INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Business Ethics
Bioethics and Issues Inducing Bioethics

Ali Polani 11390, Hasan Amin 11859, Umer Khayyam Ghazali -11259
12/10/2013




Submitted To Sir Asad Shahzad
Table of Contents
Bioethics ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Issues Inducing Bioethics .............................................................................................................................. 4
Cloning .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Types of Cloning ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Molecular Cloning ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Cell Cloning ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Cloning unicellular organisms ............................................................................................................... 6
Cloning stem cells ................................................................................................................................. 6
Organism Cloning ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Horticultural .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Parthenogenesis.................................................................................................................................... 8
Cloning and Islam .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Permissibility Conditions for Animal Cloning ............................................................................................ 9
Human Cloning Is Forbidden in Islam ....................................................................................................... 9
Cloning and Treatment of Disease .......................................................................................................... 10
Cloning and Utilitarianism ........................................................................................................................... 10
Euthanasia ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Types of Euthanasia ................................................................................................................................ 11
Classification of Euthanasia .................................................................................................................... 11
Utilitarian View on Euthanasia .................................................................................................................... 11
Islamic view on Euthanasia ......................................................................................................................... 13
Organ Transplantation ................................................................................................................................ 14
Organ Transplantation and Islamic Perspective ......................................................................................... 14
The view of impermissibility ................................................................................................................... 14
The first and foremost is that Allah Almighty has honored the human: ............................................ 14
The cutting of and tampering with a human body ............................................................................. 17
Ownership of Human Body ................................................................................................................. 18
Inflicting harm upon himself or others ............................................................................................... 18
The View of Permissibility ....................................................................................................................... 18
In Case of Extreme Necessity .............................................................................................................. 18
Human Sanctity ................................................................................................................................... 19
Ownership of Human Body ................................................................................................................. 20
Organ Transplantation and Utilitarianism .................................................................................................. 21

















Bioethics
Bioethics is the study of typically controversial ethics brought about by advances
in biology and medicine. It is also moral discernment as it relates to medical policy, practice,
and research. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the
relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also
includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values ("the ethics of the ordinary")
which arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.
Issues Inducing Bioethics
Cloning, euthanasia and organ transplant are such discoveries that cause us to question the
advancement of science and technology. We will discuss these issues in detail further in the
report.
Cloning
In biology, cloning is the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical
individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such
as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually. Cloning in biotechnology refers to processes
used to create copies of DNA fragments (molecular cloning), cells (cell cloning), or organisms.
The term also refers to the production of multiple copies of a product such as digital
media or software.
The term clone is derived from the Ancient Greek word (kln, twig), referring to the
process whereby a new plant can be created from a twig. In horticulture, the spelling clon was
used until the twentieth century; the final e came into use to indicate the vowel is a "long o"
instead of a "short o". Since the term entered the popular lexicon in a more general context,
the spelling clone has been used exclusively.



Types of Cloning
Molecular Cloning
Molecular cloning refers to the process of making multiple molecules. Cloning is commonly
used to amplify DNA fragments containing whole genes, but it can also be used to amplify any
DNA sequence such as promoters, non-coding sequences and randomly fragmented DNA. It is
used in a wide array of biological experiments and practical applications ranging from genetic
fingerprinting to large scale protein production. Occasionally, the term cloning is misleadingly
used to refer to the identification of the chromosomal location of a gene associated with a
particular phenotype of interest, such as in positional cloning. In practice, localization of the
gene to a chromosome or genomic region does not necessarily enable one to isolate or amplify
the relevant genomic sequence. To amplify any DNA sequence in a living organism, that
sequence must be linked to an origin of replication, which is a sequence of DNA capable of
directing the propagation of it and any linked sequence. However, a number of other features
are needed and a variety of specialized cloning vectors (small piece of DNA into which a foreign
DNA fragment can be inserted) exist that allow protein expression, tagging, single
stranded RNA and DNA production and a host of other manipulations.
Cloning of any DNA fragment essentially involves four steps
.

1. fragmentation - breaking apart a strand of DNA
2. ligation - gluing together pieces of DNA in a desired sequence
3. transfect ion - inserting the newly formed pieces of DNA into cells
4. screening/selection - selecting out the cells that were successfully transfixed with the
new DNA
Although these steps are invariable among cloning procedures a number of alternative routes
can be selected, these are summarized as a 'cloning strategy'. Initially, the DNA of interest
needs to be isolated to provide a DNA segment of suitable size. Subsequently, a ligation
procedure is used where the amplified fragment is inserted into a vector (piece of DNA). The
vector (which is frequently circular) is linearised using restriction enzymes, and incubated with
the fragment of interest under appropriate conditions with an enzyme called DNA ligase.
