A Response to the Legitimacy of Brain Death in Islam

A Framework for Examining Bioethical Issues from a Sunni Perspective: Maslaha

All religions should develop convincing responses to emerging bioethical problems stemming from medical and technological advancements. Additionally, believers need to know their faiths' interpretations of bioethical issues to be able to make medical decisions in line with their religious values. Therefore, Islamic bioethics should provide Muslims with conclusive and credible answers regarding newly rising problems in health care by revisiting the religious norms and decrees. However, the diversity in the Islamic denominations, the traditionalist aspect of the Sunni jurisprudence demanding strict compliance with the scriptural texts, the lack of unanimously accepted authority, and the limited number of academic works in Islamic bioethics (at least in English) complicate exploring new standards or rules for new ethical matters. In this view, the present paper aims to delineate two primary Islamic theological schools and propose al-Ghazali's maslaha as a general framework to analyze bioethical issues in the Sunni tradition. Maslaha allows exercising discretion in light of the protection of five fundamental values: religion, life, reason, lineage, and property. Maslaha has the potential to enable Sunni Muslims to appraise contemporary ethical questions, concerns, and dilemmas through an Islamic view and make more autonomous decisions by having religious guidelines.

Muslim American physicians' views on brain death: Findings from a national survey

Background

Biotechnology has introduced a new physiological state, "brain death," that continues to attract controversy and confusion. While variability in diagnostic criteria for, and physician practices regarding, "brain death" has been studied, few studies examine physicians' normative views on the significance of "brain death" and how religiosity implicates these views.

Objective

The objective is to assess how Muslim physicians' views on death, and how their religiosity and acculturation, associate with their perceptions of "brain death."

Methods

A randomized national sample of 626 American Muslim physicians completed a mailed questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, religiosity, and views about death. Measures of religious practice and acculturation were analyzed as predictors of physician views at the bivariate and multivariable levels. In conducting the multivariate analysis, P-values less than 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Two-hundred and fifty-five respondents completed the survey (41% response rate). Most participants agreed that death is the irreversible cessation of cardiac and respiratory function (90%), while half agreed or disagreed with other definitions of death, such as loss of personhood or the equivalence of cardiopulmonary and neurological criteria for death. Physicians who scored higher on the religious practice scale had significantly lower odds of agreeing with the statement; "brain death" signifies the departure of the soul from the body [odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.98]. Those who were born in the US, or immigrated to the US as a child, had greater odds of viewing death as the irreversible loss of personhood and consciousness [OR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.62-7.63].

Conclusion

Physician characteristics such as religiosity and acculturation appear to influence their views on what constitutes death and how it should be diagnosed. In our sample of Muslim physicians, there appears to be significant reservation toward equating neurological and cardiopulmonary criteria to determine death and disquiet regarding the meaning of "brain death" in general.

Legislative Enforcement of Nonconsensual Determination of Neurological (Brain) Death in Muslim Patients: A Violation of Religious Rights

Death is defined in the Quran with a single criterion of irreversible separation of the ruh (soul) from the body. The Quran is a revelation from God to man, and the primary source of Islamic knowledge. The secular concept of death by neurological criteria, or brain death, is at odds with the Quranic definition of death. The validity of this secular concept has been contested scientifically and philosophically. To legitimize brain death for the purpose of organ donation and transplantation in Muslim communities, Chamsi-Pasha and Albar (concurring with the US President's Council on Bioethics) have argued that irreversible loss of capacity for consciousness and breathing (apneic coma) in brain death defines true death in accordance with Islamic sources. They have postulated that the absence of nafs (personhood) and nafas (breath) in apneic coma constitutes true death because of departure of the soul (ruh) from the body. They have also asserted that general anesthesia is routine in brain death before surgical procurement. Their argument is open to criticism because: (1) the ruh is described as the essence of life, whereas the nafs and nafas are merely human attributes; (2) unlike true death, the ruh is still present even with absent nafs and nafas in apneic coma; and (3) the routine use of general anesthesia indicates the potential harm to brain-dead donors from surgical procurement. Postmortem general anesthesia is not required for autopsy. Therefore, the conclusion must be that legislative enforcement of nonconsensual determination of neurological (brain) death and termination of life-support and medical treatment violates the religious rights of observant Muslims.

Re A (A Child) and the United Kingdom Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death: Should a Secular Construct of Death Override Religious Values in a Pluralistic Society?

The determination of death by neurological criteria remains controversial scientifically, culturally, and legally, worldwide. In the United Kingdom, although the determination of death by neurological criteria is not legally codified, the Code of Practice of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is customarily used for neurological (brainstem) death determination and treatment withdrawal. Unlike some states in the US, however, there are no provisions under the law requiring accommodation of and respect for residents' religious rights and commitments when secular conceptions of death based on medical codes and practices conflict with a traditional concept well-grounded in religious and cultural values and practices. In this article, we analyse the medical, ethical, and legal issues that were generated by the recent judgement of the High Court of England and Wales in Re: A (A Child) [2015] EWHC 443 (Fam). Mechanical ventilation was withdrawn in this case despite parental religious objection to a determination of death based on the code of practice. We outline contemporary evidence that has refuted the reliability of tests of brainstem function to ascertain the two conjunctive clinical criteria for the determination of death that are stipulated in the code of practice: irreversible loss of capacity for consciousness and somatic integration of bodily biological functions. We argue that: (1) the tests of brainstem function were not properly undertaken in this case; (2) the two conjunctive clinical criteria set forth in the code of practice cannot be reliably confirmed by these tests in any event; and (3) absent authentication of the clinical criteria of death, the code of practice (in fact, although implicitly rather than explicitly) wrongly invokes a secular definition of death based on the loss of personhood. Consequently, the moral obligation of a pluralistic society to honor and respect diverse religious convictions to the greatest extent possible is being violated. Re A (A Child) is contrasted with the US case of Jahi McMath in which the court accommodated parental religious objection to the determination of neurological death codified in the Uniform Determination of Death Act. We conclude that the legal system in the United Kingdom should not favour a secular definition of death over a definition of death that is respectful of religious values about the inviolability and sanctity of life. We recommend the legal recognition of religious accommodation in death determination to facilitate cultural sensitivity and compassionate care to patients and families in a pluralistic society.

Death by neurological criteria: expert definitions and lay misgivings

For decades, there has been persistent controversy concerning brain death, or the determination of death by neurological criteria, among physicians, philosophers, and the lay public. This article examines the various ways that brain death is conceptualized and justified, as well as the persistent questions and controversies related to brain death, particularly within pluralistic, multicultural societies. A culturally sensitive and practical way forward is proposed.