A number of my colleagues have expressed concern over the fact that several vaccines including the Rubella vaccine, the Hepatitis A vaccine and the Chickenpox vaccine are being produced by using a particular type of cell line. A cell line is a group of cells that originated from an animal or human being. Certain cells, particularly fetal cells, have the characteristic of being able to divide and continue to divide without appearing to die. For this reason they have been called “immortal cell lines.” Unfortunately, this makes embryonic tissue particularly attractive to researchers who work with certain viral strains which are difficult to keep alive unless they are grown in “immortal cells.”
A cell line may be developed in an ethical or unethical way. It could be produced ethically by obtaining the permission of parents who had miscarried a baby, with the stipulation that the parents would allow certain cells of that baby to be used for research. This then would involve appropriate consent from both parents and the tissue would not be derived from a surgically aborted baby as is the case from the cell line which Merck uses (but did not invent) to produce the Chickenpox and the Rubella vaccine. Specifically, the cell line “MRC-5” was derived from an aborted child: “Fetal lung tissue taken from a 14 week-old male fetus removed for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year-old woman…” (Jacobs, Nature 7/11/70). However, Hoskins and Plotkin (in Behavior of Rubella Virus in Human Diploid Strains. Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia, PA. Jan. 16, 1967) described two cell lines, one developed from spontaneously aborted babies and one from induced abortions which are both capable of sustaining the growth of the Rubella virus. This would seem to indicate that this type of apparently ethical way of obtaining tissue, although it may involve more work, is capable of sustaining growth of viruses.
In conclusion, certain drug companies currently use cell lines that were derived from babies that were intentionally aborted but these same companies could make efforts to use cell lines from ethically miscarried babies. Perhaps if patients voice their concerns to physicians and write letters to Merck and other companies which use unethically derived cell lines, appropriate pressure would be placed so that they might consider developing a new ethically derived cell line that would not be violating the conscience of people who find this offensive. In general, the question of whether to receive a vaccine that has been derived from an aborted baby who was aborted years ago has not been decided by the Catholic Church. To the best of my knowledge although this would likely be considered remote material cooperation. As a physician I favor that patients be informed of the source of the cell line that is used to make the vaccines so that they can make an informed choice based on knowledge and faith.
Chris Kahlenborn, M.D.
Altoona, Pa.