ABSTRACT

The objective of the literature review was to

summarize the viewpoints of Biblical Teaching
towards organs & blood donation.

user
Januario, Josephine, Nguyen Hong Vu (Lazarus), Mensar.

ORGANS & BLOOD

DONATIONS
Christian Ethics
 I. ORGAN DONATION
Organ donation is the gift of an organ to help someone else who needs a transplant. Hundreds of
people’s lives are saved each year by organ transplants. Organs that can be donated by people
who have died include the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, pancreas and small bowel. Tissue such as
skin, bone, heart valves and corneas can also be used to help others.

A. WHEN CAN ORGAN DONATION TAKE PLACE?

Doctors and nurses are committed to doing everything possible to save life. Organs are only
removed for transplantation once all attempts to save life have failed and after death has been
certified by a doctor or doctors who are entirely independent of the transplant team. Most
donated organs come from people who die from a severe brain injury and who receive treatment
on a ventilator in an intensive care unit. The brain injury damages vital centres in the brain stem
which are essential to maintain life. No one can live once these centres have been destroyed.
Tests can show conclusively when this has happened.
In some circumstances, patients who die in hospital but are not on a ventilator may also donate.
They are called non-heartbeating donors. Sometimes people who do not die in hospital can
become tissue donors.

II. BLOOD DONATION

A blood donation occurs when a person voluntarily has blood drawn and used for transfusions.
Donation may be of whole blood, or of specific components directly. Today in the developed
world, most blood donors are unpaid volunteers who donate blood for a community supply. In
some countries, established supplies are limited and donors usually give blood when family or
friends need a transfusion. Many donors donate as an act of charity, but in countries that allow
paid donation some donors are paid, and in some cases there are incentives other than money
such as paid time off from work. Donors can also have blood drawn for their own future use.
Donating is relatively safe, but some donors have bruising where the needle is inserted or may
feel faint.

III. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

The search found that there is no major faith group that is against organ and tissue donation and
ransplantation. Most faith groups accept organ and tissue donation. The search identified that the
premise behind most faith groups is to do good. Some faith leaders emphasize that this can be
accomplished, in part, by donating organs or tissue after death. Some groups express neutral
views about donation, leaving the decision to the individual. All faith groups require respectful
treatment of the process of dying and the deceased person, and if respectful processes are
followed, donation is acceptable to most faith groups. The majority of faith groups indicated that
they do not support compensation or coercion for donation and believe in fair and equitable
allocation of organs and tissues for transplantation.
A. RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE
The following section describes the findings of the literature search for Buddhism, Hinduism,
Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism and Christianity. The numbers appearing above and in the
next section refer to the references in which the statement was found.

1) BUDDHISM
Buddhists agree that the dead should be treated with love and respect. Buddhists believe that
organ and tissue donation is a matter of individual conscience and there is no written, official
position on organ and tissue donation. Buddhists place high value on acts of compassion. Those
who support organ donation claim that it:
1) Is a compassionate, kind and generous gesture;
2) De-emphasizes the importance of the body;
3) Does not interfere with the re-birth of the body (only the soul is re-born), and
4) That it accumulates good karma.,
Those who are not in favour of organ donation state that Buddhism opposes any attachment to
life or a disruption of the dying process, with which they perceive that organ transplantation
interferes. One scholar states that Buddhism supports organ donation, but not transplantation.

2) HINDUISM
Hindus are particular about who touches the deceased and believe in cremation to return the
body to the earth. Organ transplantation is accepted and is regarded as virtuous behaviour.
According to the Hindu Temple Society of North America, Hindus are not prohibited by
religious law from donating their organs. This act is an individual’s decision. H. L. Trivedi, in
Transplantation Proceedings, stated that, “Hindu mythology has stories in which the parts of the
human body are used for the benefit of other humans and society. There is nothing in the Hindu
religion indicating that parts of humans, dead or alive, cannot be used to alleviate the suffering of
other humans.” The basic tenet of Hinduism is to help those who are suffering.5 Hinduism
traditionally associates death with respiratory failure but there is no formal resistance to a
neurological determination of death.

