House of Lords - European Union - Seventeenth Report

Select Committee on European Union Seventeenth Report

CHAPTER 10: THE VIEWS OF FAITH GROUPS

348. The willingness of members of faith groups to put themselves forward as potential organ donors, and the extent to which their relatives support donation, may be affected by perceptions of the views of the faith group to which they belong. The nature of such views is therefore a potentially important influence on the European Commission's aim of increasing organ donation rates across the EU.

349. In analysing the initial evidence we received from faith groups, it became clear that, while most faith groups offered support for organ donation in principle, there were important differences between them regarding specific aspects of donation and on related issues, such as the definition of death. It was clear also that views differed about the degree to which donation was to be seen as a matter of religious doctrine or one of individual conscience.

350. To understand better the reasons which lay behind this, we issued a supplementary Call for Evidence to faith groups (see Appendix 4). This led to the submission of valuable additional evidence which added new information to that which had previously, to our knowledge, been readily accessible.

351. While we have sought to present below the principal points made in these submissions, this account cannot include every single point made; and the full evidence is printed with this Report (pp 207-209, pp 211-212, pp 256-273). Moreover, the views we report necessarily can include only those from the organisations that responded to our calls for evidence, and they by no means represent the totality of views held across all faith organisations.

General views

352. The British Humanist Association (BHA), which described itself as "representing the interests of ethically concerned but non-religious people", was concerned about the incorporation of faith based views into policy on organ donation. "We wholly oppose general policy being made on the basis of religious dogma or superstition—though we recognise that provision must be made to accommodate the personal wishes of individuals based on such considerations" (pp 207-209).

353. The BHA went on to say that most of its members would support donation and took the view that "better public education about organ donation and transplantation is essential, and that policy actions at both State and European levels are needed in order to increase the number of organ transplants and so save lives" (pp 207-209).

354. UK Transplant reported that it had worked for some years to clarify the views of faith groups about organ donation and transplantation and had produced information leaflets setting out the views of the major groups[52]. They explained that the national leaders of the six major faiths in the UK—Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism—had all explicitly endorsed donation (pp 26-30).

355. Professor Gurch Randhawa, University of Bedfordshire, lent support to this assessment stating, in the context of donating organs, that "within the main South Asian religions, namely Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam, the concept of gifting to assist society is a highly-valued virtue. 'Sewa' and 'Zakat' respectively" (pp 67-75).

Views about brain stem death

356. Certain faith groups expressed reservations about the concept of brain stem death and, consequently, the donation of organs from patients whose death had been confirmed on the basis of brain stem death testing.

357. The Christian Medical Fellowship, while acknowledging that it did not speak for any particular Christian church, denomination or other group, wrote, "Those with concerns here have reservations about the concept of brain stem death and would argue that it is the act of removal of organs which ends the donor's life". They acknowledged, however, that most of its members accepted the concept of brain stem death (pp 261-263).

358. The Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire also indicated mixed views about organ donation from brain stem dead donors. They stated that, on the basis of study by many scholars in Islam, the conclusions to be drawn were: (a) that medical professionals should be entrusted with defining "death" by clinical criteria and this is a question of medical fact rather than one of religious analysis; and (b) that brain stem death should be accepted as the proper definition of the end of life. However, they pointed out also that, according to other scholars in Islam, "it is unlawful to donate and transplant organs, whether of a living person or a dead body" (pp 270-271).

359. A stronger position was taken by the Jewish organisations. Professor David Katz, on behalf of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, stated, "Whether or not brain death defines the Jewish-legal moment of the death of an individual is debatable. Those who do not accept the definition of brain death cannot become organ donors until respiration has ceased, because this constitutes the killing of a 'still-alive' donor" (pp 259-260).

360. Dr David Frei, Registrar of the Court of the Chief Rabbi, went further in stating clear opposition to the concept of brain stem death being used to trigger organ donation. "The Court, in line with leading Jewish legal authorities, rules that that the definition of death is 'the cessation of respiration rather than brain stem death alone'. One may not terminate the life of a living person in order to save the life of another" (p 269).

361. Dr Fernandez-Zincke, European Commission, commented on the position of the Roman Catholic Church on brain stem death. "It was very useful when the Catholic Church made a clear statement about brain death. Then doubts disappeared, and I think that that has been pretty useful. If that could happen in other religions, that would also be very useful" (Q 33). However, when we looked into this point further, we noted that the issue of brain stem death had come under fresh review by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[53].

"Official" views

362. UK Transplant made the important point that opinion at grassroots level does not always reflect the "official" view of the faith. They added that differences of opinion existed among faith leaders and that the situation was complicated by a "blurred distinction between faith, culture and ethnicity" (pp 26-30). In the following paragraphs, therefore, we seek to distinguish between "official" and individually expressed views made from a faith based standpoint.

363. Professor Katz stated, "Religious beliefs are those of people, not organisations". He therefore suggested that it was "difficult, and probably inappropriate" for a representative Jewish organisation to put forward an "official" view on organ donation, especially since not all Jews shared the same view (pp 259-260).

364. The Bishop of Southwark, writing on behalf of the Church of England, observed, "The Christian tradition both affirms the God-given value of human bodily life, and the principle of putting the needs of others before one's own needs. Organ donation is a striking example of this" (pp 266-267). Mrs Claire Foster, Church of England Policy Adviser, added, "we would expect all Christians to consider ensuring they are registered organ donors" (pp 266-267).

365. The Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire stated that many Muslim scholars have interpreted the declaration in the Qur'an "Whosoever saves the life of one person it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind" as supporting donation. However, they acknowledged that some in the Muslim community had interpreted Islamic teaching to imply opposition to donation. Their view was that this opinion "has in some cases been more rooted in cultural attitudes than strict application of Islamic (Sharia) Law" (pp 270-271).