Following ligation the vector with the insert of interest is transfected into cells. A number of
alternative techniques are available, such as chemical sensitivation of cells, electro
oration, optical injection and biolistics. Finally, the transfected cells are cultured. As the
aforementioned procedures are of particularly low efficiency, there is a need to identify the
cells that have been successfully transfected with the vector construct containing the desired
insertion sequence in the required orientation. Modern cloning vectors include
selectable antibiotic resistance markers, which allow only cells in which the vector has been
transfixed, to grow. Additionally, the cloning vectors may contain colour selection markers,
which provide blue/white screening (alpha-factor complementation) on X-gal medium.
Nevertheless, these selection steps do not absolutely guarantee that the DNA insert is present
in the cells obtained. Further investigation of the resulting colonies must be required to confirm
that cloning was successful. This may be accomplished by means of PCR, restriction fragment
analysis and/or DNA sequencing.
Cell Cloning
Cloning unicellular organisms
Cloning a cell means to derive a population of cells from a single cell. In the case of unicellular
organisms such as bacteria and yeast, this process is remarkably simple and essentially only
requires the inoculation of the appropriate medium. However, in the case of cell cultures from
multi-cellular organisms, cell cloning is an arduous task as these cells will not readily grow in
standard media.
A useful tissue culture technique used to clone distinct lineages of cell lines involves the use
of cloning rings (cylinders). According to this technique, a single-cell suspension of cells that
have been exposed to a mutagenic agent or drug used to drive selection is plated at high
dilution to create isolated colonies; each arising from a single and potentially clonal distinct cell.
At an early growth stage when colonies consist of only a few of cells, sterile polystyrene rings
(cloning rings), which have been dipped in grease are placed over an individual colony and a
small amount of trypsin is added. Cloned cells are collected from inside the ring and transferred
to a new vessel for further growth.
Cloning stem cells
Somatic-cell nuclear transfer, known as SCNT, can also be used to create embryos for research
or therapeutic purposes. The most likely purpose for this is to produce embryos for use in stem
cell research. This process is also called "research cloning" or "therapeutic cloning." The goal is
not to create cloned human beings (called "reproductive cloning"), but rather to harvest stem
cells that can be used to study human development and to potentially treat disease. While a
clonal human blastocyst has been created, stem cell lines are yet to be isolated from a clonal
source.
Therapeutic cloning is achieved by creating embryonic stem cells in the hopes of treating
diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimers. The process begins by taking out the nucleus
(containing the DNA) from an egg cell and putting in it a nucleus from the adult cell to be
cloned. In the case of someone with Alzheimers disease, the nucleus from a skin cell of that
patient is placed into an empty egg. The reprogrammed cell begins to develop into an embryo
because the egg reacts with the transferred nucleus. The embryo will become genetically
identical to the patient. The embryo will then form a blastocyst which has the potential to
form/become any cell in the body.
The reason why SCNT is used for cloning is because somatic cells can be easily acquired and
cultured in the lab. This process can either add or delete specific genomes of farm animals. A
key point to remember is that cloning is achieved when the oocyte maintains its normal
functions and instead of using sperm and egg genomes to replicate, the oocyte is inserted into
the donors somatic cell nucleus. The oocyte will react on the somatic cell nucleus, the same
way it would on sperm cells.
The process of cloning a particular farm animal using SCNT is relatively the same for all animals.
The first step is to collect the somatic cells from the animal that will be cloned. The somatic
cells could be used immediately or stored in the laboratory for later use. The hardest part of
SCNT is removing maternal DNA from an oocyte at metaphase II. Once this has been done, the
somatic nucleus can be inserted into an egg cytoplasm. This creates a one-cell embryo. The
grouped somatic cell and egg cytoplasm are then introduced to an electrical current. This
energy will hopefully allow the cloned embryo to begin development. The successfully
developed embryos are then placed in surrogate recipients, such as a cow or sheep in the case
of farm animals.
SCNT is seen as a good method for producing agriculture animals for food consumption. It
successfully cloned sheep, cattle, goats, and pigs. Another benefit is SCNT is seen as a solution
to clone endangered species that are on the verge of going extinct. However, stresses placed on
both the egg cell and the introduced nucleuses are enormous, leading to a high loss in resulting
cells. For example, the cloned sheep Dolly was born after 277 eggs were used for SCNT, which
created 29 viable embryos. Only three of these embryos survived until birth, and only one
survived to adulthood. As the procedure currently cannot be automated, and has to be
performed manually under a microscope, SCNT is very resource intensive. The biochemistry
involved in reprogramming the differentiated somatic cell nucleus and activating the recipient
egg is also far from being well-understood.
In SCNT, not all of the donor cell's genetic information is transferred, as the donor
cell's mitochondria that contain their own mitochondrial DNA are left behind. The resulting
hybrid cells retain those mitochondrial structures which originally belonged to the egg. As a
consequence, clones such as Dolly that are born from SCNT are not perfect copies of the donor
of the nucleus.




