Perspectives: What Does Fetal Stem Cell Tissue Have to do with Vaccines?

In the fall of 2020, I was taking Nursing courses at Liberty University (LU) and excitedly learning about different tissues and human anatomy, memorizing basic medical lingo, and dissecting fetal pigs. By the spring of 2022, I was dissecting sentences instead.

When I was accepted into LU’s Nursing program in 2021, I immediately began the process of determining which vaccines I needed to take in order to remain compliant with the program’s requirements; these were my MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) booster and the COVID-19 vaccine. I’d filed as religiously exempt the previous year, but this was where the rubber hit the road.

I deferred my acceptance for a semester, prayerfully researched vaccines, and—amid many tears—switched majors. While it certainly may have appeared to be a counterintuitive decision at the time, and many of my friends were skeptical of my failure to proceed, it was a conscience-informed one.

So, what informed my conscience?

Well, ethics, mostly.

WI-38 and MRC-5 are cell lines used to create common vaccines—think shingles, chicken pox, rubella—that were first developed in the 1970s from two fetuses aborted in the 1960s (in Sweden and England, respectively). The deaths of these small babies served to inoculate thousands of individuals and continue to do so. According to one 2017 CNN article, “One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.” World Health Organization (WHO) reported this year that, “An estimated 1.5 million childhood deaths have been prevented through the systematic administration of vitamin A during polio immunization activities.” It’s partially for these reasons that Christians often justify taking these vaccines, and I can certainly sympathize with that.

In fact, this justification is the position that the Catholic Church takes (although, they recommend trying to find a different method if possible). Regarding the rubella vaccine, the National Catholic Bioethics Center says, “One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine.”

Still further many will say that these fetal cells are no longer akin to their origin; they’ve divided to the point where they are physically and positionally no longer the baby’s tissue. However, our own cells divide constantly, our skin cells turn over roughly every 28 days, and I’m assuming that you, reader, wouldn’t necessarily say that you are fundamentally composed of a different material than you were 28 days ago: Those cells still have your DNA.

Another argument (one that producing companies make) is that the vaccines don’t actually contain any of the fetal cell tissue used in the initial process. However, I believe that, not only does it distract from the origin of these vaccines, this is scientifically untrue. The University of Oxford’s online Vaccine Knowledge Site states that it is “unlikely that any human material remains in the final vaccine” as the result of several rounds of purification. Unlikely is not the same as definitely, and that gives me pause.

Let me make a clear distinction; if those two babies had died of natural causes, I would take less issue with administering and taking these vaccines. This thought processing also led me to consider whether I would take these vaccines if the stem cells had come from a murdered adult. That further led me to consider the context of both murders.

Historically, scientists have discerned that doctors should always wait to ask if the mother would like to donate her baby’s, “fetal tissue,” to science until after she has opted to end the child’s life. This is a concerning preventative measure, as there is recognition of the fact that preborn babies can be and are seen as harvestable for the purposes of research. They are near-commodities; an adult’s murder is (hopefully) not premeditated by doctors who salvage his or her organs (if they happen to be an organ donor). Preborn babies can’t stroll down to the DMV to sign up to become organ donors. In addition, if adult stem cells taken from murdered individuals were being commodified, I’d take great issue with utilizing a product made from that material.

***

Let me clarify here: I don’t think that we should cease from taking all vaccines. Tetanus is a non-negotiable, especially for all you adventurers. I am, however, proposing that we put more thought into what is going into our bodies. Taking these particular vaccines is a question of conscience. I recognize the argument for seeking to keep one’s neighbor from harm, for seeking to love them well. It’s something that I wrestle with greatly. I have difficulty basing my decision upon just this motivation, though, and Romans says that anything not done in faith is sin to the believer (14:23). The neighbor love reasoning also feels a touch too similar to utilitarianism in this context. What I am determined to do is have grace for my neighbor who disagrees with me and seek with a steady head to have these conversations, while also seeking to not violate my God-given conscience.

I still feel like a frustrated nurse; I loved my former undergrad degree program. But my conviction causes me to pause, and, unless I discern that I’ve been the “weaker brother” and overly legalistic in this situation or companies begin to manufacture common vaccines made without the use of fetal cell tissue, I’m at peace with the small—though it at times feels rather large—sacrifice that I made.

Photo retrieved from Unsplash