RM Global Health

Patients of Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu faiths may not accept the use of porcine or bovine products during surgical procedures and, therefore, surgeons should make it very clear in the informed consent process whether such products may be used, Australian researchers report.

"As part of respecting a patient's autonomy, surgeons need to understand worldwide religious views and to be sensitive to other religious beliefs," co-authors Dr. Guy Maddern and Catherine Easterbrook, from the University of Adelaide, emphasize in the Archives of Surgery for April. "The understanding of religion and what is acceptable within each can help to shape surgeons' ideals and to enhance their duty of care and practice of medicine and surgery."

The researchers conducted a literature search and sought the opinions of religious leaders in Australia to better understand the attitudes of different faiths toward the use of porcine and bovine products.

Although it is well known that persons of Jewish faith are prohibited from eating pork, use of porcine products during surgery is permissible. This is because Judaism considers preservation of life a divine commandment and, therefore, dictates that everything should be done to save a patient.

As in Judaism, consumption of pork is prohibited in the Islamic faith. Use of porcine products for surgery, however, is acceptable as the saving of a life, once again, overrules this prohibition. Still, such products should only be used in dire circumstances and after all other alternatives have been exhausted.

The acceptability of using bovine surgical products by persons of Hindu faith may depend on their view of the sacredness of cattle. Members of the Hindu Council of Australia who were interviewed said that they do not accept the use of such products because it requires the killing of cows, the authors note.

"This is a thought-provoking and interesting study that touches a relevant area affecting all medical and surgical practitioners," Dr. Merril T. Dayton, from the State University of New York at Buffalo, writes in an accompanying editorial. "This work...makes the reader think about the responsibility we all have to be honest with our patients as we try to render the highest quality medical care possible."

Arch Surg 2008;143:366-370.



Reviewed by Dr. Ramaz Mitaishvili