Organism Cloning
Organism cloning (also called reproductive cloning) refers to the procedure of creating a new
multicellular organism, genetically identical to another. In essence this form of cloning is an
asexual method of reproduction, where fertilization or inter-gamete contact does not take
place. Asexual reproduction is a naturally occurring phenomenon in many species, including
most plants (see vegetative reproduction) and some insects. Scientists have made some major
achievements with cloning, including the asexual reproduction of sheep and cows. There is a lot
of ethical debate over whether or not cloning should be used. However, cloning, or asexual
propagation, has been common practice in the horticultural world for hundreds of years.
Horticultural
The term clone is used in horticulture to refer to descendants of a single plant which were
produced by vegetative reproduction or apomixis. Many horticultural plant cultivars are clones,
having been derived from a single individual, multiplied by some process other than sexual
reproduction. As an example, some European cultivars of grapes represent clones that have
been propagated for over two millennia. Other examples are potato and banana. Grafting can
be regarded as cloning, since all the shoots and branches coming from the graft are genetically
a clone of a single individual, but this particular kind of cloning has not come
under ethical scrutiny and is generally treated as an entirely different kind of operation.
Many trees, shrubs, vines, ferns and other herbaceous perennials form clonal
colonies naturally. Parts of an individual plant may become detached by fragmentation and
grow on to become separate clonal individuals. A common example is in the vegetative
reproduction of moss and liverwort gametophyte clones by means of gemmae. Some vascular
plants e.g. dandelion and certain viviparous grasses also form seeds asexually, termed apomixis,
resulting in clonal populations of genetically identical individuals.
Parthenogenesis
Clonal derivation exists in nature in some animal species and is referred to
as parthenogenesis (reproduction of an organism by itself without a mate). This is an asexual
form of reproduction that is only found in females of some insects, crustaceans and lizards. The
growth and development occurs without fertilization by a male. In plants, parthenogenesis
means the development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell, and is a component process
of apomixis. In species that use the XY sex-determination system, the offspring will always be
female. An example is the "Little Fire Ant" (Wasmannia auropunctata), which is native
to Central and South America but has spread throughout many tropical environments.


Cloning and Islam
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. It does not refer to
monozygotic multiple births or the reproduction of humans/animals cells or tissue.
The ethics of cloning is an extremely controversial issue. The term is generally used to refer to
artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with
their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.
There are two commonly discussed types of human cloning: therapeutic cloning and
reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves cloning cells from an adult for use in
medicine and transplants, and is an active area of research. Reproductive cloning would involve
making cloned humans, for couples wanting to have a child, but cannot naturally.
Islam embraces scientific progress and research, as throughout Islamic history there has been
no evidence of conflict between Islam and science. In fact, it is regarded as Fard Kifayah
(collective duty) in Islam for a nation to achieve progress in every field of science. However, this
progress, like everything in life, must not collide with faith. It must move in parallel with the
limitations set by religion, which must prevail over man's course of life and customize it
according to its principles.
Permissibility Conditions for Animal Cloning
1-It must bring about a real benefit to all people, it must not result in harm which is greater than the
benefit it has produced,
2-It must not bear any kind of harm to the animal used in the process; causing harm or torture to an
animal is forbidden in Islam.
Human Cloning Is Forbidden in Islam
Viewed from the Islamic general objectives, rulings, and texts, human cloning is completely
prohibited. Islam prohibits such cloning because of the following reasons:
It contradicts with diversity of creation. Allah has created the universe on the base of
diversity while human cloning is based on duplicating the same characteristics of the
original bodies. This bears great corruption to human life, even though we did not
realize all its forms. For example, if a student of a cloned class did something wrong,
how could a teacher identify him/her while the whole class had the same features?
If human cloning is permitted, how will we determine the relation of the cloned in
regard to the original will he be his brother, his father, or even himself? This is a
confusing point.
Cloning contradicts with the pattern of creating things in pairs, as Allah said in His
Glorious Qur'an And of everything We have created pairs, that ye may receive
instruction. (Az-Zariyat: 49). Cloning goes against this principle since it depends on only
one gender. And this matter will cause harm to people.
Knowing that man cannot live alone even in Paradise, Allah, the Exalted and Glorified,
created Hawwa (Eve) along with Adam to stay with him in Paradise, and thus they
would be a source of love and intimacy to one another. It is not only parents who need
one another in order to proceed with life, but also their offspring need them both. All
these meanings can never be acquired through cloning.
Cloning and Treatment of Disease
It becomes clear from the above discussion that cloning a whole human body is completely
prohibited even if it is for the purpose of treatment. However, if it goes into cloning only
specific parts of the human body such as heart and kidneys, for the purpose of treatment, this
is permitted and actually recommended and rewarded by Allah.
