David Klassen practised law in Vancouver for 15 years and taught philosophy at Corpus Christi College, St. Mark’s College, and Catholic Pacific College. During the pandemic he has become alarmed by increasing attacks on Canadians’ rights and freedoms, including conscience rights, freedom of speech, freedom in scientific inquiry, and the right to voluntary informed consent to medical procedures. Through his background in law and philosophy, he examines in this essay the suppression of voices taking place, saying, “We need to hear from physicians and scientists whose voices are currently being suppressed and who offer different solutions to the pandemic, and to more carefully consider what Church teaching requires of us.” 

Recent articles in The B.C. Catholic have quoted the Vatican’s “Note on the morality of using some anti-COVID-19 vaccines,” issued in December 2020 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The statement affirms our conscience rights in relation to vaccination, as well as certain moral duties to be considered in the formation of conscience.

Paul Schratz’s Aug. 30 column “Conscience vs. vaccination passports” considers the threat to conscience rights posed by the B.C. government requiring: (1) mandatory vaccination of some health-care workers and (2) vaccine passports for anyone to attend restaurants, movie theatres, fitness centres, and certain non-essential events.

Alan Yoshioka’s Sept. 6 article “Conscience rights don’t stand alone,” emphasizes our moral duty to pursue the common good, particularly in light of public health concerns. “Conscience rights concerning vaccine hesitancy must not be considered in isolation from our broader moral obligations,” says Yoshioka.

Let us take a closer look at the moral duties and obligations affirmed by the CDF and at how they relate to conscience rights. I propose that a serious consideration of those moral duties, together with examination of the findings of science, may, at least for some persons, give rise to a moral obligation to refuse vaccination, and hence to a right of conscience to refuse vaccination. Other persons may, in good conscience, come to the opposite conclusion.

British Columbians must show the BC Vaccine Card to enter restaurants, theatres, gyms, and sporting events. 

The CDF in Paragraph 3 of its Note affirms a duty to avoid the remote and passive material cooperation in evil associated with using these COVID-19 vaccines which were developed using cell lines derived from aborted fetuses. This duty may not be obligatory under certain conditions. The CDF says, “The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent – in this case, the pandemic an spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive” (emphasis in the original).

Two more duties are affirmed by the CDF in Paragraph 5 after saying that vaccination as a rule is not a moral obligation and that it must be voluntary: the duty to protect one’s own health, and the duty to pursue the common good. The CDF says, “Practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good” (emphasis in the original). The CDF then adds that, “In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed.”

There are thus certain prerequisites for the suspension of the first moral duty, which is to avoid the use of the morally tainted vaccines, and for “the common good to recommend vaccination.” There must be grave danger, clinically safe and effective vaccines (Paragraph 3), and no other means to stop or prevent the pandemic (Paragraph 5).

Let’s concede that the pandemic constitutes a grave danger to life and health of many people, even if most people will not become seriously ill or die. The other conditions must still be met for the common good to recommend vaccination in the interest of public health.

Vatican Museums staff verify Green Pass certificates signifying vaccination against COVID-19.  (CNS photoFoto CNS/Guglielmo Mangiapane, Reuters)

Not all experts agree that those conditions have been met. For example, in June of 2021 a panel of seven Canadian physicians and scientists, including professors in the medical faculties of the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia, joined by Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale University School of Public Health, met in a webinar to discuss a path forward for Canadians. They claimed to represent hundreds of other Canadian doctors and scientists. Their consensus, summed up by Dr. Bonnie Mallard, professor of immunogenetics at the University of Guelph, was that the vaccine rollout in Canada should be paused because of safety concerns, especially in the case of children. They further expressed the opinion that there are alternative treatments that can be successfully used to prevent and treat COVID-19 pending further study of the vaccines.

Additional concerns have been raised by experts about the potential for adverse long-term effects of the mRNA and viral vector COVID vaccines currently available in Canada. Prof. Luc Montagnier, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovery of the HIV virus, speaks of the possibility that vaccinated people will suffer from neurodegenerative disease in five to 10 years and that future generations may be affected in as yet unknown ways. MIT senior researcher, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Dr. Greg Nigh have produced a peer-reviewed paper which surveys medical and scientific literature on the potential for acute and long-term adverse consequences of the mRNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. These may include blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune diseases and reproductive issues.

