Dr Mohler's recent contribution to the bioethical discussion on vaccines and vaccination is a welcomed opinion piece, his political affiliation notwithstanding.
At the outset, I would like to state that I appreciate his
effort in elaborating his “seven points for considerations” clearly and
unequivocally. However, there are some brief comments that must be made. I am hereby
writing this from the perspective of a Christian medical professional who
administers vaccines as part of my practice – so let no one accuse me of being
anti-vaccination.
Dr Mohler’s first point is relatively uncontroversial amongst evangelicals. I do agree that generally speaking, “Christians do not believe in medical non-interventionism.” And neither do I, or else I wouldn’t be a medical doctor.
In point 2, Dr Mohler addresses the concerns of the usage of foetal cell-lines derived from aborted foetuses in the manufacture of Covid-19 vaccines. He writes, “In most of the major COVID-19 vaccines, there was a use of foetal cell lines, which are known as HEK-293. The original cells for that line were taken from tissues derived from an abortion in the Netherlands in the 1960s.” Other cell-lines derived from aborted foetuses used in Covid-19 vaccines are PER.C6 and E.C7.
Dr Mohler argues that “the vaccine’s structure relied upon
the cell line of HEK-293, which originated with an aborted foetus. This is a
tragedy of history. A horrifying wrong was done—but that does not mean that
good cannot come from that harm, even as it is a good tainted by the realities
of a sinful world. This idea is expressed, for Christians, as the doctrine of
double effect. Some actions have more than one effect. For Christians, the
primary intention must aim at virtue and good. The intention behind an act must
never seek harm or evil or any moral reality and outcome against God’s will. We
must never be complicit in intending sin, and certainly, this applies to every
dimension of abortion. But the Christian also acknowledges a potential double
effect, for every moral act can lead to consequences not intended, but
unavoidable. If the abortion of even a single human baby was required for this
vaccine, or if abortion-derived materials were included in the vaccine,
Christians would be rightly outraged. This is not the case. The vaccine can be
taken by pro-life Christians with legitimacy.”
Although I would reserve judgment now concerning his conclusion that it might not be
immoral for Christians to take a vaccine made from foetal cell-lines derived
from abortion, his use of the doctrine of double effect is erroneous.
With respect to the intrinsically evil act of abortion by
the principal agent (i.e. the abortionist), the moral object of that act has
determined the morality of the principal agent’s act. The act of abortion is
always morally wrong, an intrinsic evil because the moral object is evil.
However, patients receiving vaccines are not principal agents performing a questionable moral act with potentially good and evil effects, and hence, the doctrine of double effect does not apply in this regard. Dr Mohler should have discussed the principle of cooperation (with evil) instead. In other words, is the patient who receives a Covid-19 vaccine guilty of cooperation with an evil act (abortion)?
Very succinctly, the act of receiving a vaccine based upon
cell lines derived from aborted foetuses is considered to be a remote, mediate
material cooperation based upon the three fonts of morality of intention, moral
object and circumstances.
The problem of scandal is the main ethical consideration – based
upon the third font – that I am cautious about. If the act of receiving the vaccine gives other believers or non-believers the impression that termination
of pregnancy is acceptable, it would be unacceptable morally speaking (no pun
intended).
I do give credits to Dr Mohler for explaining the remoteness of the cooperative act of receiving a vaccine from the intrinsically evil act of the principal agent (i.e. abortion by the abortionist). I believe the explanation and information furnished by Dr Mohler should suffice to avoid stumbling other Christians concerning the issue of abortion, but the point remains – it has nothing to do with the doctrine of double effect.
Furthermore, even though "the vaccine’s structure relied upon the cell line of HEK-293, which originated with an aborted fetus," and even though "that does not mean that good cannot come from that harm, even as it is a good tainted by the realities of a sinful world," we may never commit evil so that good may come, which is a condition required for the principle of double effect to be valid.
In his third point, he claims that “the medical community
demonstrates enormous confidence in the vaccine.” This is patently inaccurate.
Although the general narrative allowed by Big Tech is that Covid-19 vaccination is safe
and effective, there had been issues raised which – from a medical perspective –
are valid concerns. These had been vigorously censored on various social media
platforms.
For example, on December 1, 2020, Dr. Michael Yeadon (former
Vice President Respiratory & Chief Scientific Advisor, Pfizer) and Dr. Wolfgang
Wodarg (lung specialist and former head of the public health department) filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for
EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine
studies, in particular, the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number
2020-002641-42).