Cloning and Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is more apt to justify the idea that clones would be inferior beings because their
sub-status could conceivably promote the greatest happiness to the greatest number of (other)
people. But it wouldn't be ethical to treat them as anything less than anyone else. As David
McCarthy writes in his article "Persons and Their Copies," "A clone is a person.... On any
plausible moral theory, therefore, a clone has the same moral status and protections as non-
clones." McCarthy also tackles the issue of whether a clone's life would be worse off than a
non-clone. The assumption is that because a clone's life is not original, it is not as valuable as
another's regular life. As eluded to before, there's more to one's life than just genetic makeup.
When different environments are considered, no two lives are alike.
In matters of human cloning, Utilitarianism seems too extreme, allowing for cloning in too
many circumstances. Just because cloning may offer the greatest happiness for the greatest
number doesn't necessarily mean it is ethically permissible. Happiness cannot be good without
qualification because it can be used for evil, in this case clones might be slaves or "spare parts."
Cloning should not be permissible in every circumstance but it should occasionally be allowed
with Kantian ethics in mind. We may not know what kind of long term consequences cloning
might have on our species and it may end up doing more harm than good, especially if left
untouched by the government.



Euthanasia
Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and
suffering.
In other words Euthanasia is intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being
for his or her alleged benefit.
Types of Euthanasia
1) Voluntary - When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
2) Non-voluntary - When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent
3) Involuntary - When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
4) Child A controversial form of non-voluntary euthanasia that is applied to children who are
gravely ill or suffer from significant birth defects.
5) Animals - Act of humanely putting an animal to death or allowing it to die as by withholding
extreme medical measures. Reasons for euthanasia include incurable (and especially painful)
conditions or diseases, lack of resources to continue supporting the animal, or laboratory test
procedures.

Classification of Euthanasia
1) Active - The active one is making one die or what we refer to as killing. It entails use of lethal
substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most
controversial means.
2) Passive - It occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either dont do
something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is
keeping the patient alive.

Utilitarian View on Euthanasia
Utilitarian believe that any action should cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number,
and the end result is what should determine the moral worth of the initial action.
Since Euthanasia will increase happiness and decrease pain at the same time, then it is morally
correct, they argued.
One of the main topics in this debate is whether a patient with a disability is able to make the
decision to end their life while in a rational state of mind. A big problem in this topic is that
many have a hard time determining whether someone with a physical disability is rational or
not. Society has formed many notions about disabled people that make them think that as soon
as someone is disabled, they can no longer be rational. Karen Hwang tries to tackle this
problem by arguing that a disabled person can make rational decisions about suicide and also
how to combat these man-made beliefs. She believes that by abandoning societys view of the
disabled and looking at each individuals case, we can determine whether the decision was
made rationally or not. Looking at this issue through John Stewart Mills utilitarian point of view
doesnt seem to give an adequate answer to the decisions morality however. His views can be
used to both support and dispute the issue depending on the number affected and the overall
happiness of the people in question.
Mills theory of Utilitarianism judges morality based on the consequences an action brings. For
people to act in a Utilitarian way, actions must bring about good consequences. Mills view of a
good consequence is an action that brings about pleasure or happiness and decreasing pain.
According to Mills Greatest Happiness Principle, to act morally an action must bring about the
greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill would even go on to say
that sacrificing ones own personal happiness can still be moral as long as that persons action
bring about the greatest happiness overall. According to Mill there are also different types of
pleasure. He talks about higher pleasures that stimulate the intellect while lower pleasures are
much simpler and stimulate the body. Ultimately it our goal as humans to aim for these higher
pleasures because they bring about greater happiness than lower pleasures. To be a judge of
whether a pleasure is lower or higher a person must have experienced many different
pleasures. For someone to act morally through his or her life depends on the different
circumstances of a situation, but as long as the consequences of the actions result in the
greatest overall happiness then it is reasonable to deem that person moral.
The problem with Mills theory is that it focuses on the consequences of an action and not the
decision making process leading up to that action. Much of the debate against euthanasia is
that the desire stems from depression and other influences that would alter a persons state of
mind. This change in thinking may go against a persons values when they were rational and
may actually want to be stopped from committing suicide. This may not always be the case, but
it has become the general assumption in society, whether it is against the patients morals or
not. Mills Utilitarianism does not take these factors into account. In one situation, suicide could
be moral according to the Utilitarian school of thought, and in another it could be immoral; it all
depends on how much happiness is brought about with the loss of that persons life. Generally,
euthanasia would bring about more sadness than happiness, but there are the few
circumstances where some ones death might be the better option. Mills theory also takes
more into account other peoples views rather than the one making the decision. A person with
a disability would not be able to make decisions for them and must make them for the sake of
others under this way of thinking. There may be few times where the views of the patient and
others will coincide, but this is more likely the exception rather than the rule. It is because Mills
Utilitarianism cannot take a firm position on the morality of euthanasia that it is not best ethical
theory to use to analyze the issue.
Islamic view on Euthanasia
Unlike Utilitarianism, Islam is not in the favor of Euthanasia. The sanctity of life is supreme in
Islam and taking it unjustly is considered a grave sin. Muslims believe life is a test from God and
so if people use euthanasia, they are cheating in the test by trying to speed it up. Muhammad
PBUH said that a Muslim soldier who committed suicide because he was dying a painful death
on the battlefield would not be allowed into heaven.
"Surely we belong to Allah and to Him shall we return"
surah albaqarah 2:156
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/..%5C2%5C156%5Cdefault.htm
Quranic Verse: "Don't kill yourself. No doubt Allah (swt) is merciful and anyone who
does so, will be pushed in fire. And it is easy for Allah (swt)." (Nisa: 4:29, 4:30)
http://qurango.com/suicide.html
"Killing one human is killing all of humanity" (5:32)
http://deenresearchcenter.com/Blogs/tabid/73/EntryId/174/Killing-one-human-is-killing-
all-of-humanity-the-importance-of-Quran-verse-5-32.aspx
Prophet PBUH said: Yes, O servants of Allah. Seek treatment, because Allah did not
create a disease but has created a treatment for it except for one disease old age
http://endeavoringforknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/08/islamic-viewpoint-on-suffering-
and.html





Organ Transplantation
Organ transplant is an operation moving an organ from one organism (the donor) to another
(the recipient); "he had a kidney transplant"; "the long-term results of cardiac transplantation
are now excellent"; "a child had a multiple organ transplant two months ago"
Organ Transplantation and Islamic Perspective
The issue of organ transplant has been a matter of great debate and dispute among the great
contemporary scholars from around the globe. It has been discussed in various fiqh seminars,
and many short and detailed works have be compiled on the subject.
The majority of the Indo/Pak scholars are of the view that organ transplant is not permissible,
while, the Arab scholars and some scholars of the Indian subcontinent give its permission under
certain conditions, (details of these conditions will be mentioned further along). Nobody has
given a general unconditional permission for the transplantation of organs.
It must be remarked here that this issue is contemporary and obviously it is impossible for us to
find express rulings concerning it in the classical works. As such, the views of the contemporary
scholars are based upon the general and broad guidelines of Shariah. It is obvious that this will
result in difference of opinion, thus no one opinion should be condemned, as the intention of
all the scholars is to please Allah, and live a life that is in accordance with Shariah.
The view of impermissibility
As mentioned earlier, the majority of the Indo/Pak scholars hold the view that organ
transplantation cannot be deemed permissible due to the harms and ill effects of it overcoming
the potential benefits
There view is based on the following grounds:
The first and foremost is that Allah Almighty has honored the human:
Allah Most High says:
And verily we have honored the children of Adam (Surah al-Isra, V.70).
As such, it is a well established principle of Shariah that all the organs of a human body,
whether one is a Muslim or a non-Muslim, are sacred and must not be tampered with. To take
benefit from any part of a human is unlawful (haram).
Allah Almighty made humans the best of creations and created everything for their benefit.
Allah Most High Says:
It is He, who has created for you all things that are on earth. (Surah al-Baqarah, 2.29).
Thus, it is permissible for a human to take benefit from every creation of Allah which includes
animals (under certain conditions), plants and inanimate things. As such, it would be
unreasonable to place humans in the same category of the above things by giving permission to
use parts and derive benefit out of their body that necessitates cutting, chopping and
amputating parts of the body. This is certainly unreasonable and unlawful on a human body.
A very famous Hadith prevents the usage of human parts. Sayyida Asma bint Abi Bakr (Allah be
pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace)
said: Allahs curse is on a woman who wears false hair (of humans) or arranges it for others.
(Sahih Muslim, no. 2122).

Imam Nawawi (Allah has mercy on him) writes in the explanation of this Hadith:
If human hair is used, then it is unlawful by consensus, whether it is the hair of a man or
woman, because of the general narrations that prohibit this. And also, it is unlawful to take
benefit from the hair and all other organs of a human body due to its sanctity. The hair of a
human along with all his body parts must be buried. (Commentary of Sahih Muslim by Nawawi,
p. 1600).
The Jurists (fuqaha) have stated that in the case of extreme necessity and when there is no
alternative available, even unlawful things, such as pork and alcohol, become permissible.
However, even in such a situation, consuming or deriving benefit from a human body still
remains unlawful.
It is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya:
If a person feared death due to hunger and another person said to him: Cut my hand and
consume it or he said: Cut a part of me and eat it, it will be unlawful for him to do so. Similarly,
it is impermissible for a desperate person to cut part of his own self and eat it. (al-Fatawa al-
Hindiyya, 5/310).
Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:
Because the flesh of a human remains unlawful even in forceful situations. (Radd al-Muhtar,
5/215)
Imam Ibn Nujaym (Allah have mercy on him) states:
It is impermissible for the one who is dying out of hunger to consume the food of another
person who is also dying out of hunger; neither will be permissible to consume any part of the
other persons body. (al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair, p. 124).
The Fuqaha have also stated that if one was compelled by force to kill another human, it will
not be permissible, even if his own life was in danger. (See: al-Kasani, Badai al-Sanai, 7/177 &
Ibn Qudama, al-Mugni, 9/331).
Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states regarding the sanctity of a human:
It is unlawful to sell the hair of a human, as it is (unlawful) to take benefit out of it, for a human
is honoured and sacred, and it is not permissible to disgrace any part of a humans body. (al-
Hidaya 4.39)
A human body is sacred even after his/her death. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him &
give him peace) said:
Breaking the bone of a dead person is similar (in sin) to breaking the bone of a living person.
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Ibn Majah & Musnad Ahmad).
The great Hanafi jurist and Hadith Imam, Abu Jafar al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) writes
in the explanation of this Hadith:
The Hadith shows that the bone of a dead person has the same sanctity and honour as the
bone of living person. (Mushkil al-Athar).
In another Hadith it is stated:
Harming a believer after his death is similar to harming him in his life. (Musannaf of Ibn Abi
Shayba).
Also, the books of classical scholars are full with examples indicating the impermissibility of
deriving benefit out of a human body due to it being honoured.
In conclusion, the human body, dead or alive has great significance. It is honoured and sacred,
and because of the sanctity that is attached to it, it will be unlawful to tamper with it, cut parts
of it or dishonor it in any way.
The cutting of and tampering with a human body
The cutting of and tampering with a human body amounts to mutilation and deformation of a
divinely created body (muthla), which has clearly been prohibited in Shariah.
Qatada (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give
him peace) used to encourage giving in charity and prevent Muthla. (Sahih al-Bukhari, 2/206)
In another Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: Abstain from
Muthla. (Sahih Muslim, 2/82).
This is also supported by the verse of the Quran, where Allah Allah Almighty mentions the
words of Shaytan, when he said:
I will mislead them and I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and to deface the (fair) nature
created by Allah (4: 119).
To deface the fair nature created by Allah, both physically and spiritually, is what Shaytan likes
and orders to practise.
As far as the permissibility of blood transfusion in cases of need is concerned (See below, for
the ruling on blood transfusion and donation, which was posted earlier), it does not necessitate
the cutting of human parts or any surgical procedures on the body, rather it is drawn and
transfused by means of injection, thus it is akin to human milk that is extracted without any
surgical procedures.
Ownership of Human Body
The human body and parts are not in our ownership in that we may fiddle with them as we
desire. It is a trust (amanah) that has been given to us by Allah Almighty. As such, it will be
impermissible for one to sell, give or donate any organs of his body. Islam has forbidden suicide
for the same reason. There are many texts of the Quran and Sunnah that clearly determine this.
Thus, it will be unlawful for one to give his organs to another.
Inflicting harm upon himself or others
It is unlawful for an individual to inflict harm upon himself or others. The Messenger of Allah
(Allah bless him & give him peace) said: It is unlawful to inflict harm upon yourself and others,
(la dharar wa la dhirar). (Mustadrak of al-Hakim)
The famous principle states:
Harm cannot be removed by a similar harm (meaning, in order to remove harm from another
individual, it is impermissible for one to harm himself). (Ibn Najaym, al-Ashbah, P. 123).
Therefore, it will be impermissible for a living person to donate part of his body due to it being
harmful for him.
When the evidences of prohibition conflict with the evidences of permissibility, preference is
given to prohibition. (Ibn Nujaym, al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair).
In view of the above and other evidences, according to this group of scholars, it is unlawful to
transplant organs, whether it be of a living person or a dead body, and whether there is a need
or otherwise. In other words, there is no permissibility whatsoever for the transplantation or
donation of organs.
The View of Permissibility
According to almost all of the major Arab scholars and also some contemporary Indo/Pak
scholars, the transplantation and donation of human-organs would be permissible subject to
certain conditions (which will be mentioned later). This view is based on the following grounds:
In Case of Extreme Necessity
The famous principles (qawaid) of Islamic Jurisprudence based on the teachings of the Quran
and Sunnah permit the use of unlawful things in cases of extreme need and necessity. In case of
Necessity, certain prohibitions are waived, as when the life of a person is threatened the
prohibition of eating carrion or drinking wine is suspended. Allah Most High says:
He (Allah) has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on
which any other name has been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity,
without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless. For Allah is Most
Forgiving and Most Merciful. (Surah al-Baqarah, v.173).
The Quran also permits the utterance of disbelief (kufr) in order to save your life. Allah Most
High says:
Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion whilst his
heart remaining firm in faith (Surah al-Nahl, V. 106).
The principle of Fiqh, based on the above Quranic guidelines, states:
Necessity makes prohibition lawful (See: Ibn Nujaym, al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair, P. 85 ).
According to Imam Shafii (Allah have mercy on him), it is permissible for a person dying out of
hunger to consume the meat of another human. (See: Ibn Qudama, al-Mugni, 9/335).
Therefore, in cases of need and necessity, impure, unlawful and Haram things become
permissible. When a persons life is in danger and he is in dire need for transplantation, he is in
such a situation, thus the transplantation of organs will be permissible.
Human Sanctity
With regards to the aspect of human sanctity, there are two things that need to be taken into
consideration.
Firstly, it is true that a human body, whether dead or alive, is honored and respected, but does
the modern procedure violate this sanctity? Islam ordered us to honor a human body but did
not prescribe any fixed methods for it. Disgracing a human body may change from one time to
another and from one place to another.
Thus, it could be said that the current procedure of organ transplantation is not considered
dishonoring a human body. The surgery is performed in the most respectable way and it is not
considered to be disrespectful. This is the reason why many highly respected people of the
community regard donating of organs as a mark of merit, and they are not looked down upon.
Secondly, there are cases where Shariah overlooks the sanctity that is attributed to the body,
such as in the case of saving another human.
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Fuqaha:
If a pregnant woman died and the child in her stomach is still alive, her stomach will be cut
open in order to take the child out, for in there is saving the live of a human, thus the sanctity
of a human body will be overlooked. (Samarqandi, Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 4/261 & Badaii al-Sanai).
This is also based on the juristic principle:
If one is confronted with two evils, one should choose the lesser of the two(al-Ashbah wa al-
Nazair).
Ownership of Human Body
As for a human not owning his body is concerned, Islam permits a human in certain situations
to utilize his body. It is similar to the wealth which Allah Almighty has given a human, and he is
permitted to utilize it (in a correct manner) and give it as a gift.
If an individual is drowning or is in the midst of a burning flame, it is totally permissible to go
and save him. Similarly, it will be permissible to donate your organ in order to save the life of a
fellow human being.
Almost all of the scholars give permission for the transfusion and donation of blood in cases of
need and necessity (see below), then why is there a difference in the issue of organ transplant.
The surgical procedure of transplantation ensures that one does not go thorough unnecessary
mutilation of his body. It is similar to surgical treatment that is carried out on a living person for
medication purposes.
In view of the above (according to this group of scholars), it will be permissible to transplant
and donate organs in order to save another persons life. However, this is subject to certain
terms and conditions.


Organ Transplantation and Utilitarianism
One of the most commonly-posed objections to the moral doctrine of hedonistic utilitarianism
(read: principle of greatest utility, principle of greatest happiness, or whatever label pleases),
the consequentiality prescription that advocates actions only which increase pleasure and
decrease pain for all affected, is a thought experiment sometimes referred to as the transplant
surgeon. It is so popular because, at best, it necessitates an examination of the lowest levels of
the utilitarian philosophy, and at worst seems to present insurmountable difficulties for the
died-in-the-wool utilitarian. In this piece I will examine the scenario and explain how it dovetails
perfectly with standard utilitarian precepts, and how its objections are largely irrelevant.
Philippa Foot poses the example as such: Five mortally ill patients are in care at a hospital, all of
whom will soon die. At the same time, a sixth man is undergoing a routine checkup at the same
hospital. A transplant surgeon in residence finds that the only medical means of saving the five
ailing patients would be to slay the sixth and transplant into them his healthy organs. Legal
ramifications and other peripheral matters disregarded, it morally right to do so? *
Most observers intuitively say it is not right. Thus a challenge is posed to the utilitarian, for it
seems to go without saying that the operation would indeed be the action of greatest utility
for only the cost of one mans life and the surgeons time, five other humans can be saved! That
is a one-to-five cost-to-benefit ratio, which is not only preponderance, but weightily so.
Foot avoids the problem by suggesting a doctrine of doing and allowing, which draws a moral
distinction between actions we willfully execute and those we merely allow to occur. In this
case, it would be morally sound to let the five men die, because to kill the sixth would be to
actually perpetrate a murder, which would be wrong no matter how many others we saved.
Conversely, doing nothing, while unfortunate, seems justified because we at least are doing
no wrong of our own accordonly allowing it to happen.
The shortcoming of Foots argument is systemic, not internal. While it is valid as far as it goes
and does indeed explain away many of the examples thought to be difficult for utilitarianism, it
is not itself couched in any well-reasoned morality. That is to say, it is merely
a descriptive system of thought, and makes no attempt to justify its motivations from the
standpoint of actual utilitarianism.
A better means of explaining the transplant case is needed, and preferably one that uses only
the fundamental tenets of utilitarianism. One solution would be to simply ignore the intuitive
answer and assert that performing the operation would indeed be the moral action. However,
this is self-sealing and only sound as long as utilitarianism is held to be a fail proof deontological
axiom. To effectively argue that the intuitive answer is false, we must do more.
Let us sketch an equivalent, but much larger case. Consider the system of criminal justice
present in the United States today, and in most modern societies. Individuals who breaks
lawswhich are generally formulated, at least in theory, to protect othersare arrested, tried,
convicted, and often placed behind bars for a significant portion of their lives. It goes without
saying that involuntary imprisonment (or other punishments, even as far as execution) effects a
drastic decrease in the felons quality of life. This would be true for an individual and is only
truer for the entire body of criminals that passes through the system every year. Yet we feel
justified in our system because it is necessary to maintain the safety and peace-of-mind of the
greater public.
I offer this example to show that there is no importance to the interests of the affected party.
Obviously most convicts would prefer not to be imprisoned, but we do so regardless. And the
crucial reason is because of the good it does for us, the public, and the whole of society. The
reason is not, as some might say, because the criminal deserves his punishment. This is
probably true from another standpoint, but wholly irrelevant for the utilitarianindeed; any
intelligent observer would agree that the good of the justice system comes from the
maintenance of our safe society, not from any sense of revenge or just desserts for the
evildoers. (One could also argue that it acts as a deterrent, making criminal acts seem less
appealing due to their potential consequences, but this just another aspect of the same
function: prison exists for the public, not against the criminal.)
Applying this same thinking to the transplant surgeon case, we can eliminate one of the major
underlying objections to the operation. It may be true that the healthy man does not wish to be
killed, and has done nothing to merit such treatment. It may also be true that the five sick men
wholly deserve their fates. But as far as utilitarianism goes, such factors are inconsequential.
The death (vice imprisonment) of the healthy man (vice the criminal) serves to better the five
patients (vice society). Therefore, by the same reasoning we apply in our society, whether it be
imprisoning a murderer or sealing a submarine hatch to stop a leak while sailors still drown
behind it, we are ethically justified in performing the operation and the desires of the individual
are immaterial. (Indeed, we are forced to ignore them, because he almost certainly would
choose his own interests above the greater good.)
Another obvious objection to the scenario is based on value. Suppose the healthy man was a
precious member of society, a scientist, a charity worker, someone whose existence benefited
many; suppose likewise that the five sick men were fools, sadists, lazy and incompetent,
essentially meaningless to the world. Surely then the outcome should be clear. This is a
tempting argument but specious, as it could be framed however we wish; we could just as
easily reverse the qualities. Some utilitarian would argue that such matters are relevant to the
overall decision; others would argue that the only relevant factor is human life. But this has no
bearing on the core analysis.
A third objection, and almost certainly the one dearest to the detractors, is simply that its not
fair. That is to say, it is unfair for the healthy man to be killed merely because he walked into
the hospital on the wrong day, and it is unfair for the sick men to benefit from his unwilling
sacrifice, since neither party necessarily deserves such a thing.
Fair can be defined as consequences that are warranted by the actions undertaken, and in
this sense, it is true that the operation would be unfair; the donor did nothing to earn his
death, the patients did nothing to earn their salvation. This is a very human way to think. But
can it be morally substantiated?
It cannot, at least not in this situation. Notwithstanding the question of value posed above
(that is, assuming there is not actually any reason one party deserves to, or ought to, live
longer), the only reason we could object to this murder is psychological, not ethical. We identify
with the healthy man and would not wish to be placed in his situationpossibly even if we
were one of the dying patients, though opinions could vary there.
The last easy argument is purely deontological; stating that killing is wrong no matter what
good could come of it. The value of such cast-iron principles is an argument for another time,
but it is relatively easy to cast in absurd tones here. Is it then wrong to kill Adolf Hitler? A
convicted serial murder? Wrong for a policeman to shoot a terrorist before he can detonate a
bomb? The deontologist could argue that such situations exemplify a different issue, for the
victims are all themselves evil men. But then is it wrong for a paramedic to perform triage and
devote his efforts to saving one moderately-wounded crash victim while another one, near
death, is ignored? Is it wrong for a Federal Air Marshal, in accordance with his training, to shoot
an innocent civilian that gets in the way of his attempt to take back a hijacked aircraft, and thus
save many more? And is it wrong for a soldier in a time of war to kill an enemy combatant,
likely no different from himself?
The deontological objection is a weak one, requiring much further elaboration to bear fruit in
the transplant surgeon scenario. (Such elaboration is possible, but beyond my scope here.)
With the above objections thus neutralized, it follows naturally that the utilitarian view of the
transplant surgeon case advises executing the operation, and the intuitive objection to this
stems merely from non-substantive psychological sources. There are practical reasons why such
an action is shunned and would rightly be forbidden in most modern societies (the detriment it
would have on check-up attendance, if nothing else), but within the stripped-down thought
experiment, there are no such reasons; the operation should be performed, and utility-wise,
rightly so.