Free and Informed Consent and Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates-Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care

These are important ethical principles found in the Catholic Bishops “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.”

26. The free and informed consent of the person or the person’s surrogate is required for
medical treatments and procedures, except in an emergency situation when consent cannot
be obtained and there is no indication that the patient would refuse consent to the
treatment.
27. Free and informed consent requires that the person or the person’s surrogate receive all
reasonable information about the essential nature of the proposed treatment and its
benefits; its risks, side-effects, consequences, and cost; and any reasonable and morally
legitimate alternatives, including no treatment at all
.
28. Each person or the person’s surrogate should have access to medical and moral
information
and counseling so as to be able to form his or her conscience. The free and
informed health care decision of the person or the person’s surrogate is to be followed so
long as it does not contradict Catholic principles.
29. All persons served by Catholic health care have the right and duty to protect and preserve
their bodily and functional integrity.16 The functional integrity of the person may be
sacrificed to maintain the health or life of the person when no other morally
permissible means is available….
31. No one should be the subject of medical or genetic experimentation, even if it is
therapeutic, unless the person or surrogate first has given free and informed consent. In
instances of nontherapeutic experimentation, the surrogate can give this consent only if the
experiment entails no significant risk to the person’s well-being. Moreover, the greater the person’s incompetency and vulnerability, the greater the reasons must be to perform any
medical experimentation, especially nontherapeutic.
32. While every person is obliged to use ordinary means to preserve his or her health, no
person should be obliged to submit to a health care procedure that the person has judged,
with a free and informed conscience, not to provide a reasonable hope of benefit without
imposing excessive risks and burdens
on the patient or excessive expense to family or
community.18
33. The well-being of the whole person must be taken into account in deciding about any
therapeutic intervention or use of technology. Therapeutic procedures that are likely to
cause harm or undesirable side-effects can be justified only by a proportionate benefit to
the patient.

34. Health care providers are to respect each person’s privacy and confidentiality regarding
information related to the person’s diagnosis, treatment, and care.

Wuhoo? The Duping of the Scientific Establishment.

For a while now I have asked myself, attempting to analyze this hysterical and unreasoned approach to a sickness, is it possible that the virus is not as deadly as it was expected to be? From a medical-ethical standpoint, why has an emergency been allowed to trample basic, long-standing principles such as informed consent and the right to refuse burdensome and risky treatment? There is much more to be learned. Keeping facts from coming out at no more than a trickle is a great way to orchestrate a hoax. I am not declaring everything a hoax! The deaths are real. The sickness is real. But why do the actors in all of this keep acting like this? The question is simple in this case, How has such a significant piece of information been kept under wraps for so long, especially the conflict of interest?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/damning-new-report-reveals-what-wuhan-scientists-british-zoologist-were-up-to-in-months-before-pandemic?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh&fbclid=IwAR0y12_Q5MwBJeWh8KgnWQGSVrUZzA1ADwmEQxpZFDK-QWR3uZLfxuN0kPM

The Problem of Analyzing Cooperation in Evil and COVID-19 Vaccines-Part 2: How Do the Fetal Cell Lines Originate?

In Part 1, we started thinking about the Principle of Cooperation. When we speak of cooperation we are not referring to the morality of the act of the main actor. The question concerns the morality of another individual or other individuals who become involved with that act somehow. In my original example, Severius is the main actor and Aquila is the cooperator. Aquila’s actions are morally evaluated from her point of view and this degree of cooperation and its moral evaluation are not determined by the evil Severius has committed. In the second example it is quite clear that the Jones family is not morally responsible for Severius’s actions. We want to try to understand how the cooperators, like Aquila and the Jones family, can act without committing sin by immorally cooperating with those who do, in fact, commit evil.

Now, while I began talking about cooperation (the second aspect of the Bishops’ statements) –and we are going to return to the morality of the use of the COVID-19 Vaccines (the morality of that cooperation)–, the time has come to talk about the process of making and testing the vaccines. The reason I think this is the case is that we need to recognize that these vaccines are not made by taking cells or tissue from the organs of the body of an aborted child. I am not saying here that there was no abortion. Nor am I saying that the abortion was not the source for the original cells from which these cell lines were created. However, the phrases that are commonly used, “made from aborted babies,” or “made from aborted fetal tissue,” can create confusion. If one were to mean by using such phrases that these companies such as Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson, are acquiring the bodies of aborted children, dissecting them, and testing or producing vaccines from them then that is incorrect. If that were the case, I believe the use of such vaccines would be unquestionably condemned by all those concerned about the dignity of life. That is not what we are talking about here. So what are we talking about?

What follows is the best information available to me at this time. Fortunately, the information is widely available and that helps establish its credibility. It comes from reliable sources and I am confident that it is a correct description of the origin of the cell lines used in the process.

Many of us in the Respect Life Apostolate began to find out in the year 2000 that cell lines developed from aborted fetal tissue were being used in varying degrees in the production of vaccines. My introduction to this fact came in a controversy over the Hepatitis A vaccine which was being mandated by the city of St. Louis. I helped address the matter for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. There was quite an uproar and a misunderstanding, just like we are having now, about what is morally permissible regarding cooperation. Based upon Catholic moral principles, I stated that the Hepatitis A vaccine could be used because the cooperation was remote, there were no moral alternatives, and the reason for the use of the vaccines was sufficiently serious. At the time, the Vatican had not issued any statements on the question of the production of vaccines. Many people were very upset with us over our position that held that the vaccines could be used morally, that people also had the right to conscientiously object, and that we would work for alternatives that were not morally compromised. Children of God for Life, at that time, was opposed to this position. However, many very good pro-life moralists and others agreed with us. Eventually, the Holy See did, as well. This link will take you to Children of God for Life’s treatment of that matter. https://cogforlife.org/morally-acceptable/. I can add that I was informed the Holy See directly intervened and approved the position I, along with many others, took on the matter. (Even given our different positions, I maintain that Children of God for Life does good work.)

The fetal cell lines being used to produce COVID-19 vaccines come from two sources. One cell line being used is called HEK-293. HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney. The line came from the 293rd experiment on the tissue. These cells came from a child aborted in 1973 and it appears that the abortion was not spontaneous but deliberate. At the time records were not kept of the details of the abortion. It occurred in the Netherlands. This cell line was developed for basic research. It has come to be used in the type of production used in the COVID-19 vaccines. It is also used in many other commercial operations, in food production and possibly in cosmetics. The other line is PER.C6, a retinal cell line developed from an 18 week old fetus. The abortion was elective and deliberate because the mother wanted it. The cell line was developed specifically for manufacturing of Adenovirus Vectors used in some vaccines. These cell lines have been “immortalized” as it is described and can divide and continue to multiply providing cells for research and development. They have certain qualities that make them desirable for research.These cell lines are patented and available for purchase. According to FDA reports, to the best of my knowledge, the scientists producing the cell lines were not involved directly in the abortions.

Scientific and medical sources, such as North Dakota Health (reliably Pro-Life, it seems), say that the vaccines that rely upon these cell lines will not require additional abortions. This point was an important factor in my original analysis. I continue to rely on the representations that this is true; and it does make sense given the specific requirements for this type of research and the production of these vaccines. This factor was also important for the Holy See in its evaluation of the position I and others took in respect to the Hepatitis A vaccine, in 2000. Of course, the idea is still repugnant and, because this type of research is desirable and profitable, it seems to me that there is that incentive to continue to develop such lines.