Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36530796›Full record

ArticleQualitative sociology2023

An Interpretive Approach to Religious Ambiguities around Medical Innovations: The Spanish Catholic Church on Organ Donation and Transplantation (1954-2014).

Rebeca Herrero Sáenz

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative sociology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rebeca Herrero SáenzMolloy University, 312 Kellenberg Hall 1000 Hempstead Avenue, NY 11570 Rockville Centre, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1434-1493
Molloy College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do institutionalized religions solve moral ambiguities around controversial medical innovations and public health issues? Most religions have moral guidelines about what can and cannot be done to people's bodies, but these guidelines are not always straightforward and, when faced with certain scientific advances, can come into contradiction with other doctrinal principles. I address this theoretical puzzle through the empirical case of the Spanish Catholic Church's discourse on organ donation and transplantation during the second half of the twentieth century. Drawing on an interpretive analysis of official statements by the Spanish Catholic Church, and of the media coverage of the religious debate over organ donation and transplantation in Spain from 1954 onwards, I show that the first experiments in organ transplantation faced the Church with a contradiction between its altruistic teachings and its beliefs in the sacredness of human life. Faced with an interpretive dilemma, the Church produced a context-specific version of its official doctrine friendly to organ donation and transplantation. It did so by activating its altruistic elements and suppressing sacralized meanings of the body, thus aligning organ donation with Catholic values of generosity and fraternal love. My study theorizes this moral alignment as a semantic overlap realized through historically situated institutional discourse. Additionally, it incorporates 24 primary and secondary sources on comparative cases to propose three facilitating factors that enabled and encouraged the Spanish Catholic Church to embrace a controversial medical practice.

Indexed as

Catholic ChurchElective AffinityFrame AlignmentMedical InnovationOrgan DonationOrgan TransplantationReligionSpain

Identifiers

PMID36530796
PMCPMC9734823
OpenAlexW4311706566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.