Alan Yoshioka concedes that the COVID-19 vaccines have not been around long enough for potential long-term effects to emerge, but he says that unlike previous vaccines that have caused long-term problems, disturbing safety signs have not shown up among billions of people who have so far received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccines. 

However, there are two reasons to believe that the potential for long-term adverse effects cannot be so easily dismissed. First, the mRNA and viral vector vaccines currently available in Canada differ from all previous vaccines inasmuch as they use new technologies unlike any other vaccines previously administered to humans. Therefore, they cannot be so easily compared to traditional vaccines.

Secondly, it is not universally accepted that there have been no disturbing safety signals. Experts such as the panel of Canadian physicians and scientists mentioned above; Dr. Tess Lawrie, one of the leading medical researchers in the United Kingdom; and an international group called Doctors for COVID Ethics, which has hundreds of highly-qualified members, are among those who have identified disturbing safety signals and have raised serious concerns about potential long-term adverse effects of the vaccines.

One may contend that the experts who raise such concerns are in the minority, and therefore should be disregarded. Regardless, however, of which group of experts is actually in the majority, the most popular view at any one time is not always found to be true in the long run. No one reasonably contends that a majority consensus in science is infallible.

As Naomi Oreskes observes in a recent article in Scientific American“Even a modest familiarity with the history of science offers many examples of matters that scientists thought they had resolved, only to discover that they needed to be reconsidered. 

“Some familiar examples are Earth as the centre of the universe, the absolute nature of time and space, the stability of continents, and the cause of infectious disease. Even the cause of infectious disease, which is obviously related to our topic, was once understood differently.”

Consensus in science is constantly shifting as new discoveries come to light. Albert Einstein said, “The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions.”

In this case, we are dealing with vaccines whose long-term effects will not be known for years, and we await the scientific judgment based upon future experience. Even if there is only a 10 per cent chance that the concerns expressed by a minority of experts about the potential long-term adverse effects will eventually be shown to be right, and we pray that those concerns will prove ill-founded, the risk from the vaccines is unacceptable if there are other, less risky ways of avoiding a serious case of COVID-19.

Many of us have looked at the work and the rationale of the experts who contend that there are indeed safe ways of avoiding serious cases of COVID-19, apart from vaccination, and find them compelling. For example, the use of ivermectin as an anti-viral and anti-inflammatory agent effective against COVID-19 has been attested to by highly-qualified physicians and researchers including Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Paul Marik

Their research and clinical experience indicate that ivermectin, especially when used in combination with other re-purposed drugs and supplements, is a cheap, very safe, and effective agent for prevention of COVID-19, and also for treatment of the disease, especially in its early stages. And yet the use of ivermectin has been discouraged by official pronouncements and media reports that it is poisonous and only fit for de-worming horses and other animals. That is despite the fact that billions of doses have been administered safely to humans for parasitic infections for decades and it is on the WHO list of essential medications.

For those who, after carefully looking at the science, conclude that there is available to them a safer and comparably effective way to avoid serious cases of COVID-19 and to avoid transmitting the disease to others, the common good no longer recommends vaccination. In that case, the consciences of such persons may oblige them to avoid vaccination to fulfill the moral duty to preserve one’s own health from the risks of vaccination, in addition to the moral duty to avoid passive material cooperation in the evil of abortion. They will, of course, still be subject to the duty stated in Paragraph 3 of the Note of the CDF, to “do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

Vaccination as a rule is not a moral obligation says the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, although one is obligated to protect one’s own health and to pursue the common good. (CNS photo/Bryan Woolston, Reuters) 

Other persons may, in looking at the science, reach the conclusion there is no effective way to prevent serious cases of COVID-19 except by vaccination. They may find the risks of vaccination to be minimal, or at least much smaller than the risks of not getting vaccinated. In that case, their consciences may oblige them to be vaccinated in order to preserve their own health and to help prevent transmission to others. It might be added that since the vaccines have not been shown to entirely prevent transmission of the disease, even the vaccinated ought to “do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behaviour, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

Each group should be able to respect the conscience of the other in their personal and prudential judgments as to the type of medical treatment they take. Science has always flourished and advanced in a milieu that permits the free exchange of ideas, vigorous debate, and different approaches. Why not have more open and respectful public dialogue among physicians and scientists, instead of enforcing top-down official “science” by censoring and threatening those whose approaches and conclusions deviate from official doctrine?

An open letter has been written to Premier Horgan, the Minister of Health and Dr. Bonnie Henry questioning their vaccine policies, with numerous links to scientific evidence for positions taken in the letter. The authors of this letter identify themselves as health-care professionals who do not feel at liberty to disclose their names because of threats of discipline and termination by their own various professional governing bodies. One may take issue with the contents of the letter and question whether the anonymous authors really are health-care professionals. However, given the experience of doctors who have spoken openly and publicly, such as Dr. Charles Hoffe, formerly of Lytton, there is no doubt that health-care professionals are not at liberty to express themselves freely without fear of disciplinary action or termination.

In addition to being contrary to rights of conscience, speaking theologically and ethically, vaccine passports and mandates may not withstand legal scrutiny. The right to voluntary informed consent as to medical treatments and procedures is well-established in Canadian law. In British Columbia, that right is codified in the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, particularly sections 4, 5, and 6. Ontario lawyer Nicholas Wansbutter has cited Supreme Court of Canada cases and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in arguing that vaccine mandates and passports violate Canadians’ rights of consent regarding medical treatments. He argues that such measures are an exercise of authority that unlawfully pressures persons to be vaccinated contrary to their right to freely give or not give consent, and are a violation of bodily integrity amounting to assault. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has also expressed opposition to the vaccine passports on the grounds of Charter rights to freedom of conscience, the right to liberty and security of the person, and the right to be equal before the law.

Those in favour of vaccine passports may respond by saying that individual rights and freedoms under the Charter are not absolute, but “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” There are, however, problems with that approach.

Charter rights are not to be taken lightly, and it is not clear that the vaccine passports and mandates meet the high standard for reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  The passports and mandates apparently clash with pre-existing statutory law which guarantees voluntary informed consent and is arguably of greater weight than the order of a provincial health officer. Moreover, in view of scientific disagreements, it is questionable that limits on the Charter rights are “demonstrably justified.”  It is widely acknowledged that vaccination protects against severe illness, but not so well against infection and transmission of the disease. That fact undermines the rationale for the passports inasmuch as they are in place to isolate the unvaccinated so as prevent the transmission of the disease. Public Health England has determined that Covid-infected vaccinated and unvaccinated persons carry the same viral load and at least for a time may be equally infectious to others, although this is mitigated by the finding that the vaccinated are less likely to be infected, and their high viral loads may not last as long. Vaccine protection against infection and mild symptoms has nevertheless dropped as low as 40%  in Israel as effectiveness wanes over time. 

One of the questions about the acceptability of vaccines is the actual extent of the use of aborted fetal cell lines in their development.  (Queensland Government)

The mandates and passports also fail to acknowledge the natural immunity of those previously infected, which studies have shown to be superior to the protection conferred by the vaccines. It has been argued by Stanford Medical School physician and economist Jay Bhattacharya and Harvard Medical School biostatistician and epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff that vaccine passports are discriminatory because they fail to recognize the rights of those with natural immunity who “did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way” and who should not now be required to take on the risk of adverse events from vaccination. Indeed, a study of hospital workers in the Johns Hopkins system has shown that the risk of clinically significant symptoms following the first dose of an mRNA vaccine is more than four times higher for those who were previously infected.

Inasmuch as the vaccines actually do protect the vaccinated, why should the vaccinated believe that the unvaccinated are such a threat to them that the unvaccinated ought to lose their right to choose their own medical treatment? If the desired result is to prevent infection and the spread of the disease, then other methods which do not clash with the legal right of voluntary informed consent, including increased emphasis on the voluntary use of preventative treatments such as those mentioned in the webinar by the panel of Canadian experts, would be more appropriate than vaccine passports and mandates.  

There remains the issue of one’s duty to avoid the remote and passive material cooperation in evil associated with administration of COVID-19 vaccines developed using cell lines derived from aborted fetuses. Those who try to observe this duty are accused of excessive scrupulosity about the vaccines and, as Yoshioka says, having “rejected authoritative teachings (see CCC 1785) in favour of an alternative Magisterium.”

An article by Fr. Matthew Schneider, LC, points out that most medications used today have been tested on cell lines from aborted fetuses, as has been the case with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It is argued that if we reject those vaccines merely because they were tested, but not grown, on such cell lines, consistency would demand that we reject almost all modern medications.

However, a distinction needs to be made between medications that were tested on aborted fetal cell lines as part of their original development, and those which were only tested much later for other purposes. For example, Tylenol was first introduced in 1955, but the scholarly articles cited by Father Schneider documenting its testing on the HEK-293 aborted fetal cell line were published in 2017 and 2018. Ivermectin was first introduced in the 1970s, but the articles documenting its testing on the HEK-293 cell line are from 2004 and 2006. Unless those medications are used for purposes only disclosed through the subsequent testing on aborted fetal cell lines, then consistency does not require us to avoid them in order to avoid remote material cooperation in evil.

Moreover, the question arises as to the actual extent of the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the development of the vaccines currently approved for use in Canada. Father Leon Pereira, OP, a medical doctor and moral theologian, contends that all four of the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved for use in Canada were developed by making much more extensive use of the aborted fetal cell lines than mere testing. He says that the AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines “are made using fetal cell lines. These cells are used in the development, design, production, and subsequent testing of the vaccines. The vaccines themselves almost certainly contain fetal cellular debris.”

In regard to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Father Pereira says that aborted fetal cells are used in “redesigning of the spike protein, the subsequent recoding of the mRNA fragments, the expression of pseudoviruses and neutralization.” After a final stage of production that does not involve fetal cell lines, he says that fetal cell lines are again used in the process of testing the two mRNA vaccines. 

Finally, let’s return to the common good. What is it? It certainly includes the great good of public health in human communities, but there is more to it than that. It includes respect for the right to life of the weakest and most vulnerable, including unborn children. It also means that we live in a society that respects human rights such as freedom of conscience, subject only to reasonable and demonstrably justified limitations, as stated in the Charter. In addition to those temporal goods, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 170, teaches that “God is the ultimate end of his creatures and for no reason may the common good be deprived of its transcendent dimension, which moves beyond the historical dimension while at the same time fulfilling it. [. . .] A purely historical and materialistic vision would end up transforming the common good into a simple socio-economic well-being, without any transcendental goal, that is, without its most intimate reason for existing.”

A sign at a Vancouver protest against vaccination mandates. After considering one’s moral duties and the findings of science, some people may have a right to refuse vaccination, while others may in good conscience come to the opposite conclusion, writes David J. Klassen. (Gotovan/Flickr)

Church teachings, such as those contained in the CDF Note, the Catechism, and the Compendium, are invaluable guides to the formation of conscience. In particular circumstances, however, it is up to individual persons to seek the truth, including the truth about the common good, having regard to all the facts, and to make their own prudential judgments of conscience guided by Church teachings.

Saint John Paul II in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 34, says, “Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known. As Cardinal John Henry Newman, that outstanding defender of the rights of conscience, forcefully put it: ‘Conscience has rights because it has duties’.”

This is not an argument for moral relativism, or relativism of any kind. It is an argument for respect for each person in his or her journey to truth, for the grave moral obligation to seek the fullness of truth in the formation of conscience, and for the obligation to act accordingly. Although there is objective truth, not everyone will come to the same decision, since each of us is unique, and the long-term consequences of vaccination and answers to other disputed medical and scientific questions are complex and not fully known to any of us.

Let us all respect one another and the conscience rights of others, having regard to the common good in all of its transcendent fullness.

A shorter version of this article was published in the Sept. 27 B.C. Catholic.