stem cells

[rogerspence]

Can a jehovah's witness take the test for matching for a stem cell donation? And can a jehovah's witness donate stem cells?

[Borgia]

Did you drop this question at the service desk in Patterson?

But to go into your question:

the two broad types of mammalian stem cells are: embryonic stem cells that are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts, and adult stem cells that are found in adult tissues. In a developing embryo, stem cells can differentiate into all of the specialized embryonic tissues. In adult organisms, stem cells and progenitor cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing specialized cells, but also maintain the normal turnover of regenerative organs, such as blood, skin, or intestinal tissues.

source wiki entry: stem cell; emphasis mine

In order to harvest the first one, the embryonic stem cell, a vertilized egg has to be used. This is regarded by the WBTS as a gift from God, a new life and therefore a human being, worthy of protection and the anti abortion laws apply. The do not make a moral and legal distinction between several phases of growth.

No doubt, the second option, the adult stem cell, can be an option acceptable to JW's.

I do find this a highly objectionable position, or at least serf serving, since JW's do eat eggs without worrying about it being solely an egg or already vertilized.

Cheers

Borgia

[Critical Thinker]

*** g04 9/22 pp. 6-11 The Choices, the Issues ***
The Choices, the Issues
Imagine the anguish of a married couple who desperately want to have a child yet because of infertility cannot. They look to medical science for help and find that many techniques and therapies have been developed to overcome infertility. Does it matter which one they choose, if any?
TODAY infertile couples have options that were not available just decades ago. But along with the choices comes a serious question, What are the ethical and moral implications of assisted reproductive techniques? Before we consider that, though, let us see how various religious groups view such treatments.
What Do Religious Groups Say?
In 1987 the Catholic Church issued a document that addressed the morality of fertility procedures. The statement, known as Donum Vitae (The Gift of Life), held that if a medical technique assists the marriage act in achieving conception, such a treatment may be viewed as moral. On the other hand, the document indicated that if a medical procedure replaces the marriage act, such a treatment is morally wrong. According to this view, surgery to correct tubal blockage and the use of fertility drugs would be considered moral, but test-tube fertilization would be immoral.
The following year a U.S. Congressional committee surveyed religious groups as to their stand regarding fertility treatment. The final report showed that a majority of them accepted traditional medical interventions, artificial insemination using the husband’s sperm, and in vitro fertilization treatment, provided that both the egg and the sperm belonged to the married couple. Moreover, most of the groups surveyed declared that the destruction of embryos, artificial insemination by a donor, and surrogate motherhood are morally wrong.
In 1997 the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society (EECCS), a body of Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox churches, indicated in a position paper that in their ranks there are divided opinions on assisted reproduction. Emphasizing that individual conscience and personal responsibility are involved, the paper stated: “The implication is that it is difficult to speak of ‘the’ position of the member churches of EECCS. There is, rather, a plurality of positions.”
It is evident that opinions on assisted reproduction differ a lot. The UN World Health Organization admits that the field of assisted reproductive techniques “constantly challenges social norms, moral and ethical standards and legal systems.” What are some factors that people should consider before making a decision involving assisted reproduction?
What Are the Issues Involved?
A basic factor to consider is the status of a human embryo. This relates to the crucial question, When does life begin—at conception or later on during pregnancy? The answer would certainly affect the decision that many married couples make regarding treatment. If, for example, they believe that life begins at conception, then there are some key questions that must be considered.
● Should the couple allow doctors to follow the common procedure of fertilizing more eggs than the one or more being inserted, thus keeping a surplus stock of embryos for future use?
● What would happen to such stored embryos if the couple became unable or unwilling to have more children?
● What would happen to any stored embryos if the couple divorced or if one of them died?
● Who would shoulder the weighty responsibility for destroying such embryos?
The issue of what is to be done with unused or stored embryos cannot be dismissed lightly. Legal guidelines in certain countries now demand that the couple present a written consent specifying how the extra embryos should be handled—that is, if they should be stored, donated, used for research, or allowed to perish. Couples should be aware that in certain places it is ethically acceptable for a fertility clinic to destroy stored embryos without any written authorization if they have been abandoned for more than five years. Today, hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos are stored at clinics worldwide.
Another factor to consider is that couples may be urged to donate unused embryos for stem cell research. The American Infertility Association, for example, has encouraged couples to make their unused stored embryos available for research. One purpose of stem cell research is to find new ways of treating illnesses. But this field of research has been a subject of much controversy because the process of extracting embryonic stem cells essentially destroys the embryo.
New genetic technologies raise yet other ethical issues. Consider, for example, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). (See the box “What About Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis?”) This technique involves submitting embryos to genetic screening and then selecting the one—perhaps of the desired gender or free of a certain disease-causing gene—that is to be implanted into the uterus. Critics warn that PGD could lead to gender discrimination or that it might eventually be used to let couples choose other genetic traits for their children, including hair or eye color. PGD raises the ethical question, What happens to the embryos that are not selected?
Will the Marriage Bond Be Affected?
When considering certain forms of fertility treatment, there is another aspect to consider. How would the use of a surrogate mother or donated sperm or eggs affect the marriage bond? Some techniques may introduce a third party (a donor) or even a fourth party (two donors) or a fifth party (two donors and a surrogate mother) into the childbearing process.
Regarding treatment that involves donated genetic material, the parties involved need to consider other factors too.
● What long-term emotional effects may such a birth have on the parents when only one of them—or neither—is the genetic parent?
● How will the son or daughter handle learning that his or her birth resulted from such an unusual form of conception?
● Should the child be informed about his or her parentage and be allowed to look for the biological father or mother?
● What are the moral and legal rights and obligations of the one or more individuals who donated genetic material?
What About Anonymity?
The policy in many countries is to keep donors anonymous. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates the use of human reproductive material in Britain, explains: “Except where donation is intentionally between people known to each other, current and past donors will remain anonymous to the couples treated with their eggs or sperm, and to the children who may be born as a result of that treatment.”
However, this policy of anonymity is the subject of heated debate in some places. A few countries have changed their policy or laws accordingly. Those who are against the policy of anonymity emphasize that children must have a full sense of their identity. A report says: “Over 80 per cent of adopted people search for birth relatives, many of them to help satisfy the long-standing curiosity about origins which most people share. Almost 70 per cent want to identify important background information about possible hereditary medical conditions of birth parents.”
Another report, based on interviews with 16 adults conceived by donor insemination, revealed that “many were shocked to discover their biological origins.” The report added: “Many of the children faced problems with personal identity and feelings of abandonment. There were feelings of deceit and mistrust towards the families.”
How Will You Decide?
Medical science will no doubt carry the development of assisted reproduction even further. Some predict that in the future 30 percent of all babies born will be the result of this technology. The debate over the ethical and moral issues involved will continue.
True Christians are guided by an even more important consideration—the viewpoint of our Creator, the one who arranged for procreation. (Psalm 36:9) Of course, the Bible does not directly comment on modern assisted reproductive techniques, for such procedures were not available in Bible times. However, the Bible does set out clear principles that indicate God’s thinking and viewpoint. (See the box “What Does the Bible Say?”) Such principles help us to make decisions that are ethical and moral and that leave us with a clear conscience before God.—1 Timothy 1:5.
[Footnotes]
The dictionary defines a surrogate mother as “a woman who becomes pregnant usually by artificial insemination or surgical implantation of a fertilized egg for the purpose of carrying the fetus to term for another woman.”
See the series “Stem Cells—Has Science Gone Too Far?” in the November 22, 2002, issue of Awake!
[Box/Picture on page 8]
What Is A Preembryo?
The term “preembryo” refers to the unborn’s stage of development during the first 14 days after fertilization. After that, it is called an embryo until the end of the eighth week. From then on, it is called a fetus. Why is the word “preembryo” used?
According to the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, the term was “used as the rationale for permitting human embryo research” during the first 14 days after conception. One reference work says: “If one defines the embryo as the structure destined to become the baby, its earliest rudiments do not form until about two weeks after the sperm meets the egg.” But can this preembryo be dismissed as a mere mass of cells, fit for little more than research? Consider what really happens during this two-week period.