3) ISLAM
The tenets of Islam prescribe that the body is sacred and belongs to God. People who follow
Islamic traditions believe that it is their duty to aid others and that all possible legal means
should be taken to save a life. The majority of Islamic experts favour organ donation and
transplantation and reconcile the principles of saving a life against respecting the cadaver. There
are guidelines for donation which state that donation can only occur if:
1) No other treatment is available;
2) The transplant has a good chance of success;
3) Voluntary consent is obtained from the donor or from the next of kin; and
4) Death has been accurately pronounced.
The majority of Islamic scholars recognize brain death. Although there are views against organ
donation and transplantation in Islam, a prominent Muslim physician-medical ethicist states that
“necessities overrule prohibitions”. In other words, since organ and tissue donation can either
save or enhance a person’s life, the act of donation is more necessary than observing the
prohibitions.
4) JUDAISM
All four branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist) support
and encourage donation. The highest value in Judaism is to emulate God through acts of love,
compassion and concern. Jewish law considers organ donation and transplantation as one of
these acts. Many Rabbis support organ donation through the tenet that to save one life is to save
the whole world. Pikuach nefesh, the saving of human life, is the overriding value which permits
donation. According to Orthodox Rabbi Moses Tendler, Chairman of the Biology Department of
Yeshiva University in New York City and Chairman of the Bioethics Commission of the
Rabbinical Council of America, “If one is in the position to donate an organ to save another’s
life, it’s obligatory to do so, even if the donor never knows who the beneficiary will be. The
basic principle of Jewish ethics
– ‘the infinite worth of the human being’
– also includes donation of corneas, since eyesight restoration is considered a life-saving
operation. There is a mandatory obligation to use all means to save or prolong the life of another
person. The majority accept the diagnosis of death based on both neurological and
cardiopulmonary criteria. There is some disagreement within Judaism with some Rabbis only
accepting the cardiopulmonary criteria as means of diagnosing death; however the Israeli Chief
Rabbinate endorses neurological determination of death as reliable. According to Jewish law,
transplantation is allowed if the act of transplantation does not hasten death, is performed with
respect for the deceased and that body parts that are not used for transplantation are buried with
the deceased.

IV. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

The statistics show that the supply of organs and tissues is not meeting the current demand.
However, few objections to organ donation and transplantation are made on religious or biblical
grounds. Even when a group opposes donation on religious grounds, most will extend their belief
systems to allow for donation and receiving of replaceable organs and tissues, such as blood and
bone marrow. Most arguments for and against organ donation and transplantation fall into two
major categories: those dealing with expressed love to one’s neighbor and those dealing with
treatment of the body.
In his book Christian Ethics in Health Care, John Wilkinson writes that the first ethical principle
on which organ donation and transplantation may be justified is that of “love for one’s
neighbor.” This principle is also cited by Richard Hughes, a tissue recipient himself, when he
describes the tangible act of loving one’s neighbor.
Although the command to “love your neighbor” was quoted by Jesus (Matthew 5:43), Paul
(Romans 13:9) and James (James 2:8), it may be traced back to Leviticus 19:18. This passage
justifies its use in the ethics of organ donation and transplantation. The Hebrew word translated
love in Leviticus is used in the Old Testament to describe the love one should have for a
neighbor, as well as the love one should express toward God (Deut 6:5) and strangers
(Deuteronomy 10:19). In examining the meaning of the Hebrew word translated love (ahab),
People are to express this love toward God and one another because of who God is, and because
we are created in his image. Jesus extends the scope of who may be one’s neighbor in the parable
of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and in Matthew 5:43-44. The overarching principle is
that we are obligated as Christians to love everyone. Jesus’ life and words exhort all people to
love brother, sister, neighbor, enemy and stranger. One way to express this love is through the
convenient provisions of modern technology that make organ donation and transplantation
possible.
Although donation may be permissible or even obligatory based on the principle of loving one’s
neighbor, does it violate biblical teaching in other areas such as the resurrection of the body,
totality, self-mutilation, prolonging life and natural order? The second major category involves
issues concerning the body itself.

