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 controversy erupted after a Twitter exchange between Dawkins and a woman who said she would face a real ethical dilemma if pregnant with a baby diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Dawkins replied in a tweet: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

The tweets prompted a backlash from large numbers of people on Twitter, including pro-life activists, parents of Down syndrome children, and the occasional self-described pro-choice person who felt Dawkins went too far.

Dawkins apologised for the "frenzy", saying he intended his remark to be read only by the woman addressed, who frequented forums on his website.

However, he stood by his claim that in his view, "the moral and sensible choice would be to abort" an unborn baby with Down syndrome.

Dawkins said that his position "simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse".

He acknowledged his opinion is "contentious", but said that the choice to give birth to a child with Down syndrome "would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child".

"No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice," he said.

Down syndrome organisations said in a joint August 22 statement that they were "outraged and saddened" by Dawkins' comments, saying he "strongly argued for the elimination of people with the condition".

They stressed the need for accurate information about people who live with Down syndrome.

People with Down syndrome in the US have an average lifespan of 60 years and have benefited from "great strides" in medical care and research, the foundations said.

They are able to take advantage of educational and work opportunities.

Dawkins insisted that there is a difference in deciding on a termination before a child is born, and suggesting after the child is born that it should have been aborted.

Dawkins recently argued that some types of rape or paedophilia are worse than others, then told people who couldn't understand his logic to "go away and learn how to think".

Sources

• Catholic News Agency
• The Guardian
• Christian Post
• Image: Salon.com

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.