Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Porcine-Derived Materials for Medical Purposes: What do Muslim and Jewish Individuals Know and Opine About It?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Porcine-derived medical products represent an effective solution for a wide range of human suffering, yet this may contradict Muslim and Jewish religious prohibitions against consuming pig. The present study evaluated the level to which Muslim and Jewish participants are knowledgeable about the conditions permitting porcine-based treatments and explored their attitudes toward the permissibility of these treatments. A questionnaire that presented fifteen medical uses of porcine-derived products was completed by 809 Muslims and 714 Jews. Neither Muslim nor Jewish participants are knowledgeable about the religious rulings of their religions which permit the use of pig for life saving. Participants of both groups objected to the view that porcine-derived materials should be permitted. The findings imply that the attitude toward porcine-derived materials for medical use is contingent upon the knowledge or lack thereof that individuals have regarding the permissibility of such use. We offer useful recommendations to improve the informed consent process before conducting porcine-based treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdulla, A., M. Hossain, and C. Barla. 2019. Toward comprehensive medicine: Listening to spiritual and religious needs of patients. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine 5: 2333721419843703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bokek-Cohen, Y., & Ravitsky, V. 2017. Cultural and personal considerations in informed consent for fecal microbiota transplantation. American Journal of Bioethics, 17(5): 55–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bokek-Cohen, Y. 2021. Sperm donors versus long-term mates: A comparison of preferences of heterosexual and lesbian women. Human Fertility, 1-13.

  • Bokek-Cohen, Y., Abu-Rakia, R., Azuri, P. & Tarabeih, M. 2020. The view of the three monotheistic religions toward cadaveric organ donation. Omega: Journal of Death & Dying, 85(2): 429-444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babos, M.B., J.D. Perry, S.A. Reed, et al. 2021. Animal-derived medications: Cultural considerations and available alternatives. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 121(4): 361–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bona, M.D., D. Canova, R. Rumiati, et al. 2004. Understanding of and attitudes to xenotransplantation: A survey among Italian university students. Xenotransplantation 11(2): 133–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhamra, N., K. Jolly, A. Darr, D.J. Bowyer, and S.K. Ahmed. 2021. Intra-operative use of biological products—Are we aware of their derivatives? International Journal of Clinical Practice 75(10): e14633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B.M. 2010. Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzi, E., and D.K. Cooper. 2018. Jewish, Christian and Muslim theological perspectives about xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 25(3): e12400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curlin, F.A., C.J. Roach, R. Gorawara-Bhat, J.D. Lantos, and H.M. Chin. 2005. When patients choose faith over medicine: Physician perspectives on religiously related conflict in the medical encounter. Archives of Internal Medicine 165(1): 88–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook, C., and G. Maddern. 2008. Porcine and bovine surgical products: Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu perspectives. Archives of Surgery 143(4): 366–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebner, K., J. Ostheimer, and J. Sautermeister. 2020. The role of religious beliefs for the acceptance of xenotransplantation. Exploring dimensions of xenotransplantation in the field of hospital chaplaincy. Xenotransplantation 27(4): e12579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enoch, S., H. Shaaban, and K.W. Dunn. 2005. Informed consent should be obtained from patients to use products (skin substitutes) and dressings containing biological material. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(1): 2–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, A., J. Burcharth, and J. Rosenberg. 2013. Animal derived products may conflict with religious patients’ beliefs. BMC Medical Ethics 14(1): 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godehardt, A.W., and R.R. Tönjes. 2020. Xenotransplantation of decellularized pig heart valves—Regulatory aspects in Europe. Xenotransplantation 27(3): e12609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, E.R., and W.A. Adams. 2002. Reconciling private benefit and public risks in biotechnology: xenotransplantation as a case study in consent. Health Law Journal 10: 31–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, D., A. Goyal, and M. Brittberg. 2013. Consideration of religious sentiments while selecting a biological product for knee arthroscopy. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 21(7): 1577–1586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagelin, J. 2004. Public opinion surveys about xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 11(6): 551–558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hagelin, J., J. Hau, S.J. Schapiro, M.A. Suleman, and H.E. Carlsson. 2001. Religious beliefs and opinions on clinical xenotransplantation: A survey of university students from Kenya, Sweden and Texas, Clinical Transplantation 16(4): 314

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, D.J., L.A Padilla, D.K.C. Cooper, and W. Paris. 2021. Factors influencing attitudes toward xenotransplantation clinical trials: A report of focus group studies. Xenotransplantation 28(4): e12684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E.D., M. Yip, L. Melman, M.M. Frisella, and B.D. Matthews. 2010. Informed consent: Cultural and religious issues associated with the use of allogeneic and xenogeneic mesh products. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 210(4): 402–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly, K., A. Darr, A. Aslanidou, D. Bowyer, and S. Ahmed. 2019. The intra-operative use of biological products: A multi-centre regional patient perspective of a potential consenting conundrum. Clinical Otolaryngology 44(5): 831–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim, H.M.R., and T.H. Khan. 2018. Religious belief as determinant of animal derived medications in health care: how much is fairly good? Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care 22(2): 151–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kranenburg, L.W., C. Kerssens, J.N. Ijzermans, W. Zuidema, W. Weimar, and J.J. Busschbach. 2005. Reluctant acceptance of xenotransplantation in kidney patients on the waiting list for transplantation. Social Science & Medicine 61(8): 1828–1834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loike, J.D., and A. Kadish. 2018. Ethical rejections of xenotransplantation? The potential and challenges of using human-pig chimeras to create organs for transplantation. EMBO Reports 19(8): e46337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manji, R.A., A.H. Menkis, B. Ekser, and D.K.C. Cooper. 2012. Porcine bioprosthetic heart valves: The next generation. American Heart Journal 164(2): 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padela, A.I., S.W. Furber, M.A. Kholwadia, and E. Moosa. 2014. Dire necessity and transformation: Entry-points for modern science in Islamic bioethical assessment of porcine products in vaccines. Bioethics 28(2): 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padela, A.I., and R. Duivenbode. 2018. The ethics of organ donation, donation after circulatory determination of death, and xenotransplantation from an Islamic perspective. Xenotransplantation 25(3): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, L.A., D. Hurst, R. Lopez, V. Kumar, D.K. Cooper, and W. Paris. 2020. Attitudes to clinical pig kidney xenotransplantation among medical providers and patients. Kidney 360 1(7): 10-34067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, W., R.J.H. Seidler, K. FitzGerald, A.I. Padela, E. Cozzi, and D.K. Cooper. 2018. Jewish, Christian and Muslim theological perspectives about xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 25(3): e12400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodger, D. 2021. Why we should stop using animal-derived products on patients without their consent. Journal of Medical Ethics. ePub ahead of print, June 8. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107371.

  • Rodger, D., and B.P. Blackshaw. 2019. Using animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery: The case for disclosing to patients. BMC Medical Ethics 20(1): 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattar, S.P., M.S. Ahmed, J. Madison, et al. 2004a. Patient and physician attitudes to using medications with religiously forbidden ingredients. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 38(11): 1830–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattar, S.P., M.S. Ahmed, F. Majeed, and F. Petty. 2004b. Inert medication ingredients causing nonadherence due to religious beliefs. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 38(4): 621–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiwani, M.H. 2020. The use of porcine mesh implants in the repair of abdominal wall hernia: an Islamic perspective for an informed consent. Journal of the British Islamic Medical Association 4: 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommaggio, R., M. Uribe-Herranz, M. Marquina, and C. Costa. 2016. Xenotransplantation of pig chondrocytes: Therapeutic potential and barriers for cartilage repair. European Cells & Materials 32: 24–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, M., A. d’Apice, and M. Sandrin. 2003. Position paper of the ethics committee of the international xenotransplantation association. Xenotransplantation 10(3): 194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Branden, S., and B. Broeckaert. 2011. The ongoing charity of organ donation: contemporary English Sunni fatwas on organ donation and blood transfusion. Bioethics 25(3): 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vissamsetti B., M. Payne, and S. Payne. 2012. Inadvertent prescription of gelatin-containing oral medication: Its acceptability to patients. Postgraduate Medicine Journal 88(1043): 499–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to the Academic College of Israel in Ramat-Gan for the research grant that enabled this study.

Funding

This work was supported by the Academic College of Israel in Ramat-Gan under Grant number 24484057

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, Academic College of Israel in Ramat-Gan, 87 Ruttenberg St., Postal code 5227528, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen

  2. Holon, Israel

    Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen

  3. School of Nursing, 2 Rabenu Yerucham St., Postal code 6161001, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Mahdi Tarabeih

Authors
  1. Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahdi Tarabeih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest statement

No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The appendix citation in the text has been changed to read ‘(see appendix A in the Supplementary Information for the study questionnaire).

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 27.1 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bokek-Cohen, Y., Tarabeih, M. The Use of Porcine-Derived Materials for Medical Purposes: What do Muslim and Jewish Individuals Know and Opine About It?. Bioethical Inquiry 19, 599–612 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10203-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10203-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation