NCP Domain 1 · Structure & Processes of Care
Organ Donation → Transplant Receiving
Deciding to receive an organ transplant, or a newer option like a xenotransplant (animal-organ transplant), raises real questions for many faith traditions. This page covers the recipient's side of that question; for tradition views on donating, see the Tradition Guides.
Viewing as: Patient & Family · Change
Scope: the recipient's side of organ and tissue transplant. Covers access, donor risk, xenotransplantation, and post-transplant adherence. For the giving side, see the per-tradition views on Tradition Guides. Tradition-specific receiving positions are named in prose only below, pending live verification.
Clinical evidence
A study of 22,223 liver-transplant candidates found residence in a high-segregation neighborhood was associated with lower access to living-donor liver transplant (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81), with Hispanic/Latino candidates in high-segregation neighborhoods markedly lower still (AHR 0.59) — persisting independent of insurance status.
A review of 17 studies covering 4,881 hypertensive and 40,565 normotensive living kidney donors found hypertensive donors had a significantly higher death risk (rate difference 40.0 per 1,000 person-years, P=.03), but no significant difference in kidney failure, low eGFR, or major cardiovascular events — donor risk is real but selective, not uniform.
A survey of 589 adults in China found 36.7% would definitely accept a life-saving xenotransplant (animal-organ transplant) and 11.5% definitely would not; perceived religious conflict was significantly associated with lower acceptance (OR 0.22, P<.01).
A survey of 916 Jewish participants in Israel found Jewish law permits pig-organ xenotransplant for life-saving procedures despite the general prohibition on pork, and that the degree of a respondent's religious-ruling knowledge — not blanket religious identity — significantly shaped attitudes across six xenotransplant applications.
A survey of 600 adults across Cameroon, DR Congo, and Côte d'Ivoire found 72.8% willing to accept a bone allograft; willingness was independently associated with country and religious affiliation, and religious considerations were among the leading reasons cited for refusal.
A review of 8 randomized controlled trials and 779 kidney-transplant recipients found eHealth interventions significantly increased immunosuppressant-medication adherence (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.35, P=.01).
A broader review of 12 randomized controlled trials and 1,234 kidney-transplant recipients found eHealth adherence gains appeared only under one measurement method and were unstable on sensitivity analysis, with the overall evidence rated low to very-low quality — an honest counterweight to the positive eHealth-adherence finding above.
Tradition-specific receiving positions: pending live verification
Documented positions on receiving a transplant are named here in prose only, without formal citations, because our verification pipeline has not yet completed a live check of their source documents: Islamic authorities (IIFA, the Fiqh Council of North America, AMJA) converge on permissibility subject to necessity, no donor harm, voluntary consent, and no financial compensation, with organ and blood donation across faith lines permitted regardless of the donor's or recipient's religion, subject to a single named exception; Jewish sources (the Rabbinical Assembly) hold that accepting a life-saving transplant is not merely permitted but obligatory under pikuach nefesh, with a companion teshuva specifically addressing xenotransplantation; and Jehovah's Witness sources (jw.org) state that, unlike blood transfusion, accepting an organ or tissue transplant is a matter of individual conscience, since no specific Biblical command forbids it. Per our methodology, a reference doesn't become a citation until it passes verification, including well-known ones.
Topics whose published claims share NCP domains with this page.