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.
Also, a video that is banned on Facebook and YouTube compiles the concerns of several medical professionals on the Covid-19 vaccine's safety, some of which I do not agree with. America's Frontline Doctors have likewise presented their significant concerns regarding this experimental vaccine.
It is also generally acknowledge by vaccine experts that for a safe, effective vaccine to be produced, the time from start to finish with all the necessary clinical trials is about 20 years. Do also note that Medscape (the website in the related link) is a Continuing Medical Education (CME) provider for doctors and health professionals. The person interviewed is a vaccine specialist.
It is absolutely legitimate for medical professionals to be
cautious with any hastily produced vaccine as the most basic ethical principle
in medicine is primum non nocere (i.e. first, do no harm). The patient’s
interests come first for a conscientious doctor.
Mohler’s fourth point deals with governmental coercion in
regard to vaccination. I generally agree with Dr Mohler on his analysis, and I would
like to add that from a local perspective, similar concerns might also arise in
Singapore. As Dr Mohler had written, “Christians will have to judge these
policies as they come.” At present, Covid-19 vaccination is not mandatory in
Singapore, and I hope it wouldn’t be. I also pray that there will be no
unreasonable restriction of liberty even for the unvaccinated individual.
Dr Mohler’s fifth point is regrettably flawed. Let me
explain why. He writes, “vaccines deals with the common good—the issue of love
of neighbour. Some people might approach the issue of vaccination through
self-defined terms. Such a person might say, “If a vaccine is available, then
people can take it who want it. I’m not taking it. I pose no threat to anyone.
I’ll deal with the consequences of my own actions.” Here is the problem with
this kind of moral equation: There are third parties—people who cannot take the
vaccine or do not yet have access to it that could still be infected by those
who refuse to take the vaccine.”
Firstly, the science is incorrect. There is a reasonable risk of asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19 even in vaccinated individuals. Hence, governments (including ours in Singapore) recommend the wearing of masks even after vaccination.
Secondly, there are Christians who would be cautious with
taking the vaccine because of inconclusive data concerning vaccine safety. The
safety information at present is admittedly very limited, and it wouldn’t be
fair to accuse fellow brethren of refusing to love their neighbours by their
failure to receive the vaccine.
The factual error committed by Dr Mohler imposes an
unnecessary burden upon the conscience of Christians. These brethren who refuse
the vaccine are not disobeying the 2nd greatest commandment, and therefore,
guilty of sin. They have the responsibility to protect themselves from harm,
and it is reasonable from both a medical and ethical perspective to wait until
further data emerge.
Mohler’s sixth point is likewise flawed because of his third
and fifth points. He writes, “Reasonable Christians and Christian parents will
differ over whether or not to take the vaccine. But, speaking personally, I
will take this vaccine as soon as it is available to me. I will take it not
only for what I hope will be the good of my own health, but for others as well.
I will seek to encourage others to take the vaccine. Encouragement, however, is
very different from coercion.”
As explained above, the vaccine protects the individual who
receives the vaccine from Covid-19. This does not directly protect
non-vaccinated individuals. Asymptomatic transmission is a real possibility.
On the other hand, it was mentioned by certain experts that “six in 10 people in Singapore would need to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the country to achieve herd immunity.” Herd immunity, however, does protect the population at large against Covid-19 indirectly. Vaccine herd-effects indirectly protect even unvaccinated individuals by reducing the population prevalence of vaccine-targeted pathogens. This herd-effect occurs at the level of the vaccine-targeted pathogen and indirectly impact the population at large, including unvaccinated bystanders.
But the achievement of herd immunity needs to be balanced against the limited
safety data we have at the moment and waiting for such data to emerge is not
an unreasonable or unethical option. This is all part of weighing the consequences of our action based upon the third font of morality. Indeed, we have to refrain from imposing such
vaccination requirements upon the consciences of believers, at least in this stage of vaccine development.
Nevertheless, I do heartily agree with Dr Mohler that “we
ought to be wary of any government or other intrusion into the family
structure—in this case, we should stand against government policies that give
vaccines to children and adolescents over and against (or without the knowledge
of) the convictions of their parents.”
I also stand with Dr Mohler on his final point that, presupposing that the vaccine is not morally dubious, “those
who are at greater risk or serving on the frontlines of this pandemic ought to
be the first in line to receive the vaccine.”