A. RESURRECTION BODIES
Many Christians may fail to donate organs because of the idea that a total body will be necessary
at the resurrection. This concern is addressed in an editorial by Carroll Simcox entitled The Case
of the Missing Liver. In arguing for the permissibility of organ donation, Simcox includes the
teachings of Paul concerning the resurrected body. A proper understanding of 1 Corinthians
15:35-49 teaches a tremendous difference between the physical body at death, which may be
buried or disposed of in various ways, and the spiritual body of the resurrection. If the end-time
resurrection of our bodies means simply the reoccupation of the previous body, then the entire
doctrine of resurrection presented in the Bible is erroneous.
Paul uses the analogy of the difference between a seed and the product of that seed to illustrate
the difference between the earthly body and the resurrected body. What is planted is not the same
as the end product of the seed. Neither is the physical body the same as the future spiritual body.
The fact that Jesus’ recognizable resurrected body was similar to his crucified and buried body
supports an argument against organ donation. Jesus’ resurrected body bore scars from crucifixion
(Luke 24:39) and was evidently nourished by physical food (Luke 24:42-43), but it also was
supernatural and had qualities his physical body did not possess (John 20:19). Simcox concludes
that Jesus was in a transitional state between an earthly body and a heavenly body.” This is
supported by F. F. Bruce’s comment that “the form in which Jesus rose from the dead was one in
which he could be seen, but his present existence is in the spiritual realm” (1 Timothy 3:16; 1
Peter 3:18). The earthly body will not enter into the heavenly inheritance (1 Corinthians 15:50).
Based on these facts, there can be no justification for prohibiting organ donation and
transplantation because of the need for a physically intact body prior to entering the resurrected
state.
B. THE PRINCIPLE OF TOTALITY
The next moral response to organ donation and transplantation is related to the principle of
totality. This principle advocates maintaining the wholeness of the body but is extended to allow
for removal of a part of the body, if it is done in the interest of or for the benefit of the whole
person. This would permit, for example, the amputation of an extremity in order to save the rest
of the body. In addition to the assumed need for totality in the resurrection of the body, the
principle of totality includes charitable donation and mutilation of the body.
Some theologians, ethicists and health care professionals currently advocate a further extension
of the principle of totality. They begin by redefining benefit of the whole person. This expanded
definition provides for the promotion of spiritual and moral well-being of an individual as well
as physical, emotional and mental well-being; a person may ultimately benefit if given the
opportunity to donate organs or tissues as an act of charity. The resulting conclusion is that
charitable giving (usually understood to be giving with no intention of receiving anything in
return) of organs and tissues allows for the improved well-being of the giver as well as the
recipient.
This position may be criticized as a “perversion of the notion of charity.” It describes the
existence of a paradox when one acts in charity in order to promote self-fulfillment. This debate
focuses on proper understanding of the Greek word for love (agapao), which is the verb used in
each of the New Testament quotes from Leviticus 19:18. It describes a love that is more than
emotional love for those closest to us. It describes self-denying. Spirit-guided love toward all
mankind, whether or not we deem them worthy of such love. If an act of love exemplifies
Christlikeness, then it is permissible, but if the motive is giving in order to benefit the wholeness
of the giver, then the act is not justified.
THE ISSUE OF MUTILATION
Finally, it is important to address the issue of mutilation as it relates to the principle of totality.
Albert Jonsen reports that the issue of mutilation dates back to the ancient question of whether or
not we have the right or authority to mutilate our bodies. Generally the answer is no. As stewards
of God’s creation, including our bodies, we should typically view self-mutilation and consent for
allowing mutilation as detrimental. Some religious leaders, however, have relied on the extended
principle of totality to allow for mutilation (or removal of a part) that would benefit the whole.
Wilkinson relies on passages in Matthew 5:29-30, 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43-48 to justify limited
mutilation when the end goal is positive benefit to the whole person.” In each of these passages,
Jesus teaches that we should rid our bodies of hands, feet or eyes if that part causes us to reject
the salvation provided through faith in him. Understanding these passages in context will reveal,
however, that Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation. In hyperbolic style, Jesus is emphasizing
the seriousness of permitting sin into one’s life and is encouraging extreme measures to prevent
sin. Therefore, these passages do not contextually offer guidelines to either justify or prohibit the
mutilation involved in organ donation and transplantation.
C. LIFE PROLONGED
Prolongation of life is another moral issue that may be associated with organ donation and
transplantation. The obvious goal of this medical advancement is prolonging life that has been
potentially shortened by failure of some part of the human body. In some cases, such as
transplanting corneas or bone tissue, the immediate goal is improved quality of life, not the
extension of life. Several biblical passages appear to support procedures that may prolong life or
offer improved quality of life.
The account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44) parallels the prolongation of
life after organ replacement. Although this event did extend Lazarus’s life and give him and his
family new opportunities, we must be careful to see the major emphasis of the biblical passage.
Jesus says, “This illness does not lead to death: rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of
God may be glorified through it” (John 11:4). Glory for God was the motive behind this
miraculous resuscitation. He would be glorified through the miraculous raising of the dead, as
ultimately only God can be. He would be glorified through the initiation of the events that would
