Science and Religion Today » Bioethics

How Do You (and Your Faith) See Organ Donation?

Heather Wax — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:31:41 +0000

Why do some people become organ donors while others do not?

According to a recent survey by Donate Life America, 51 percent of Americans say they’re willing to donate their organs after death (though only 38 percent are registered organ donors), and 53 percent of registered donors say they made the decision to help others in need.

When the researchers spoke with those who are unwilling or reluctant to donate their organs, they found that the majority of them—52 percent—think doctors might not try as hard to save the lives of organ donors, and 61 percent erroneously think it’s possible for a brain dead person to recover. They also found that 8 percent believe organ donation is against their religion.

The truth is, the decision to donate organs and tissue is compatible with most religious beliefs. The Catholic Church has now long supported organ donation, mainstream Protestant denominations approve the practice, and the Rabbinical Council of America ruled organ donation permissible in the early 1990s. As David Fleming, president and CEO of Donate Life America, explains in a news release:

There are no known religions in the U.S. with a position against donation; rather, all major religions support organ donation as one of the highest expressions of compassion and generosity.

In the United Kingdom, where it has been tough to raise the number of organ donations, religious leaders have actively appealed to their followers and tried to clear up misconceptions. The Church of England says organ donation is a Christian duty. The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales described it as a true act of generosity. The head of the UK Hindu Council said it was natural for Hindus to donate body parts, as well as goods, at the end of their lives. (BBC News)

And in Canada, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, chairman of the board of Ontario’s Trillium Gift of Life Network, has suggested that the best way to get results is to promote organ donation as a religious responsibility. “We need to promote it as a religious fulfillment, as a religious imperative, as a religious obligation, as something we should be doing—to get away from this, ‘Aw, it’s OK,’” says Bulka. “It’s the right thing to do. It’s a life-saving thing to do.” (The Ottawa Citizen)

New Embryo Bank Would Solve Moral Dilemma

Heather Wax — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:00:00 +0000

With approximately half a million embryos left over from in vitro fertilization now frozen and stored in fertility clinics, the question of what to do with them has become a big issue. Most of them will be discarded, donated for scientific research, or given to other couples. (For patients who can’t conceive using their own eggs, using pre-existing embryos is more cost-effective than an egg donor, researchers say.)
For some couples, however, none of those three options feel right—yet they can’t afford the hundreds of dollars a year its costs to store the embryos—so they’re left with a moral dilemma.
Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at The Scripps Research Institute in California, thinks she has the answer. She wants to create an embryo bank that would take responsibility for these embryos. And perhaps religious groups that feel strongly about what happens to extra embryos can help cover the costs, she says. These groups, she tells the Religion News Service, “are against using embryos for research but … they are not offering another solution.” —Heather Wax

Hastings & Yale Form Bioethics Program

Heather Wax — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:41:00 +0000

The Has tings Center and Yale University recently formed a joint ethics-and-health-policy program. The Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy will allow Yale faculty and Hastings scholars to share resources, host visiting scholars, and jointly sponsor student programs that deepen the understanding of bioethical issues.
The Hastings Center bills itself as the world’s first bioethics research institute. Its research program looks at the effects of advances in medicine and the life sciences. Yale’s Interdisciplinary Bioethics Center explores the ethical and social implications of biomedical and technological research, with a focus on religion and the environment.
The new program will hold its first public event this spring. — Kimberly Roots

Ballot Measure in Michigan

Heather Wax — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:50:00 +0000

It looks like voters in Michigan have passed a ballot measure that will loosen the state’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution so that infertility patients in Michigan could donate their extra embryos for stem cell research, provided that the embryos would otherwise be discarded.
Deriving stem cell lines from embryos (which destroys the embryo) is legal under federal law, but a state law in Michigan prohibited the destruction of embryos in most cases. According to the University of Michigan, the state was one of the most restrictive in the country with regard to embryonic stem cell research.
The amendment will take effect on December 19. —Heather Wax

Many Would Allow Research on Extra Embryos

Heather Wax — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:24:00 +0000

Most infertility patients would let their extra embryos be used for stem cell research, according to a recent survey published in this month’s issue of the journal Fertility and Sterility. When they were asked if using leftover embryos for stem cell research should be allowed, 73 percent of those who gave a definitive opinion said yes, though blacks and Hispanics were less likely to approve the practice than were whites. Patients under 30, Protestants, those who were less wealthy, and those who were single were also less likely to support using the leftover embryos.
The patients were also asked if they would sell their extra embryos to other couples—something that both the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists consider ethically unacceptable. (For patients who can’t conceive using their own eggs, it’s more cost-effective to try using pre-existing embryos than an egg donor, according to the researchers.) When asked if selling their extra embryos to other couples should be allowed, 56 percent of those who gave a definitive opinion said yes.
These patients are the gatekeepers of the hundreds of thousands of embryos left over from in vitro fertilization that are now frozen and stored in fertility clinics, the researchers point out. “Infertility patients, in general, are altruistic,” says Dr. Tarun Jain, clinical IVF director at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead author of the study, “and it makes sense that they would try to advance medicine and help others.” —Heather Wax

New Religious Policy for Ontario Doctors

Heather Wax — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:07:00 +0000

The College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario, a regulatory body in Canada, is backing off its threat to sanction doctors who refuse to perform treatments and procedures based on religious or moral grounds. As we reported back in August, the college had released new draft guidelines that said doctors who opted out of things like prescribing birth control or the morning-after pill, performing abortions, or helping same-sex couples conceive because such treatments went against their conscience would face disciplinary action. A number of religious organizations spoke out against the proposed policy, as did the Ontario Medical Association, saying it believes “it should never be professional misconduct for an Ontario physician to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.”
But a revised draft, released Wednesday and voted on yesterday, is watered down—and, many feel, an improvement. Doctors will no longer face misconduct charges from the college for refusing to perform treatments that go against their religious or moral beliefs. Instead, the patient who is refused treatment can seek redress by filing a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. —Heather Wax

Rule to Boost Doctors’ "Right of Conscience"

Heather Wax — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:04:00 +0000

In a new memo, the Department of Health and Human Services has announced proposed regulations that seek to strengthen and protect health-care providers’ “right of conscience”—in other words, their right to refuse to provide certain treatments or procedures, like abortions, for religious or moral reasons. There are already a number of laws that prohibit doctors and hospitals from discriminating against health-care workers who opt of such treatments, but HHS wants federally funded institutions to certify in writing their compliance with the laws, making it easier, in essence, for doctors to opt out of abortions. “Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” says Mike Leavitt, HHS secretary. “Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health-care degree.”
Many, however, worry the regulation is so sweeping, as well as vague in its use of the term “abortion,” that it could also affect access to contraception.
The stronger protections stand in stark contrast to new draft guidelines from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario, a regulating body in Canada, which would no longer allow doctors in the province to refuse to perform treatments and procedures that go against their religious or moral conscience. If passed, doctors who opt out of such treatments will face disciplinary action. —Heather Wax

Doctors Told Medicine Trumps Personal Morals

Heather Wax — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:36:00 +0000

An interesting situation is developing in Ontario, Canada. A new draft proposal of guidelines from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario, a regulating body, would prevent doctors from being able to opt out of treatments and procedures that go against their religious or moral conscience. As of now, Ontario physicians are able to refuse things like prescribing birth control or the morning-after pill, performing abortions, or helping same-sex couples conceive if it goes against their personal beliefs. Under the new guidelines, that would stop, and doctors who refused such treatments because of their moral convictions would face disciplinary action.
According to Canada’s National Post, the college’s draft says that a “physician’s responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, [so] there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical services they require.” It also states that physicians “should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered … or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code and/or constitute professional misconduct.”
Many, like Lorne Gunter, who wrote the newspaper’s editorial on the subject, think the proposal is biased against religious believers and violates physicians rights while trying to protect the rights of others. The CPSO, he writes, is “placing the rights of women and gays ahead of those of doctors and people of faith, whether they are Jews, Muslims, Christians or others.” —Heather Wax

ISSR Makes Statement on Cybrids and Chimeras

Heather Wax — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:40:00 +0000

If you haven’t already, check out the statement on cybrids and chimeras published by the International Society for Science and Religion. The statement, which examines the background and ethical issues surrounding scientific research based on the artificial creation of human-animal hybrids, is written by Sir Brian Heap, the president of ISSR, and the Rev. Dr. Ronald Cole-Turner, ISSR’s vice-president. Heap says that they “urge that a prudent and respectful regard for the sensitivities of the public be maintained by researchers and policy-makers alike, in recognition of the long-term benefits to science that come from maintaining public support,” and Cole -Turner encourages researchers to communicate openly and fully about the technical feasibility and scientific potential of their proposed experiments.

For Some, Extra Embryos Lead to Hard Decision

Heather Wax — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:52:00 +0000

Most couples that undergo in-vitro fertilization would rather destroy their extra embryos than donate them to another couple, according to Dallas-Fort Worth channel WFAA. Surplus embryos can be donated to another couple, discarded, or given over for research—which essentially means they’re destroyed. “Given the three options,” Dr. Kevin Doody of the Center for Assisted Reproduction tells the TV station, “the majority of couples actually desire to discard their embryos or donate them to research, rather than for reproductive purposes.”
At Doody’s clinic, about 10 percent of these surplus embryos are donated to other couples, but the national average is about 1 percent. “I think it’s been slow to catch on,” he says, “and frankly, I’m a bit mystified myself as to the reason behind that.” —Heather Wax