But to ensure vital health information reaches everyone in our community, we need a range of spokespeople, including religious and community leaders.

However, church leaders have expressed concerns some Christians may face an "ethical dilemma" over Australia's COVID-19 vaccination plans.

Sydney's Catholic and Anglican Archbishops and the leader of Australia's Greek Orthodox church told Prime Minister Scott Morrison that the University of Oxford's candidate vaccine, set to be given to Australians if it proves successful, is potentially problematic because its production method relies on cell lines from an electively aborted foetus.

There are many examples of religious community leaders helping vaccination programs.

I experienced this first-hand in 2013, when I supported a catch-up immunisation clinic at a large Samoan church in Western Sydney, which aimed to reduce the measles risk among the Pacific Islander community.

One community member who participated told me: "Most Pacific island people go to church. Maybe this is one of the best channels to go through. Ministers, because their job is spiritual health as well, will give out information for the health of their people."

That was the first time an Australian church had hosted an immunisation clinic. But the idea of religion crossing over with immunisation is not new.

The earliest recorded example of "variolation" (or inoculation) was an 11th-century Buddhist nun's innovative practice: She ground scabs taken from a person infected with smallpox (variola) into a powder, and then blew it into the nostrils of a non-immune person to induce immunity.

Several centuries on, things are more vexed.

While major faith traditions endorse the principles supporting the public health goals of vaccination, hesitancy has been documented at an individual clergy level, and concerns have been raised at an organisation level from time to time.

The church leaders who wrote to Morrison have asked the government not to pressure Australians to use the vaccine if it goes against their religious or moral beliefs.

Sydney's Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher called on the government to pursue arrangements for alternative vaccines that do not involve the foetus-derived cell lines.

What's a cell line anyway?

A cell line is a population of cells that is grown continuously in the laboratory for extended periods.

Once established, cell lines have an unlimited lifespan and so are a renewable and reliable system for growing viruses.

Some cell lines, called human diploid cell lines WI-38 and MRC-5, came from three abortions performed for medical reasons (including psychiatric reasons) in the 1960s.

These abortions were not done for the purpose of harvesting the cells.

Cells taken from these cell lines are used to grow the virus, but are then discarded and not included in the vaccine formulation.

In Australia, several licensed vaccines have been manufactured using cell lines that originally came from this foetal tissue from the 1960s. This includes the vaccines against rubella, hepatitis A, varicella (chickenpox), and rabies.

The Catholic church has previously grappled with this issue.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, ethicists at the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life declared the abortions from which the cell lines were derived were events that occurred in the past.

Most importantly, they acknowledged the intent of the abortions was not to produce the cell lines, and therefore being immunised is a morally separate event from the abortions themselves.

In 2017, the Pontifical Academy for Life reiterated this stance, stating: …we believe that all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion.

Moreover, it concluded there is a "moral responsibility to vaccinate […] to avoid serious health risks for children and the general population".

Health comes first

Supporting public health goals is the key principle previously applied by major faith institutions in situations where ethical issues around vaccination have been raised.

One previous example is the use of gelatin - which is made from pig skin or bones and is forbidden as a food by some religions - in vaccine and medicine capsules.

After reflecting on the issue, the Kuwait-based Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences declared in 1995: …the gelatin formed as a result of the transformation of the bones, skin and tendons of a judicially impure animal is pure, and it is judicially permissible to eat it.

The Grand Mufti of Australia released a letter in 2013 supporting this judgement, ruling it is acceptable for Australian Muslims to take vaccines containing pork-derived gelatin.

In the case of both gelatin and human cell lines, religious organisations have called on vaccine manufacturers to use alternative methods where possible.

Yet given the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may not be feasible or ethical to delay or seek alternative vaccines.

This sentiment was outlined by Reverend Kevin McGovern, a Catholic priest and adjunct lecturer at the Australian Catholic University and the Catholic Theological College, in a recent piece for the ABC: Developing ethically uncompromised cell lines and vaccines is important. In the crisis of this pandemic, developing and using an effective vaccine so as to save lives is even more important.

While this article is reflecting on religious organisations and vaccination, at an individual level it's important to note that people who profess to decline vaccines for religious reasons may, in fact, be motivated not by theological concerns but by their own personal views about vaccine safety, perhaps influenced and echoed by others in their clustered social networks.

For example, US-based studies have suggested some parents circumvent vaccine requirements by claiming religious exemptions, in the absence of a personal belief alternative.

To move forward, it's important public health officials work with religious leaders to ensure they are equipped with accurate information about the potential COVID-19 vaccine, its development process and the rationale for its use. Engaging these leaders and building trust are crucial steps into the intersection of religion and vaccination.

• Holly Seale is a Senior Lecturer at UNSW. She has previously received funding from NHMRC and from vaccine manufacturers for investigator-driven research. She is Deputy Chair of the Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation. She does not hold any religious affiliation or funding, nor endorse any religious organisation.
• The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of CathNews.

The 'abortion drug' RU486 kills embryos. RU486 or mifepristone destroys the lining of the womb so that the developing embryo is detached, deprived of nutrients, and dies of starvation. A day or two later, another drug called misoprostol is used to induce contractions and to expel the now-dead embryo.

I find it distressing to contemplate that embryos are being killed in this way. I also find it sad that so many Australian girls and women find themselves in a situation in which abortion seems to them to be their best alternative. I would argue that no one ever truly wants an abortion. But when women face an unplanned pregnancy, they can feel trapped, and that abortion is the only escape.

In September last year, an article was published in the Medical Journal of Australia about the use of RU486 in this country. It reported on 13,345 chemical abortions using RU486 between 1 September 2009 and 31 August 2011 at 15 Marie Stopes sites around Australia.

