live and work, is that OK?
Although displeasing, I think it would meet the 4 conditions above.
I see where I did misread the four conditions – my error. You stated “if the vaccine had not been tested on fetal lines..” but they were. We simply cannot use them.
But Janet it’s still the case that the bad part, the test on fetal cell line HEK…, does not cause the good effect of the vaccine. The vaccine would work (good effect) whether or not it had been tested.
I think the reason why there is some back and forth on testing is that we are asking the question. The relevant question is not “would the vaccine be as effective if it were not tested?” but rather “would you trust the vaccine enough to take it if it were not tested?”
For people in extremely high risk categories the answer to the second question could very well be yes, in which case the testing is essentially irrelevant to the moral calculus (at least for double effect arguments) and it is probably licit. For people in groups were dying from COVID-19 is somewhat possible but not very likely (ex. average people from ages 25-60) the answer is probably no which makes the issue morally thornier.
Below age 25 the issue is probably moot, absent some underlying condition. The good achieved from the vaccine is simply too small and we run into problems with proportionality.
Ezabelle –
thank you for looking, and not getting mad.
I am… not good with people, but I AM good with information.
One of my attempted ministries is giving folks good information so they will protect their kids as best possible, in bounds of their moral lines.
Started because I met a very nice, but not well informed, but still very brave lady was going to refuse all vaccines.
I gave her my cheat-sheet of vaccines and which used fetal cell lines, and what the cost of refusing such a vaccine was. She got all of the not-dead-baby vaccines, other than that I do not know.
Why get mad? Id rather know than not know. I’ll pass it on like you have to me. Thank you for this information.
Ezabelle.
I did not make my decision hastily.
Under different circumstances, occupational and family health, I most definitely would of passed.
My prayers go out to you in your final decision regarding vaccination for you and your family.
I believe that your comment about the delays due to inclement weather is accurate. Follow your heart.
Foxfier.
I’ve been testing everyone’s patience, for over seven years on this site.
Including your patience.
You are good with people.
And great with information.
🙂
My prayers to you also Philip.
Why are Catholics acting as though death is the worst thing that can happen to a person?
Michael, A worse thing just happened. They stole the election and are destroying America.
People!
If you believe you’re going to Hell if you get a med – to cure you and/or to protect you and others from diseases – because aborted cell are/were usde at some stage in the drug’s development and/or manufacture, what do you think about voting for 100%, 24/7/365 abortion Democrats? .
PS: It ain’t easy. For many years, I’ve been trying like Hell to be a good Catholic. And, I read my Bible and say The Rosary every damned day.
Regardless of what one believes about these vaccines, this statement is forth a read and signature.
.
https://mailchi.mp/7742dd12483f/statement-of-conscience-to-awaken-conscience
*worth
Micheal asks; “Why are Catholics acting as though death is the worst thing that can happen to a person.”
Well. Many Catholics helped to secure multiple pro-death politicians in all forms of local, state and national seats.
It could be that many a Catholic is far from having a personal relationship with Christ. If that assumption is correct, then it’s also a possibility that death is by far the worse scenario for the (c)atholics you reference.
It’s easier, I suppose, to cherry pick what one will believe and won’t believe in an immature relationship with Holy Catholic Church. Once one wholeheartedly accepts the Gospels, teachings, precepts and is obedient out of love for her, the bride of Christ, then one can’t wait to be called home for the wedding feast of the Lamb.
Christ said; “I am the Truth…”
He didn’t say I am the Fashion…
…The Culture. ..The new ideal.
People want God created in their image.
It doesn’t work that way.
Reading the comments, I conclude that most people don’t take account of a major issue: will boycotting vaccines reduce the use of fetal cell tissue in medical research or lower the number of abortions? I don’t think so, but would be happy to look at arguments that my opinion is not so. Granted, it makes one feel more virtuous to sign such petitions, and even more virtuous to be able (without risk of too much bad effect) to refuse vaccinations, but what else does that accomplish?
Much more would be accomplished by sending petitions to the archbishop of D.C. not to give Holy Communion to the Chief Operating Officer for our nation, J. Biden, who violates Catholic teaching and petitions to his Holiness, our Pope, not to send congratulatory letters to that man or not to ask anti-life advocates to serve on important Catholic Councils. And to vigorously support pro-life candidates for public office (and the priests who also support them) and vigorously oppose anti-life candidates and those who support them. Political action is more effective than writing articles or signing petitions.
Our bishop sent out a letter that Pfizer and Moderna were morally acceptable to receive. Bishops in Louisiana have said Johnson & Johnson is not. AstraZeneca as far as I know is not available in the the U S and so the morality of it has not been addressed. But maybe the bishops should pre-emptively do so.