After the sperm has penetrated the egg, it takes about 24 hours for the male and female chromosomes to fuse. During the next few days, the cell divides. Within four or five days after fertilization, the cluster of cells develops into a hollow sphere (still smaller than a pinhead) with an outer cell layer and an inner cell mass. It is now known as a blastocyst. Many of the cells of the outer layer will develop into nonembryonic tissues. From the inner cell mass, however, the baby itself will develop.
About a week after fertilization, implantation in the womb occurs. The blastocyst attaches itself to the womb and begins the construction of the placenta, which will allow the passage of oxygen and food from the mother’s bloodstream and the release of wastes. According to the book Incredible Voyage—Exploring the Human Body, by about day nine the inner cell mass starts “the task of constructing a new human being.” It adds: “Those 20 or so cells must perform a series of restructurings and differentiations over another five or six days to create the first structural element of the actual embryo.” So by the end of the second week, this “first structural element,” from which the central nervous system eventually develops, begins to appear.
Because of this preparatory step-by-step process that goes on within the early human embryo, some argue that “there is no one biological event or moment that can be considered the start of a new human embryo.”
True Christians, however, believe that life begins at conception. The fact that the original fertilized cell contains the program for the construction of the placenta, the implantation, the connections with the mother’s blood vessels, and more only increases their admiration for the divine Designer, Jehovah God.
[Picture]
Human embryo at three days (magnified about 400X)
[Credit Line]
Courtesy of the University of Utah Andrology and IVF Laboratories
[Box/Picture on page 9]
WHAT ABOUT PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS?
A new development in test-tube fertilization is called preimplantation genetic diagnosis. This involves genetically screening embryos and then selecting the one that is to be implanted into the uterus. Commenting on the implications of this technique, the book Choosing Assisted Reproduction—Social, Emotional and Ethical Considerations explains:
“Soon [scientists] will be able to determine physical, intellectual, and perhaps emotional and social characteristics in an embryo. Thus in the not too distant future it will be possible for parents to select some of their offspring’s characteristics. And although many people would support the use of preimplantation genetic selection for couples who are carriers of a dreaded disease, many will not support this technology for couples who wish to have a child of a particular sex—or in the future, for a child with blue eyes, or musical talent, or who will be tall.
“Preimplantation genetics, like many other technologies, raises the question of whether, because something can be done, it should be done. . . . The dilemma is where to draw the line—if anywhere—on this slippery high technological slope.”
[Box/Picture on page 10]
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
The Bible, of course, makes no direct comments on modern-day assisted reproductive procedures. It does, however, enable us to know God’s view on certain key issues. And knowing the answers to two basic questions can guide true Christians in making decisions that are pleasing to God.
When does human life begin? The Bible indicates that life begins at conception. Note the words of the psalmist David, who was inspired to say of God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) Consider also Exodus 21:22, 23, where the original-language text indicates that a person would be held accountable for injury to an unborn child. The lesson to be learned is that our Creator views life as precious, even during the very early stages of development in the womb. In God’s eyes the willful destruction of an embryo would be viewed as abortion.
Are there any restrictions as to how one’s reproductive powers may be used? God’s view can be found at Leviticus 18:20, which says: “You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it.” The underlying principle in that Scriptural decree is this: A man’s semen should not be used to inseminate anyone other than his wife, and a woman should not bear a child for someone other than her own husband. In other words, the reproductive powers are not to be used for someone other than one’s marriage mate. True Christians, therefore, avoid surrogate motherhood as well as any procedures that involve the use of donated sperm, eggs, or embryos.
When making a decision involving assisted reproduction, true Christians must weigh carefully what the Bible reveals about God’s thinking. After all, he is the Originator of marriage and family life.—Ephesians 3:14, 15.
[Footnotes]
See the article “The Bible’s Viewpoint: When Does Human Life Begin?” in the October 8, 1990, issue of Awake!
See the articles “The Bible’s Viewpoint: Surrogate Motherhood—Is It for Christians?” in the March 8, 1993, issue of Awake! and “What Is the Bible’s View?—Is Artificial Insemination Acceptable to God?” in the August 8, 1974, issue.
For a discussion of in vitro fertilization where the sperm comes from the husband and the egg cell from his wife, see “Questions From Readers,” in The Watchtower of June 1, 1981.
[Picture on page 7]
Stored frozen embryos
[Credit Line]
© Firefly Productions/CORBIS

*** g02 11/22 pp. 4-9 Why the Controversy? ***
Why the Controversy?
IN THE hands of a skilled craftsman, a lump of soft clay can be fashioned into practically any shape. Embryonic stem cells are the living equivalent of that piece of moist clay; they have the potential to give rise to virtually all of the over 200 cell types making up the human body. How do they do this? Consider what happens to a newly fertilized egg cell.
Soon after fertilization an egg cell begins to divide. In humans about five days of cell division results in a minute ball of cells called a blastocyst. It is essentially a hollow sphere that is composed of a shell-like outer cell layer and a small cluster of about 30 cells called the inner cell mass, which is attached to the inside wall of the sphere. The outer cell layer becomes the placenta; the inner cell mass, the human embryo.
At the blastocyst stage, though, the cells of the inner cell mass have not yet begun to specialize into specific cell types, such as nerve, kidney, or muscle cells. Hence, they are designated stem cells. And because they give rise to virtually all the different cell types in the body, they are said to be pluripotent. To make sense of the excitement and controversy surrounding stem cells, let us see what researchers have done thus far and what their goals are, beginning with embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic Stem Cells
The report Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine states: “In the last 3 years, it has become possible to remove these [human embryonic] stem cells from the blastocyst and maintain them in an undifferentiated state in cell culture lines in the laboratory.” Simply put, embryonic stem cells can be cultured so as to produce an unlimited number of identical copies of themselves. Embryonic stem cells extracted from mice, first cultured in 1981, have produced billions of duplicate cells in the laboratory!
Because all these cells remain undifferentiated, scientists hope that with the right biochemical triggers, stem cells could be directed to develop into virtually all the cell kinds that may be needed for tissue replacement therapy. Simply put, stem cells are seen as a potential source of unlimited ‘spare parts.’
In two animal studies, researchers coaxed embryonic stem cells into becoming insulin-producing cells, which were then transplanted into diabetic mice. In one study the symptoms of diabetes were reversed, but in the other the new cells failed to produce enough insulin. In similar studies, scientists have had partial success in restoring neural function in spinal-cord injuries and in correcting Parkinson’s disease symptoms. “Those studies provide promise,” says the National Academy of Sciences, “but not definitive evidence, that similar treatments could be effective in humans.” But why is research on human embryonic stem cells so controversial?
Why the Concern?
The main focus of concern is that the process of extracting embryonic stem cells essentially destroys the embryo. This, explains the National Academy of Sciences, “deprives a human embryo of any further potential to develop into a complete human being. For those who believe that the life of a human being begins at the moment of conception, ESC [embryonic stem cell] research violates tenets that prohibit the destruction of human life and the treatment of human life as a means to some other end, no matter how noble that end might be.”
Where do laboratories get the embryos from which stem cells are extracted? Generally from in vitro fertilization clinics, where women have provided eggs for in vitro fertilization. Leftover embryos are usually either frozen or discarded. One clinic in India discards over 1,000 human embryos each year.
While research on embryonic stem cells continues, some investigators are focusing their efforts on a much less controversial form of stem cell—the adult stem cell.
Adult Stem Cells
“The adult stem cell,” says the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, “is an undifferentiated (unspecialized) cell that is found in a differentiated (specialized) tissue,” such as bone marrow, blood and blood vessels, the skin, the spinal cord, the liver, the gastrointestinal tract, and the pancreas. Initial research suggested that adult stem cells were much more limited in scope than their embryonic counterparts. However, later findings in animal studies suggest that certain kinds of adult stem cells may be able to differentiate into tissues other than those from which they came.
Adult stem cells isolated from blood and bone marrow, called hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), have the ability to “self-renew continuously in the marrow and to differentiate into the full complement of cell types found in blood,” says the National Academy of Sciences. This type of stem cell has already been used to treat leukemia and a number of other blood disorders. Now some scientists also claim that HSCs appear to give rise to nonblood cells such as liver cells and cells that resemble neurons and other cell types found in the brain.
Using another type of stem cell derived from the bone marrow of mice, researchers in the United States appear to have made another significant advance. Their study, published in the journal Nature, showed that these cells seem to have “all the versatility of embryonic stem cells,” according to The New York Times. “In principle,” the article adds, these adult stem cells could “do everything expected of embryonic stem cells.” Nevertheless, researchers working with adult stem cells still face major hurdles. These cells are rare and difficult to identify. On the other hand, any medical benefits they may yield will not involve the destruction of human embryos.
Health Risks and Regenerative Medicine
Whatever form of stem cell is used, therapies will still have serious drawbacks—even if scientists master the processes that yield tissues for transplantation. One major obstacle is the rejection of foreign tissue by the recipient’s immune system. The present solution is to administer potent drugs that suppress the immune system, but such drugs carry serious side effects. Genetic engineering may circumvent this problem if stem cells can be altered so that tissues derived from them do not appear foreign to their new host.
Another possibility might be to use stem cells taken from the patient’s own tissues. In early clinical trials, hematopoietic stem cells have already been used in this way to treat lupus. Diabetes may yield to similar therapies, as long as the new tissue is not susceptible to the same autoimmune attack that may have caused the disease in the first place. People with certain heart diseases may also benefit from stem cell therapies. One proposal is that at-risk patients donate their own stem cells in advance so that these could be cultured and later used to replace diseased cardiac tissue.
In wrestling with the problem of immune rejection, some scientists have even proposed cloning patients but allowing the clones to develop only to the blastocyst stage, when embryonic stem cells can be harvested. (See the box “How a Clone Can Be Made.”) Tissues cultured from these stem cells would be genetically identical to the donor-recipient and so would not trigger an immune response. But besides being morally repugnant to many people, such cloning may be futile if the intent is to cure a genetically based disease. Summing up the immune problem, the National Academy of Sciences stated: “An understanding of how to prevent rejection of transplanted cells is fundamental to their becoming useful for regenerative medicine and represents one of the greatest challenges for research in this field.”
Embryonic stem cell transplantation also carries the risk of tumor formation, in particular a tumor called a teratoma, meaning “monster tumor.” This growth may comprise a variety of tissues, such as skin, hair, muscle, cartilage, and bone. During normal growth, cell division and specialization follow a strict genetic program. But these processes can run awry when stem cells are severed from the blastocyst, cultured in vitro, and later injected into a living creature. Learning to master artificially the enormously complex processes of cell division and specialization is yet another major hurdle facing researchers.
No Imminent Cures
The report Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine states: “Because of a misunderstanding of the state of knowledge, there may be an unwarranted impression that widespread clinical application of new therapies is certain and imminent. In fact, stem cell research is in its infancy, and there are substantial gaps in knowledge that pose obstacles to the realization of new therapies from either adult or embryo-derived stem cells.” Clearly, there are more questions than answers. Some scientists are even “bracing themselves for a backlash when treatments fail to materialize,” says a New York Times report.
Stem cell science aside, medicine has made great strides in many areas in recent decades. Yet, as we have seen, some of these advances raise complex moral and ethical questions. So where can we turn for sound guidance on such matters? What is more, as research becomes more sophisticated and expensive, therapies and medications often reflect that cost. Some researchers have already estimated that stem cell therapies may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient. Yet, even now millions of people are unable to keep up with escalating medical costs and insurance premiums. So who really will benefit if and when the stem cell revolution arrives at the clinic? Only time will tell.
What we can be sure of, however, is that no therapy conceived by man will eliminate sickness and death. (Psalm 146:3, 4) Only our Creator has the power to do that. But does he purpose to do so? The following article shows the Bible’s answer to that question. It also discusses how the Bible can guide us through the increasingly complex maze of moral and ethical questions that arise today, even those of a medical nature.
[Footnotes]
The report was prepared in 2001 by various committees and boards for the National Academy of Sciences in the United States.
For a discussion of Scriptural and other issues related to bone-marrow transplantation, please see The Watchtower, May 15, 1984, page 31.
[Box/Picture on page 6]
Another Source of Stem Cells
Besides adult and embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells have also been isolated. Embryonic germ cells are derived from the cells in the gonadal ridge of an embryo or a fetus, which give rise to eggs or sperm. (The gonadal ridge becomes the ovaries or testes.) Although embryonic germ cells are different in many ways from embryonic stem cells, both are pluripotent, or able to give rise to virtually all cell types. This potential makes pluripotent cells very attractive candidates for the development of unprecedented medical treatments. However, the excitement over such potential therapies is tempered by the controversy centering on the source of these cells. They are derived either from aborted fetuses or from embryos. Thus, obtaining these cells involves fetal and embryo destruction.
[Box/Pictures on page 8, 9]
How a Clone Can Be Made
In recent years scientists have cloned a variety of animals. In 2001 a laboratory in the United States even attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to clone a human. One way that scientists make clones is through a process called nuclear transfer.
First, they extract an unfertilized egg cell from a female (1) and enucleate the cell, or remove its nucleus (2), which contains the DNA. From the body of the animal to be cloned, they obtain a suitable cell, such as a skin cell (3), the nucleus of which contains its owner’s genetic blueprint. They insert this cell (or just its nucleus) into the enucleated egg and pass an electric current through it (4). This fuses the cell with the egg cytoplasm (5). With its new nucleus, the egg now divides and grows as if it were fertilized (6), and a clone of the creature from which the body cell was taken begins to develop.
The embryo can then be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother (7), where, in the rare instance that all goes well, it will grow to term. Alternatively, the embryo may be kept only until the inner cell mass can be used to obtain embryonic stem cells that can be kept in culture. Scientists believe that this basic process should work with humans. In fact, the above-mentioned attempt to clone a human was performed with a view to acquiring embryonic stem cells. Cloning for this purpose is called therapeutic cloning.
[Footnote]
Dolly the sheep was the first mammal cloned from an adult cell. Scientists implanted the nucleus of a cell from the mammary gland of an adult sheep into an enucleated egg cell.
[Diagram]
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
3
↓
1 → 2 → 4 → 5 → 6 → 7
[Diagram on page 7]
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
Embryonic Stem Cells (Simplified)
Fertilized egg (day 1)
↓
Four cells (day 3)
↓
Blastocyst with its inner stem cell mass (day 5)
↓
Cultured stem cells
↓
Over 200 different types of cells in the human body
→ Thyroid cells
→ Pancreatic cell (could help cure diabetes)
→ Pigment cells
→ Red blood cells
→ Kidney cells
→ Skeletal muscle cells
→ Cardiac muscle cells (could repair a damaged heart)
→ Lung cell
→ Nerve cell (could treat Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
and repair spinal cord injuries)
→ Skin cells
[Credit Lines]
Blastocyst and cultured stem cells: University of Wisconsin Communications; all other art: © 2001 Terese Winslow, assisted by Lydia Kibiuk and Caitlin Duckwall
[Diagram on page 8]
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
Adult Stem Cells (Simplified)
Stem cell found in bone marrow
→ Lymphocytes
→ Eosinophil
→ Red blood cells
→ Platelets
→ Monocyte
→ Basophil
→ Potentially, many other cells
→ Nerve cell
[Credit Line]
© 2001 Terese Winslow, assisted by Lydia Kibiuk and Caitlin Duckwall

[rogerspence]

Sorry - I should have explained more - I was referring to stem cells from bone marrow for the purpose of treating some types of cancer.

[Palimpsest]

Sorry - I should have explained more - I was referring to stem cells from bone marrow for the purpose of treating some types of cancer.

Bone marrow transplants have been treated as a matter of personal conscience since the 1980s. (See the May 15, 1984 WT for an article on this subject.) I would say that, combined with the information from Borgia and Critical Thinker, you can safely assume that Witnesses would be allowed to accept adult stem cells from bone marrow if they felt personally comfortable with that. There is, of course, a social stigma surrounding any form of transplant, so it might raise a few eyebrows. But it doesn't appear to be anything that would result in a loss of privileges.

All Witnesses are different, so some many not want to be a donor, and that's fine. There are plenty of non-religious people who do not want to be donors, so it needn't be seen as religion-specific.