Authors
Melissa Moschella
Catholic University of America
Abstract
Using cell lines like HEK 293 or their products—like many of the COVID-19 vaccines—involves no cooperation with evil strictly speaking, but it does involve appropriation of the benefits of past evil. Applying M. Cathleen Kaveny’s framework for assessing the permissibility of appropriating the benefits of evil, the duty to avoid using cell lines like HEK 293 or their products is weak and defeasible. Proper interpretation of Dignitas personae requires recognizing the crucial moral differences between the use of these cell lines—which does not perpetuate the injustice of abortion, imply approval of abortion, or involve significant risks of corrupting moral character or provoking scandal—and the direct use of fetal tissue or human embryos in research.
Keywords Applied Philosophy  Business and Professional Ethics  Catholic Tradition
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/ncbq202121110
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,290
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Dignitas Personae and Cell Line Independence.Alvin Wong - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (2):273-280.
What Dignitas Personae Does Not Say.Jason T. Eberl - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (1):89-110.
Reproductive Technologies in Light of Dignitas Personae.Benedict M. Guevin - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (1):51-59.
Dignitas Personae and the Adoption of Frozen Embryos.John S. Grabowski & Christopher Gross - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (2):307-328.
Embryo Adoption Reconsidered.Edward J. Furton - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (2):329-347.
The Dignity of the Person.Mark S. Latkovic - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (2):283-305.
Is Embryo Adoption a Form of Surrogacy?Ryan C. Mayer - 2011 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (2):249-256.
Symposium on Dignitas Personae.E. Christian Brugger - 2009 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 9 (3):461-483.
The Magisterial Liceity of Embryo Transfer.Elizabeth Bothamley Rex - 2015 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 15 (4):701-722.
Using Morally Controversial Human Cell Lines After Dignitas Personae.Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (2):265-272.
Vaccines and the Right of Conscience.Edward J. Furton - 2004 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4 (1):53-62.
Parthenotes, iPS Cells, and the Product of ANT-OAR.E. Christian Brugger - 2010 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10 (1):123-142.
Vaccines, Abortion, and Moral Coherence.Daniel P. Maher - 2002 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2 (1):51-67.
Complicity, Fetal Tissue, and Vaccines.Alexander R. Pruss - 2006 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6 (3):461-470.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-08-30

Total views
11 ( #855,743 of 2,518,755 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,070 of 2,518,755 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes