Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22015708›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2012

Religio-ethical discussions on organ donation among Muslims in Europe: an example of transnational Islamic bioethics.

Mohammed Ghaly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Deceased Organ Transplantation in Bangladesh: The Dynamics of Bioethics, Religion and Culture.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Brain-dead Donation Rate in Month of Ramadan and the other Months: 2005-2014.International journal of organ transplantation medicine · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Nudging by shaming, shaming by nudging.International journal of health policy and management · 2014
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mohammed GhalyLeiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. m.ghaly@religion.leidenuniv.nl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article analyzes the religio-ethical discussions of Muslim religious scholars, which took place in Europe specifically in the UK and the Netherlands, on organ donation. After introductory notes on fatwas (Islamic religious guidelines) relevant to biomedical ethics and the socio-political context in which discussions on organ donation took place, the article studies three specific fatwas issued in Europe whose analysis has escaped the attention of modern academic researchers. In 2000 the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) issued a fatwa on organ donation. Besides this "European" fatwa, two other fatwas were issued respectively in the UK by the Muslim Law (Shariah) Council in 1995 and in the Netherlands by the Moroccan religious scholar Mustafā Ben Hamza during a conference on "Islam and Organ Donation" held in March 2006. The three fatwas show that a great number of Muslim religious scholars permit organ donation and this holds true for donating organs to non-Muslims as well. Further, they demonstrate that transnationalism is one of the main characteristics of contemporary Islamic bioethics. In a bid to develop their own standpoints towards organ donation, Muslims living in the West rely heavily on fatwas imported from the Muslim world.

Indexed as

IslamMoralsBioethicsHumansInternationalityNetherlandsReligion and MedicineTissue and Organ ProcurementTissue DonorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22015708
PMCPMC3319889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.