Strongly pro-vaccine parents who nonetheless seek an alternative to vaccines created from aborted fetal cell lines have few, if any options. These are parents who agree with the necessity of vaccination generally, but regard the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine production as morally problematic.
Although it may surprise the general public, pharmaceutical companies have used aborted babies to develop a variety of vaccines. The use of human cell lines in vaccines without the knowledge or consent of those providing them – or equally those receiving the fetal cell line vaccines – is hugely unethical, a lesson learned long ago from the case of Henrietta Lack, whose cells were taken and used without permission or remuneration. The current unethical pharmaceutical practice of vaccinating without informed consent is especially objectionable for those in the pro-life community— for many, this is the moral equivalent of murdering a person to harvest their organs.
Parents who don’t want to support an industry that uses aborted children for profit are petitioning the CDC to urge pharmaceutical companies to provide ethically sound vaccines. Their win-win position is explained in this way: “Having all vaccines cultured in animal cells would eliminate the religious objections of many parents and increase cooperation with the CDC’s vaccine program.”
Whether religious or not, the pro-life person who objects to the use of human fetal tissue in vaccines as posing a moral dilemma will be met with a firestorm of condemnation. Even questioning the validity of injecting fetal remains into their own bodies, or those of their children will earn them scorn as anti-science, uninformed anti-vaxxers, willing to risk the health of all children.
Suggestions are made to bar them, or penalties and higher tax and insurance rates are imposed. Yet, is it really so unreasonable to be guarded about blindly trusting Big Pharma and others who vehemently push vaccinations?
Given the profits derived, the pharmaceutical industry has already become complicit in the sale of body parts. While many who assume vaccines are non-problematic may not even be aware there is debate, and those concerned about vaccines can point to a good deal of scientific research. Many parents are trying to make good decisions and are seeking an ethical alternative.
Is there really no alternative?
Although parents have requested the ethical single-dose vaccines be made available again, Merck contends there is no alternative to the current controversial measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. And, the company points out the religious objection is currently lessened because there is no morally licit alternative. Yet is that really the case?
Ethical alternatives currently exist, but American parents apparently lack access to them, despite their doctor’s willingness to administer the vaccines if approved by the FDA.
One such parent is Jason Hull, who recently wrote an extensive appeal to the FDA. Explaining that he has conscientious objections to the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine provided by Merck, Hull petitioned the FDA to permit his doctor-sanctioned use of an acceptable Japanese alternative vaccine offered by Daiichi-Sankyo and found safe.
In her letter responding to Hull, Ms. Jill Burkoff, Consumer Safety Officer at the FDA, declined his request, noting the safety of vaccination. For Hull and other parents, the primary objection to the vaccines has thus not been addressed, and the FDA declined his fervent request to provide Americans with a morally acceptable alternative by importing the Japanese vaccine.
Maybe it’s time for pro-life people to petition the FDA.
Have you signed these petitions yet?
PETITION TO: MERCK PHARMACEUTICALS
CitizenGo 8,294 signatures
Life petitions, 2,625 signatures (in 4 wks)
PETITION TO Centers For Disease Control
change.org 2,515 signatures
