How best for a Christian to explore the ethics of a Covid-19 vaccine that might use farmed cell-lines from aborted foetuses?

Undoubtedly the mark of the beast as I’ve heard many of my fellow Christian friends refer to them. There is another aspect also that seemed to be skipped over aside from the aborted fetal tissue(as if that wasn’t bad enough already). These are RNA vaccines, extremely aggressive, and experimental. NONE are currently FDA approved, so at least know that you are indeed part of an experiment if you take one of these. What is it something like 60,000 adverse effects and counting? The only other RNA vaccine that I am currently aware of is the Polio Vaccine and that took many, many years to create and test. These all came out in just over a month or 2. Aside from the fact that they are experimental and dangerous and not even proven to work(the Surgeon General has publicly said they do not stop the spread nor are they guaranteed to keep you from getting it)- well, the situation also brings up many moral and philosophical issues- for example- we were made in the image of God; if you alter your very DNA, are you still of that image? If not what happens when you die? these are the questions you must be prepared to ask yourself along with most importantly doing your due diligence if this is something you decide you want to go through with.

There is a significant difficulty in analyzing the moral character of using cells from aborted fetuses in a Christian framework.

Let me give you a parallel example, imagine that a police officer in the 1950s decided to kill a black man simply because he was black. Assume that the victim did not die immediately, and one of the attending surgeons was a researcher. Without the victim’s consent, the researcher harvests cells from the victim, and the cell line is still alive today and being used in research.

Does the murder matter? Would it have mattered if the researcher had killed the victim, possibly for some reason other than to get cells?

When the Bible was written, and for over a thousand years after the apostolic, ante-Nicene and post-Nicene fathers’ writings, the concepts necessary for science did not exist. Specific ideas, such as the concept of cells, did not exist either.

Robert Hooke. Micrographia: or, Some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses. London: J. Martyn and J. Allestry, 1665.

Popper, K., 1935/1959, Logik der Forschung, translated by the author as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Basic Books.

Indeed, early Christianity isn’t well designed for the complexities of human biology. Neither are many early teachings. For example, while twinning can happen roughly at conception, it can happen a week later. There is a significant question regarding the soul. If babies are ensouled at conception, what happens when it splits in half?

Gabbett, Michael T. and Laporte, Johanna and Sekar, Renuka and Nandini, Adayapalam and McGrath, Pauline and Sapkota, Yadav and Jiang, Peiyong and Zhang, Haiqiang and Burgess, Trent and Montgomery, Grant W. and Chiu, Rossa and Fisk, Nicholas M. Molecular Support for Heterogonesis Resulting in Sesquizygotic Twinning. New England Journal of Medicine. 380(9). pp 842-849. 2019

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

Illmensee K, Levanduski M, Vidali A, Husami N, Goudas VT. Human embryo twinning with applications in reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):423-7.

On the flip side, when does the soul depart the body? The famous cell line of Henrietta Lack has been in existence since it was harvested on February 8th, 1951. Has she died yet?

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks.html

Her cells were necessary for the development of the polio vaccine. Indeed, by 2009 60,000 studies had been performed using her cells and at the time were increasing at a rate of 300 per month. She did not consent, nor did the family consent to their use.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/frequently-asked-questions.html

Skloot, Rebecca (2010). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown/Random House.

Is abortion qualitatively different from other forms of death? The Bible offers both pro and anti-abortion statements. The writings of the church also provide both pro and anti-abortion statements. It isn’t even clearly pro-child. Consider, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”--Psalm 137:9

Abortion became politically important within the church at various points in time as a distinct issue, separate from other behaviors. Before you even get to the research question, I think the first question is, “is abortion distinct from murder and if it is, when is killing permissible?”

The next question becomes, “does the moral question of cell lines depend on the morality of the first question?”

Unfortunately, it isn’t one or two discoveries or medical advances involved in these questions but much of modern medicine. How many decades of life expectancy would Christians have to give up? Christianity isn’t utilitarian, but there are utilitarian questions.

Is the idea of “morally compromised cell lines” a valid concept?

For example, most of the United States was taken from the indigenous people at gunpoint. The descendants of these people are still around. If they were to show up in your front yard and demand their home back, is your deed morally compromised?

The answer to that question is “almost surely yes.” Native Americans are subject to continued violence, and the legal restrictions placed upon them even today almost mandate forced poverty. It is estimated that only 25% of Native women can bear children because, until the Bush Administration, the U.S. government maintained a policy of forced sterilization. An eight-year-old girl may have entered the hospital for appendicitis but was quite often given a hysterectomy as well, against her will.

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

That isn’t ancient history.