“Much more would be accomplished by sending petitions to the archbishop of D.C. not to give Holy Communion to the Chief Operating Officer for our nation, J. Biden, who violates Catholic teaching and petitions to his Holiness, our Pope, not to send congratulatory letters to that man or not to ask anti-life advocates to serve on important Catholic Councils.”
Awoman!
😖
Seriously, Amen Bob Kurland.
It’s asking too much for a Pope of the 21st century to be non-political but hey..what ta ya gonna do ehh?
Hope and pray the next Pope is not a pope..but the King of Kings himself, Christ the King.
[ I know. In due time. ]
A guy can dream can’t he?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-health-officials-raise-concerns-over-astrazeneca-vaccine-data-11616485793
“[W]ill boycotting vaccines reduce the use of fetal cell tissue in medical research . . .”
.
The market will cease to make what does not sell.
“Political action is more effective than writing articles or signing petitions.”
.
And “voting” with one’s wallet trumps that.
Bob,
I think the question of whether our actions will reduce abortions is largely irrelevant to the discussion of morality here. Don’t get me wrong, if we could reduce or eliminate abortions that would be great. But it’s not the really relevant to the principle of double effect.
The reason is that there is nothing inherently evil in not taking a vaccine, especially a novel and rushed vaccine whose effect on transmission is still not well understood. There is something inherently wrong with abortion, of course, and I think we are all in agreement that if we had to be directly responsible for an abortion to take the vaccine, it would definitely be immoral to do so. But it becomes a more difficult question when taking a vaccine that was developed or tested using abortion as a means because while the company doing that would be acting evilly, by taking the vaccine we would only be remote cooperation with them and that is not intrinsically evil (though it can be evil depending on the circumstance).
What all this means is that we really only need to compare a good to outweigh the evil in the case of taking the vaccine, not in refusing it since no double effect argument is necessary in the second case. It is the same as how in war the principle of double effect can be used to justify a bombing that might kill civilians, as long as that is not the aim, but is not needed to justify not bombing a target. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do to refuse the vaccine, just as it isn’t necessarily the right thing in war not to bomb a critical target, but the justifications for taking or refusing the argument are fundamentally different.
Since double effect is only applied when considering whether to take the vaccine, proportionality only comes up there. So it is relevant to consider the health benefits of the vaccine, both to ourselves and to others, and consider if this outweighs the remote benefits we gain from the evil action. Since both the health benefits and the amount we need to be reassured by testing vary from person to person likely this is proportional for some people but not others.
But in the case of not taking the vaccine, there is no need to make an argument of proportionality. It would be great if doing so could reduce the number of abortions, but that is more like a bonus than the main consideration for this specific choice.
To put a parallel example forward: It is unlikely that cancelling a Netflix subscription is going to do much of anything to hurt Netflix. And even if it does, they are so committed to wokeness that it is unlikely that they will change their ways. But does that mean that it is foolish to cancel a Netflix subscription, or even that it is not justified in doing so because the good of cancelling doesn’t outweigh the good of keeping a subsription? (And there is a good in keeping it; entertainment is a good and despite Netflix’s wokeness there are acceptably moral shows and movies that it streams).
No, the question there is whether the small good (of entertainment) outweighs the evil of remotely cooperating with Netflix. It isn’t evil to not subscribe to something so there is no need to use proportionality to justify not subscribing. Or to put things another way, the proportionality is weighed between the good and evil effects of having the subscription, not between the good effects of having or not having it.
Now this analogy is imperfect, because it can be argued that not taking certain vaccines is an evil due to public health risks while there is nothing at all evil about not buying entertainment. But hopefully it helps illustrate why I think that it’s largely irrelevant whether refusing a vaccine will reduce abortions. The question is between proportionality of the good and evil effects of taking the vaccine, not the good effects of taking or not taking it.
“The market will cease to make what does not sell.” DJH, do you believe, with the Federal government paying for all these covid-19 vaccines, that a boycott by 100,000 or a million or even 10 million will affect sales of the vaccines, when 200 million or more are being made? Would that it were so, and I’d agree with your argument.
Development of these cell lines required the murder of a helpless, innocent, unborn child. Those who developed the cell lines and those who manufactured products based on those cell lines were aware of that fact.
Is it that the child was unknown, unnamed, and for all but the abortionist, unseen, decisive in considering the morality of taking these products? If the murder victim had a name, a face, and an identity would folks be as comfortable standing on “remoteness” as the moral justification for taking these experimental products? And no it’s not comparable to an organ transplant situation. Murder of the donor is not essential. Anyone who has died from any number of causes would be a fit donor candidate. But only a murdered baby sufficed for these cell lines.