SPUC has requested that the Government make available vaccines which are not made using cell lines originally derived from the tissue of aborted unborn children.

In a letter to Jo Churchill the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care), SPUC urges her to make sure  that vaccines developed without using foetal cell-lines be supported in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic and that a path be taken which respects those with concerns of conscience in this area.

No vaccine currently exists for Covid-19 but many possibilities are being researched.  Some teams do not use cells at all, like the Imperial College team, while others use plant or animal cells. Others, however, like the Oxford team are using a cell-line derived from an unborn child aborted many years ago.

Develop vaccinations ethically

In the letter, Dr Anthony McCarthy, SPUC Director of Research states:

“I am writing to you on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the oldest and largest pro- life organisation in the UK. We represent the concerns of tens of thousands of members across the UK, which are shared by a significant sector of the population at large.

“As you will know, scientists across the globe are currently seeking to develop vaccines in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This laudable goal is being attempted by various means, some of which raise, however, ethical problems.

“Some, but by no means all, of the vaccines in development for Covid-19 (e.g. the vaccine currently being developed by a team at the University of Oxford) involve the use of foetal cell lines.  In contrast, other vaccines being worked on either do not involve cell lines at all (a team at Imperial College London are working on one such 'synthetic' vaccine) or alternatively involve plant or animal cells.

“In contrast the contentious foetal cell lines originate in tissue sourced from abortions.  One such cell-line used in Covid-19 vaccine research is the HEK 293 cell-line derived from foetal tissue from an abortion in the 1970s, while another is the PER C6 cell-line from an 18-week old unborn child aborted in 1985.

“While I appreciate that using such a cell-line is not the same as using foetal tissue itself, which involves close liaison with the abortion provider on the part of those collecting the tissue and making it available,  use of foetal cell-lines created from such tissue can nonetheless pose problems of conscience for those who may eventually be offered the vaccine.

"For those of us who see the original abortion as the unjustified taking of the life of the unborn child, such use of the products of abortion, even a cell line derived from the original tissue, risks sending out a harmful social message concerning the value of early human life and of the mother-child bond. Even those not opposed to all abortion may well have serious and substantial moral concerns over practices which seem to treat opportunistically the remains of an aborted unborn child. Moreover, some women who have abortions and who regret their decision may be negatively impacted by such use of their unborn child's tissue for cell-line creation, even if they consented at the time. 

“It is clearly in the interests of all that a vaccine acceptable to all be supported and made available. We are writing to you today to ask that any non-foetally developed vaccines be made generously available to all who need them, and that work on such vaccines be given priority in research funding. 

"Society needs to respect the consciences of its members who uphold the inviolability of human life from conception and who do not wish to be involved in anything they may see as complicit with the unjust taking of such life.  It is disappointing that in the past ethically developed vaccines have not been available to those who have needed them, even when such alternative vaccines existed as in many cases they do for various conditions. Many people have serious objections to the use of vaccines developed from procedures which undermine the ethical practice of medicine.”

The letter concludes: “We look forward to hearing from you at this difficult time when we are all seeking life-saving options and would be happy to discuss these issues further should you wish.”