3.8 Article

The Moral Status of Organ Donation and Transplantation Within Islamic Law: The Fiqh Council of North America's Position

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION DIRECT
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000980

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Resources and Services Administration [R39OT31104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Muslim communities tend to hold more negative attitudes toward organ donation than other communities. These views, in part, reflect the diverse views of Islamic scholars who debate the conditions under which donation and transplantation is morally licit. In December 2018, the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) weighed in on the US context of donation and transplantation through an Islamic ethico-legal verdict (fatwa). Methods. Between 2016 and 2018, FCNA members engaged in multidisciplinary research using conventions of collective Islamic moral deliberation. They examined rulings on organ donation and transplantation issued by Islamic jurists and juridical councils abroad, convened with organ donation and transplantation professionals and stakeholders including families and patients, and consulted medical and bioethics experts. Results. FCNA judges organ donation to be morally permissible from the perspective of Islamic law and ethics, subject to several conditions. These include first-person authorization, that donation occur either while living or after circulatory declaration of death, harm to the donor is minimized, reproductive organs are not donated, among others. Organ transplantation, in general, was also deemed licit. Conclusions. FCNA's verdict uniquely addresses American contexts and has several clinical practice implications. By sharing their perspective with academic and professional stakeholders, the council aims to provide nuanced guidance for assisting Muslims in making informed choices regarding these procedures and further societal dialogue on the ethics and practices of donation and transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据