Saturday 28 July 2012

Organ donation (11)


In the previous blog we looked at some major scholars’ views on organ donation. Now we will continue and look at a few more.

First, the view of Ayatullah Saanei – his view is similar to that above i.e. as long as it is for noble goals e.g. developing medical knowledge, confirming the truth about death organ donation is allowed. However, unlike Ayatullah Fadlallah he considers it important to get the family’s consent as well as have a will in place. (1)

Next, the view of Ayatullah Jannaati is that organ donation is allowed if there is a will from the donor, and a need from the recipient. However, he specifically excludes the donation of an eye whilst alive; but allows the donation of organs from animals, even those that are considered inherently impure (najis al-‘ayn e.g. pig) because after the transplantation, the organ becomes part of the recipient. (2)

Finally, the view of Ayatullah Khamanei is that he considers it to be okay as the goal is worthy e.g. saving a human life, medical experiments, providing information about a disease/death (e.g. autopsy)…etc.; however, he does use language not dissimilar to Ayatullah Seestani and Ayatullah Muhsini i.e. “it is necessary, as far as it is possible to dissect a non-Muslim’s body, not to dissect a Muslim’s cadaver” and with respect to digging graves of dead individuals “As to the graves of Muslims it is not permissible to do so unless there is a pressing need for the bones for medical purposes and it is impossible to obtain such bones from the graves of non-Muslims”. (3)

There are technical details about whether diya is required but I have not included these discussions above.

Note that these discussions are not particularly a Shii discussion. We see similar arguments amongst our Ahl al-Sunna brothers/sisters (4), with some in favour of organ donation and others against. Similarly, there are discussions amongst the Jewish community (e.g. the London Beth Din – (5)). However, these are outside the scope of this discussion so for those interested, please refer to the sourced websites. Similarly, there is considerable research that has been done in the field of Islamic bio-ethics (6), which some argue is not understood well enough when determining these rulings. A useful quote in the pre-eminent work on the topic is: “Framed in this balance of benefit and harm, it would appear that the new rulings on organ donation have a single objective: to preserve the health and well-being of the two parties involved in an organ transplant, without any reference to other aspects of the issue. Hence, any considerations regarding other social and religious distinctions have no place in the rulings.” And “the spirit of Islamic revelation does not permit any distinction when it comes to saving a life of another human being. If these jurists regard it permissible to receive organs from non-Muslims, such as the Peoples of the Book (ahl al-kitab = Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians), then the principle of reciprocity makes it obligatory to do the same for others in return. The discriminatory attitudes that proscribe organ donations to non-Muslims are based on classical juridical decisions that need re-evaluation in light of basic moral principles”

We have now come to the end of our discussion on organ donation – hope it was informative and at the minimum, provided a good explanation.

In the next series of blogs, we will be looking at the issue of moonsighting!






(6) The most comprehensive work on the topic is by Sachedina (Islamic Bio-medical ethics – page 194 onwards); but there are also journal articles e.g. Islamic Medical Ethics and the Straight Path of God by Kyriakides-Yeldham in “Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations,” Vol. 16, No. 3, 213–225, July 2005

Sunday 22 July 2012

Organ donation (10)


In the final two blogs on the topic, I would like to summarise the rules of various maraja’ on the topic. From the discussions about the various narrations and arguments in the previous blogs, inshaAllah you will be able to see inside the mind of these maraja’ (no specific order) and understand how and why they have come to the conclusion they have.

Firstly, the view of Ayatullah Seestani is that transplantation from a dead Muslim is only possible if the life of another Muslim depends on it, even if it is in the will of the Muslim. From a live person, it is allowed as long as the organ is not crucial to his/her life – e.g. kidney donation/blood donation to a non-Muslim is also not a problem. He considers it permissible to transplant from animals (including from a pig). He does not consider it allowed to transplant from someone in a coma/brain dead, even if there is no hope that the person may revive, because that would be considered murder. (1)

Secondly, the view of Ayatullah Makarim Shirazi is that organ donation for transplant in another person is allowed if the latter person’s life is dependent on the organ donation. He does not (as far as I could tell) distinguish between non-Muslims and Muslims. (2)

Thirdly, the view of Ayatullah Fadlallah. He seems to come at this issue from a different angle. Although he acknowledges the importance of respecting the dead body, and makes it clear that taking organs from a non-Muslim is different to a Muslim (because Islam emphasises being open and respecting the belief system of others), his language on the topic is very different. He talks about the societal need for organs in society, and that giving organs is good from an akhlaq perspective. Therefore, the act of being a donor (either in your will, or whilst living) is a gift and this turns a negative thing (disturbing a dead body and cutting it/harming oneself) into a positive thing (helping someone else in society). Therefore, he even allows giving an eye when you are alive…etc. and has no issue with giving an organ to a non-Muslim. He also has no problem with pig hearts…etc. Furthermore, he believes that brain death is the real death (not when the heart stops beating), allowing donation of organs at that time. (3)

In the next blog, we will look at a few other major scholars’ views.

Source: