Literatur
Easterbrook C, Maddern G (2008) Porcine and bovine surgical products: Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu perspectives. Arch Surg 143:366–370
Enoch S, Shaaban H, Dunn KW (2005) Informed consent should be obtained from patients to use products (skin substitutes) and dressings containing biological material. J Med Ethics 31:2–6
Eyre DW (2007) Time to offer patients an alternative to porcine heparin? BMJ 334:1053
Ilkilic I (2010) Aspekte des interkulturellen Arzt-Patienten-Verhältnisses. In: Deutscher Ethikrat (Hrsg) Migration und Gesundheit. Kulturelle Vielfalt als Herausforderung für die medizinische Versorgung. Deutscher Ethikrat, Berlin, S 29–40
Padela AI, Qureshi O (2016) Islamic perspectives on clinical intervention near the end-of-life: We can but must we? Med Health Care Philos 20:545–559
Sadat-Ali M, Al-Turki HA (2013) The use of porcine derived low molecular weight heparins in Muslims. Saudi Med J 34:865
Shomali MA (2008) Islamic bioethics: a general scheme. J Med Ethics Hist Med 1:1
Xu Y, Chandarajoti K, Zhang X, Pagadala V, Dou Q, Hoppersteadt DM, Sparkenbaugh EM, Cooley B, Daily Sh, Key NS, Severynse-Stevens D, Fareed J, Linhardt RH, Pawlinski R, Liu J (2017) Synthetic oligosaccharides can replace animal-sourced low-molecular weight heparins. Sci Transl Med 9(406):eaan5954
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Interessenkonflikt
M. Coors gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coors, M. Kommentar II zum Fall: „Heparin für Muslime – Wissenslücke: nicht vegan und nicht halal“. Ethik Med 31, 87–89 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-018-00513-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-018-00513-2