lead Jesus to the cross immediately following this event. G. Campbell Morgan says this event
represents a supernatural and miraculous resuscitation.” Thus, the Bible does not condemn the
prolongation of life in certain instances.
The Gospel accounts record twenty-three times that Jesus healed or raised someone from the
dead. In some cases, Jesus healed and prolonged life for someone facing imminent death (John
4:46-53). At other times Jesus restored the function of a part of the body to improve the quality
of life (Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 2:3-12; Luke 18:35-43 and John 5:1-9). Old Testament passages
also offer support for prolongation of life. Elijah prayed to God, and the life of the dead child for
whom he prayed was restored (1 Kings 17:19-22). Elisha performed a similar act, as life
miraculously returned to a dead child (2 Kings 4:32-35). In summary, providing that motives and
methods are consistent with Scripture, the Bible does not prohibit prolonging life through the
medical procedures of organ transplantation.
 D. THE NATURAL ORDER
A final consideration relates to the correlation between organ donation and transplantation and
the possibility of interfering with the natural order. Some people feel that organ transplantation is
contrary to natural law, supporting the concept on the basis of the inevitable rejection by one’s
body of a newly transplanted organ or tissue. Developing technology, however, has decreased
the risks of rejection. In the early 17th century the practice of blood transfusions resulted in
many deaths because incompatible blood was given. Then in 1900 Karl Landsteiner discovered
blood types and thus eliminated the extreme risks involved in transfusions.
Technological advances continue to eliminate the rejection of organs through closely screening
donors and recipients, and then developing medications that will combat specific rejection of the
transplanted organs.
Many medical advances involve tampering with the natural order, which appears to be supported
by Genesis 1:28. Here mankind is commanded to kabash, or bring under subjection, the earth.
This does not allow for exploitation and abuse but makes us stewards of the earthly resources
God has created. John and Paul Feinburg argue that if we are not to intervene and subject the
natural order to a Spirit-led dominion, then God has commanded us to do something immoral,
namely subduing the natural order. This would be impossible. Therefore, organ donation and
transplantation cannot be immoral solely on the grounds that they interfere with God’s natural
order.
It also may be asserted that the morality or immorality of organ donation and transplantation can
partially be determined by the motive behind tampering with the natural order. If we pridefully
use technology with the attitude that we know more than God, then the act may be deemed
immoral. However, if we humbly use technology in a way that glorifies God, with an
understanding that God is in ultimate control, then the act may (but not always) be considered a
moral act.
THE SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION
Organ donation and transplantation may be justified using biblical principles in most cases.
Certain instances negate this justification, such as improper and ungodly motives and attitudes,
allowing a living person to donate vital organs resulting in virtual suicide, and the marketing and
improper allocation of the organs and tissues.
Giving organs or tissues may certainly fall within the realm of loving one’s neighbor. Giving of
essential organs before death that would result in suicide would fall under exceptions to this
provision. However, Simcox states that to fail to donate organs and tissues when possible is
selfish and contrary to biblical charity. The parable of the Good Samaritan demonstrated the
standard that everyone is a neighbor and that people should be willing to love in a way that meets
the needs of their neighbor. This includes giving first aid and the best health care possible. In the
current era, this includes organ donation and transplantation.
Concerning the resurrection of the body, 1 Corinthians 15 clearly teaches that the bodies we
occupy at death are not the same as the glorified bodies we will occupy in the spiritual realm.
The belief that the condition of the body at death will be the same as that of the resurrected and
glorified body is overly simplistic and unrealistic. An intact, permanent physical body is not
required for a perfect, glorified body in the resurrection. The Bible says that we occupy frail
physical bodies that were originally created from dust and to dust shall return (Genesis 3:19; Job
34:14-15; Psalm 104:29; Ecclesiastes 3:20, 12:7). The earthly body is uniquely different from the
future glorified body. The argument of totality in prohibiting organ donation and transplantation
is a vague, weak and changing principle that offers no significant assistance in the debate
concerning organ donation and transplantation.
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) demonstrates that the literal example of love
from a neighbor consisted of bandaging wounds, pouring on oil and transporting the injured man
for help. Archibald Robertson records that anointing with oil was the best medical care available
in that day and that this formula testifies to the importance of medical care along with prayer.
Today prolonging life through the best medical technology available and with the power of
prayer should be the focus of every person in a similar situation. To deny organ donation and
transplantation on the grounds that prolonging life is not biblical or moral would also require the
denial of all health care and medications that treat abnormal characteristics of the body.
If a practice or procedure is not contradictory to biblical principles, then it should be permissible.
This is the case concerning organ donation and transplantation. All arguments for permitting
them on biblical grounds have been demonstrated as sound and often irrefutable. Some scholars
even promote this practice as not simply permissible but obligatory, based on the biblical
mandate to love one another. Those who prohibit organ donation and transplantation on a
biblical basis have weaker arguments with a large number of inconsistencies. It may be affirmed
on biblical grounds that organ donation and transplantation is at least a permissible practice and
may potentially be viewed as obligatory.