It isn’t clear that keeping Native land is a moral good. It is clear that billions of people are alive because of cell lines taken in morally questionable ways.

That raises a peculiar question with regard to “morally compromised cell lines.”

Suppose large-scale, clearly grievous evils abound in the land. Is it morally valid to spend time considering the morality of a vaccine?

It is estimated that 25,000 people will starve to death today through the inaction of others. We certainly have the resources to keep that group alive. Is it a morally correct use of time to debate a vaccine’s morality when that time could be used to raise funds for the living?

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/losing-25000-hunger-every-day

Here is a small part what is given in the name of the Evangelical Alliance UK, together with a link:-

Use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development and considerations for human life

One of the most significant discussions surrounding the vaccine is the use of immortal cell lines, as they are associated with abortion. However, the cell lines that have been used were from one abortion in the 1970s. These cell lines have been used for a number of vaccines since, so COVID-19 vaccines do not exist in isolation.

It is important to acknowledge that the ends do not justify the means, so the lives saved do not justify this abortion. However, it was also suggested that not taking this vaccine would not be the most effective way to advocate for pro-life causes, as no further abortions occur in the development, testing or administering of the vaccine. More effective ways to advocate include supporting organisations that offer alternatives to abortions. A way to engage in this policy area right now is by responding to consultations in Scotland and England and Wales on in-home abortion, which was introduced as a temporary measure for the lockdown but is now being proposed as a permanent option.

For more of the article, see:- https://www.eauk.org/news-and-views/what-ethical-issues-does-the-covid-19-vaccine-raise

Is it ethical to benefit from someone else's evil act?

Similarly, the surgeon’s best book on human anatomy, and probably vital for the most excellent surgery, especially in difficult cases, is “Pernkopf Topographic Anatomy of Man” by Eduard Pernkopf. But the dilemma for the surgeon is “Should I be using it?” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49294861

But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them. (Genesis 50:19-21, ESV)

But it seems it was almost impossible for Joseph's brothers to believe Joseph. Perhaps it was simply too strange a thing for them to believe that their own wickedness was in God's plan and that their evil had played a major part in bringing them to that place where God could bless them and save their lives from death by famine.

It is hard to appreciate when God intends to bring good out of man's wickedness or even to think it is right. How can a good God bring good out of evil? How can evil be a part of his plan? While man intends evil and does evil, in the same moment and by the very same act God ultimately intends good. The motive is evil on man's part (and man will be held entirely responsible for his evil) and the motive is entirely good on God's part.

On the very Day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter gives his first (and greatest?) sermon in which he expresses precisely the same strange feature of God's dealings with humanity:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23 KJV)

The sermon ends with

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36 KJV)

Again, God brings good out of man's evil. Of course, no Christian here has decided to say "I simply refuse to get any benefit from that extremely wicked act, from what those extremely wicked men did to the Lord Jesus Christ!" Was the murder of the Lord Jesus Christ not more wicked than abortion?

But we see that God was in it; and while the men intended evil (and will One Day be held fully responsible for it unless they repented of it) God was ultimately intending good, the saving of much people alive for eternity.

The selling of Joseph into slavery was in the plan of God. The murder of our Lord Jesus Christ was in God's plan. And abortion is also in God's plan. And he can, does, and will, bring much good out of abortion, just as he always does bring good out of evil, because that is what our God specialises in doing.

In truth if God was not able to bring good out of man's evil then no good would be possible at all, because ultimately "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags", so all the things that man does is evil; tainted and marred by evil, some more, some less (Isaiah 64:6).

I guess if we were to refuse to get any benefit from evil sources then we would have to go out of this world altogether.

I think on the issue of taking a vaccine which has used aborted human foetal tissue these are the kinds of questions that we need to work through:

Would my agreeing to take the vaccine:

1. make me complicit in the whole abortion industry?
2. trivialise (the whole horror of) abortion?
3. compromise my position against abortion?
4. (perhaps unwittingly to me) lessen my opposition to abortion?
5. make me a hypocrite - a hypocritical benefactor of abortion?
6. encourage more abortion?
7. encourage an industry of making use of human foetal tissue, leading to yet more abortions in order to get the right kinds of human foetal tissue?

Or does my unwillingness to use the good arising from this evil come partly or mainly from the guilt arising from a feeling that I have failed to sufficiently oppose the evil itself? (Who can avoid this guilt? But there is forgiveness in Jesus).

Personally, I think it is the evil source we should speak out against. But an evil source does not always make the outcome unusable, eg the murder of Christ at the hands of wicked men.

The saying is "It is no use crying over spilt milk".. what is in the past cannot be undone. An abortion done 50 years ago cannot be undone either. Those who are thinking not to have a vaccine because of its origin should be fully aware of what they are doing: they are risking their own life and the lives of others. Any moral decision should also take into account if there are any dependant people: do I have children who need me to live?

We want to tell the world clearly that abortion, the murder of unborn babies, is wrong. Is it really effective communication to say "I value every human life (and thus believe abortion is wrong): therefore I am willing to risk my life and that of others by not having a vaccine"? Might not an non-Christian onlooker be entitled think that, actually, you do not value human life?

I do not have own insights to this topic, but I want to point to some statements of representants of the Catholic Church. In the last month many dealt with this topic, e.g the Bishops Conferences of the UK, the US, Ireland and Slowakia (source, German).

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Chairmen of the Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, 11 December 2020) writes:

[... ] Neither Pfizer nor Moderna used morally compromised cell lines in the design, development, or production of the vaccine. A confirmatory test, however, employing the commonly used, but morally compromised HEK293 cell line was performed on both vaccines. Thus, while neither vaccine is completely free from any connection to morally compromised cell lines, in this case the connection is very remote from the initial evil of the abortion.

In view of the gravity of the current pandemic and the lack of availability of alternative vaccines, the reasons to accept the new COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Modernaare sufficiently serious to justify their use, despite their remote connection to morally compromised cell lines. In addition, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine ought to be understood asan act of charity toward the other members of our community. In this way, being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is more morally compromised. The HEK293 cell line was used in the design, development, and production stages of that vaccine, as well as for confirmatory testing. [...] The AstraZeneca vaccine should be avoided if there are alternatives available. [...]

It may turn out, however, that one does not really have a choice of vaccine, at least, not without a lengthy delay in immunization that may have serious consequences for one’s health and the health of others. In such a case [...] it would be permissible to accept the AstraZeneca vaccine. [...] [pp. 5f.]

After many and sometimes conflicting statements by Catholic officials the Congeragation for the Doctrine of Faith published a "Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines" (21 December 2020) with approval of Pope Francis. It refers to the abstract statements on such vaccines of the Pontifical Academy of Life (2005, 2017) and the Congregation (2008) and explains for the current situation [emphasis in source]:

[...] (2) In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

(3) The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent -- in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

(4) In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endors*m*nt of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses. Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

(5) At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

(6) Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty. [...]

I wish to know both ethical considerations involved and how to identify which Covid-19 vaccinations might have such ethically questionable ‘ingredients'.

How to identify

The Pro-Life Charlotte Lozier Institute maintains an up to date, complete with references, but easy to read table of coronavirus vaccines (pdf version here). Each vaccine has 3 ethical status (one for each stage: Design & Development, Production, and Confirmatory Test). The status is clearly marked with one of the following flags:

• DOES NOT USE abortion-derived cell line
• DOES USE abortion-derived cell line
• SOME tests DO NOT use abortion-derived cells, SOME DO.
• Currently undetermined

The Institute also provides a quick reference chart for the top candidates (pdf version here).

How Coronavirus Vaccine works

The institute also provides an excellent visual aid (pdf version here) to how viral infection works as well as how 5 vaccine strategies work in the human cell:

1. Live-Attenuated/Inactivated Vaccines
2. Viral Vector-based Vaccines
3. Protein-based Vaccine
4. DNA Vaccine
5. RNA Vaccine

Another visual aid shows how fetal cell lines are used in some vaccines.

Deliberation Process

When the only practical option (i.e. the availability in one's particular region) is ethically tainted in one or more stages, one has to deliberate prior to making the decision. Some helpful factors to consider:

1. Which of the main vaccines on offer today use ethically compromised cells and in what stage (i.e. design & development, production, confirmatory lab tests), see the table referenced above.

2. 11 Dec 2020 statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (see quotes in K-HB's answer)

3. 2 Mar 2020 statement from USCCB on Johnson & Johnson vaccine (thanks @Kris)

4. How to balance various degrees of cooperation with evil (formal vs. material, immediate vs. mediate, proximate vs. remote, active vs. passive, etc.) with the moral duties (of protecting oneself, and of the common good). For a guide, see another timely (21 Dec 2020) Papal note from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

5. A sample primer on what cell lines are and why HEK-293 and HeLa are prevalent in the research & development, and even production of biological products: ScienceNews 7 July 2020 article How making a COVID-19 vaccine confronts thorny ethical issues.

6. More technical details on Thomistic moral reasoning mentioned in the Papal note referred above: a section of the document "Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses" attached to the 9 June 2005 letter response by Pontifical Academy of Life.

   The principle of licit cooperation in evil

   The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.

   Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.

   Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person.¹⁰ Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question¹¹.

   A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted¹².

   Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.