ArticleBMC medical ethics2013
Animal derived products may conflict with religious patients' beliefs.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biodegradable Temporising matrix in the reconstruction of complex wounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Porcine Xenograft and Epidermal Fully Synthetic Skin Substitutes in the Treatment of Partial-Thickness Burns: A Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- Review of Ethics and Use of Animal-Based Surgical Products in Dermatology.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2026Review
- Disclosure of mesh origin in rectopexy: an under-recognized component of informed consent.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Jewish Perspectives on Porcine Xenotransplantation: Balancing Religious Ethics and Medical Necessity in Israel.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- True anticoagulation safety cannot be achieved without better anticoagulants.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- The behavioral and social drivers of HPV vaccination among parents and young people in Indonesia: a scoping review.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- The unseen animal behind medicine: exploring considerations of animal-derived medications and anaesthetics in today's landscape.BJA open · 2025Review
- Ethics in Global Plastic Surgery Missions.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of a hydroxyapatite-crosslinked fish gelatin membranes.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- A Novel Comprehensive Therapeutic Approach to the Challenges of Chronic Wounds: A Brief Review and Clinical Experience Report.Advances in therapy · 2024Review
- Are vegans being overlooked in our prescribing practices: An orthopaedic perspective from Bristol, United Kingdom.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Review
- Article
- Review
- Perioperative implications of patients with alpha gal allergies.Journal of clinical anesthesia · 2023Review
- Navigating Cultural Diversity in the Selection of Cardiovascular Device Treatments: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- Cell-Laden Marine Gelatin Methacryloyl Hydrogels Enriched with Ascorbic Acid for Corneal Stroma Regeneration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Exploring Muslims' Health-Related Behaviours in Portugal: Any Impact on Quotidian Community Pharmacy Practice?Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Dentistry in a multicultural society: the impact of animal-based products on person-centred care.British dental journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplants and drugs with animal and human derived content are widely used in medicine and surgery, but information regarding ingredients is rarely obtainable by health practitioners. A religious perspective concerning the use of animal and human derived drug ingredients has not thoroughly been investigated. The purpose of this study was to clarify which parts of the medical and surgical treatments offered in western world-hospitals that conflicts with believers of major religions.
methodsReligious and spiritual leaders of the six largest religions worldwide (18 branches) were contacted. A standardised questionnaire was sent out regarding their position on the use of human and animal derived products in medical and surgical treatments.
resultsOf the 18 contacted religious branches, 10 replied representing the 6 largest religions worldwide. Hindus and Sikhs did not approve of the use of bovine or porcine derived products, and Muslims did not accept the use of porcine derived drugs, dressings or implants. Christians (including Jehovah's Witnesses), Jews and Buddhists accepted the use of all animal and human derived products. However, all religions accepted the use of all these products in case of an emergency and only if alternatives were not available.
conclusionsThe views here suggest that religious codes conflict with some treatment regimens. It is crucial to obtain informed consent from patients for the use of drugs and implants with animal or human derived content. However, information on the origin of ingredients in drugs is not always available to health practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.