3 November 2010

The MMR Debate

Well, I'm starting to think about the MMR again.  With my son I deliberated and deliberated and decided to have him get it because I didn't want him catching it and then infecting a pregnant woman, since I know she'd likely be counseled to abort.  I wrote to the drug company and expressed my frustrations and how I considered the rubella portion to be immoral since it uses human diploid cells from an aborted foetus.  The response I received basically brushed me off, saying the Church was OK with it if  there wasn't an alternative, and so it was OK.  Well, yes, the Church does say that if you need a vaccine, and the only available one is developed in that way, you can use it, but that alternatives should be made available.  The drug company didn't seem to care about creating a moral alternative. 

So that leads to the debate this time around.  Measles, mumps, and rubella aren't all that prevalent, and none are usually serious.  Rubella is only a problem if a pregnant woman contracts it, especially during the first trimester.  The question is, do I use a morally questionable vaccine to protect my daughter against something that isn't prevalent or all that serious on the chance that she may get it and spread it to a pregnant woman, knowing the drug company has no incentive to create a moral alternative, or do I forego it because of the moral issues and because I know the drug company isn't listening.  And no, getting the vaccine parts separated and importing a moral alternative to the rubella component (there is one in Japan, though it's not as effective), isn't an option.  So what would you do? 


  1. We don't get it. Simple as that. :) Did you decide?

  2. Not yet. I have time. ;-) I'm leaning towards not getting it, as it seems the odds of her getting rubella and passing it on to a woman without immunity in her first trimester is rather slim.