V. IS IT WRONG TO DONATE BLOOD?

Let us look at the proof text concerning blood used by one major church denomination to
justify their teaching that donating it, or having a transfusion, is not God's will. It is found in
Acts 15, where the apostle James is addressing a large group of church brethren (known as the
Jerusalem Conference) gathered to discuss and debate whether circumcision was necessary for
salvation.
James states to those in Jerusalem regarding Gentile converts, ". . . my judgment is that we do
not trouble those of the Gentiles who have turned to God; But that we write to them to abstain
from pollutions of idols . . . and from what has been strangled and from blood (Acts 15:19 - 20).
Basing church doctrine on a single scripture, especially in the case of donating blood which
could save the life of others, is not a wise thing to do.
What is a living sacrifice?
It is wrong to donate an organ?
How does Jesus' sacrifice save us?
Note that the above verses are not discussing the donating or receiving of some bodily fluid.
These verses are referring to a sometimes common practice among Gentiles (non-Jews) of eating
or drinking blood. It was a practice that God forbid the Israelites, who had just left pagan Egypt,
from doing when he said, "It shall be a statute forever for your generations throughout all your
dwellings that you eat neither fat nor blood" (Leviticus 3:17).
James Blundell performed the first successfully transfusion in 1818
Three out of the four items referenced in Acts 15:20 concern eating. God's word says to abstain
from eating any of them for health and religious reasons. Sadly, though our Creator says not to
do it, many people injest various forms of animal fluids like blood through frying or otherwise
leaving it in meat for the "flavor" they offer!
The judgment rendered in Jerusalem concerns what to avoid in killing an animal for food or what
parts should not be eaten by humans. It does not concern either donating or receiving blood from
another human for the express purpose of saving their life.
The procedure of transfusions or the ability to donate and store blood for saving lives is, of
course, not directly mentioned in the Bible. These medical advances have only been available in
relatively modern times and were, of course, unknown to the ancients. These medical practices,
however, are not any more of a sin than having an operation, or a root canal performed on a tooth
and so on.
Here is a Biblical principle to consider regarding humans and blood. Hearing that Jesus had
refuted the arguments of the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together to have their try at tripping
him up. One Pharisee tested him by asking what he thought was the greatest commandment in
God's law (Matthew 22:36).
Jesus responded by stating the greatest commandments were to love God with all your heart and
soul and to love others like yourself (Matthew 22:37 - 40). He later raised this standard to the
fullest when he told his disciples that they were to love each other as He (Jesus) loved them
(John 13:34, 15:12)!
If your neighbor's life could be saved by donating your blood, or a transfusion of such fluid, does
that not abide within what Jesus called the second greatest commandment? This certainly seems
to be the case.
blood. Hearing that Jesus had refuted the arguments of the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together
to have their try at tripping him up. One Pharisee tested him by asking what he thought was the
greatest commandment in God's law (Matthew 22:36).
Jesus responded by stating the greatest commandments were to love God with all your heart and
soul and to love others like yourself (Matthew 22:37 - 40). He later raised this standard to the
fullest when he told his disciples that they were to love each other as He (Jesus) loved them
(John 13:34, 15:12)!
If your neighbor's life could be saved by donating your blood, or a transfusion of such fluid, does
that not abide within what Jesus called the second greatest commandment? This certainly seems
to be the case.

VI. Appendix A: References

1. King James Bible
2. Faith Perspectives on Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation.
3. www.wikipedia.com