Most women reported medium to heavy bleeding, and moderate to severe cramps. The study also detailed 519 cases in which things did not go as planned. There were 382 cases in which the abortion was not complete, and surgical aspiration of the womb was required. In 83 cases the pregnancy continued.

There were 16 cases of haemorrhage, 11 of which required a blood transfusion. There were four cases of known infection, and 21 cases of suspected infection. One woman died as a result of complications. There have also been at least 15 other RU486-related deaths around the world.

The risk of physical complications after chemical abortion is relatively low, but real. The likelihood of psychological problems — even profound problems like post-traumatic stress disorder — is much greater.

In 2005, Selena Ewing from Women's Forum Australia examined all the articles about abortion that had then been published in peer-reviewed journals over the previous 15 years. From this review of 168 articles she concluded that there is 'substantial evidence of psychological harm associated with abortion ... Ten to 20 per cent of women suffer from severe psychological complications after abortion'. Continue reading

Sources

• Kevin McGovern in Eureka Street
• Image: New Zealand Focus on the Family

Fr Kevin McGovern is the Director of the Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, which is sponsored by Victoria's Catholic hospitals.

Catholic Health Initiatives acknowledged it was "morally wrong" for lawyers representing one of its hospitals to cite the state's Wrongful Death Act in defence of a lawsuit brought by the husband of a woman who died with her unborn twins at the hospital in 2006.

CHI's lawyers argued that it could not be held liable for the deaths of the twins because under the Wrongful Death Act "a fetus is not a person until it is born alive".

In a statement, CHI also "unequivocally affirmed CHI's strict adherence to one of the Church's most basic moral commitments — that every person is created in the image and likeness of God and that life begins at the moment of conception.

"It is an unfortunate and regrettable point of fact that Colorado law, as it now stands, fails to adequately protect the rights of the unborn."

CHI said lawyers for the hospital "will not cite the Wrongful Death Act, which does not allow fetuses to sue, in any future legal hearings of this case. Although the argument was legally correct, recourse to an unjust law was morally wrong."

Meanwhile, the case has fuelled a long-standing debate in Colorado over whether unborn children should have legal rights.

A state legislative committee recently defeated a bill to make it a crime to kill an unborn child in cases such as mass shootings.

Another bill to be considered would make it a crime to kill an unborn child during a criminal act committed against a pregnant woman. That measure specifically states that the intent is neither to outlaw abortions nor to give unborn children additional rights.

Spurred on by advancing medical technology that makes unborn children more viable and more visible, nearly 40 legislatures in the United States permit wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of unborn children.

Sources:

Catholic Health Initiatives

Reuters

Image: Fox News

The case was brought by Jeremy Stodghill, whose 31-year-old wife Lori and her unborn twins all died in 2006 at a hospital operated by Catholic Health Initiatives.

Stodghill sued CHI, the hospital, his wife's obstetrician and the emergency room doctor.

In the case of the twins, he argued that because they were viable at 28 weeks' gestation — which none of the defendants disputed - he should be able to sue for their wrongful deaths.

Lawyers for CHI argued that no act could have saved Mrs Stodghill, who suffered a heart attack due to a blood clot which travelled to her lungs.

But they also argued that CHI could not be held liable for the deaths of the twins because in Colorado law "a fetus is not a person until it is born alive".

After CHI advanced this argument, lawyers for the two doctors raised the same contention.

Following two court rulings in favour of CHI, Stodghill has appealed to the state's supreme court.

A statement from Colorado's three bishops said: "Catholics and Catholic institutions have the duty to protect and foster human life, and to witness to the dignity of the human person — particularly to the dignity of the unborn. No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity."

They added: "Catholic Health Initiatives has been accused by some of undermining the Catholic position on human life in the course of litigation. Today, representatives of Catholic Health Initiatives assured us of their intention to observe the moral and ethical obligations of the Catholic Church.

"The Catholic bishops of Colorado are not able to comment on ongoing legal disputes. However, we will undertake a full review of this litigation, and of the policies and practices of Catholic Health Initiatives to ensure fidelity and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church."

Sources:

Catholic News Agency

Archdiocese of Denver

Image: Jezebel

The technology is a significant step toward standard comprehensive testing of babies in the womb for genetic defects — those that mark serious disorders as well as those indicating risk for such diseases as alcoholism and obesity. And it potentially provides a window into non-medical heritable traits, such as hair and eye colour, athletic prowess and IQ.

Rather than saving lives, pro-lifers see this prenatal testing as an enhanced "search and destroy" diagnostic tool that exponentially expands the genetic information available on unborn babies — so that parents may have up to 3,500 genetic possibilities to weigh into a decision about whether or not to have an abortion.

Continue reading

Executive Director for Children of God for Life, Debi Vinnedge commented that PepsiCo's decision was a major breakthrough and thanked the thousands of concerned consumers who had been writing and boycotting PepsiCo beverages over the last year.

Paul Boykas, PepsiCo's VP of Global Public Policy, stated that, "Senomyx will not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo."

"We are absolutely thrilled with PepsiCo's decision," said Mrs. Vinnedge. "They have listened to their customers and have made both a wise and profound statement of corporate integrity that deserves the utmost respect, admiration and support of the public."

Boykas later commented that, "We took the matter very seriously. We have an official Statement on Responsible Research and we intend to live by that policy." That policy precludes any research by PepsiCo - or third parties they fund - from using human tissue or cell lines derived from embryos or fetuses.

Vinnedge also encouraged people to write to PepsiCo to thank them for their stance, and to buy a Pepsi product by way of celebration.

"Too often we seem to focus on the negatives and forget to take the time to let others know we appreciate their efforts", stated Vinnedge. "It is our sincere hope that the public will once again rise to the occasion en masse as they did in the boycott - but this time in appreciation and support of PepsiCo."

Read More Life Site News