Note: The application of stem cells expanded and grew so rapidly in medical science that new dimensions of it are revealed every day. This has progressed to the point where humanity no longer considers many of its unattainable dreams, such as immortality and remaining young, to be impossible. The ever-increasing progress in the use of stem cells, however, has also generated numerous jurisprudential questions and challenges alongside it. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mojtaba Khandan, a professor and researcher in the jurisprudence of stem cells, discusses these challenges in this exclusive article:

Stem cell technology is one of the most advanced and promising fields of regenerative medicine in the twenty-first century. Due to their unique ability to differentiate into various specialized cells of the body (self-renewal and pluripotency/totipotency), stem cells offer immense potential for treating chronic and incurable diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, heart failure, and spinal cord injuries. These cells are fundamentally categorized into three main groups: adult stem cells[1], embryonic stem cells[2], and induced pluripotent stem cells[3]. While scientific advancements in this domain are remarkable, they have brought about complex ethical and legal issues that necessitate the intervention of Shi’i jurisprudence. These challenges primarily revolve around the origin of the cells, particularly early embryos, and the legal status of these human biological components. Formulating a robust jurisprudential framework to guide the proper and ethical application of this technology is a primary concern for both the scientific community and religious authorities. This article examines in detail the main jurisprudential challenges in the field of stem cells.

Section One: Jurisprudential Challenges of Stem Cell Sources

The origin of stem cells is the primary factor determining their jurisprudential ruling (hukm). The distinction between adult, embryonic, and induced sources yields different rulings.

A) Adult Stem Cells[4] and Umbilical Cord Blood

Adult stem cells, extracted from tissues present in an adult or newborn body (such as bone marrow, fat, or umbilical cord blood), generally face the fewest jurisprudential challenges.

Permissibility of Extraction and Use: From a jurisprudential perspective, the extraction of these cells is generally considered an instance of “medical treatment and cure” (tadāwī va mu’ālajah) utilizing parts of the individual’s own body or with the consent of the guardian (walī) (in the case of newborn umbilical cord blood) and is unobjectionable, as this act does not entail the destruction of a primary organ (talaf-e ‘użv-e aṣlī) or severe desecration (hatk-e ḥurmat). Jurists generally emphasize the permissibility of using these cells for treating the donor individual or transplanting them to another.

Challenges of Ownership and Commercialization: The primary challenge in this area relates to legal and economic aspects. Although the cells are taken from the human body, upon isolation, processing, and expansion in cell banks, they assume a commercial nature. The question arises: Are the extracted adult stem cells, despite originating from a human, subject to purchase and sale? Or is it merely the services related to their processing and storage that can be transacted? Currently, in the vast majority of cases, financial exchanges occur solely in return for services associated with extraction, processing, storage, and treatment, rather than for the cells themselves as commodities.

B) Embryonic Stem Cells[5]

Embryonic stem cells, obtained from the inner cell mass[6] of early blastocysts[7], constitute the most central and controversial jurisprudential topic in this domain. The main challenge surrounding these cells concerns the issue of embryonic life and the timing of ensoulment (nafkh-e rūḥ).

The Issue of Embryonic Life and Preserving Human Dignity: According to jurisprudential foundations, the human embryo possesses religious sanctity (ḥurmat-e shar’ī) following fertilization, and its intentional abortion, even in early stages, is strictly prohibited. The destruction of the embryo to extract stem cells[8] is regarded by many jurists as “destruction of life” (talaf-e nafs) or at least “desecration” (hatk-e ḥurmat) of this living entity, even if this entity has not yet reached the stage of being considered a “complete human being.”

The Point of Divergence in Jurists’ Rulings (Fatwas): Timing of Ensoulment: The jurisprudential ruling on extraction[8] depends heavily on the jurist’s precise view regarding the exact timing of ensoulment in the embryo:

Conditional Permissibility View (Prioritizing Preservation of Potential/Probable Life): Some jurists hold that although the embryo possesses sanctity in its early stages, in cases of absolute necessity and for treating incurable diseases of living humans—and provided that destroyed embryos (unwanted or with severe defects) are utilized—a ruling of permissibility may be granted. A key point in this perspective is the non-permissibility of re-implantation[9] of these cells to continue the embryo’s life, as this would lead to wasting an objective that is religiously venerated (embryonic development).

Absolute Impermissibility View (Preserving Embryonic Sanctity): Many authorities of emulation (marāji’ al-taqlīd) believe that any use leading to the destruction of the embryo—even at very early stages (such as the blastocyst)—is forbidden (ḥarām), because this entity is a potential complete human being, and using it as a source of raw materials constitutes a violation of human dignity. This position is adopted based on principles such as the “prohibition of destroying life” (ḥurmat-e talaf-e nafs) and the “prohibition of destroying lineage” (ḥurmat-e tażyī’-e nasl).

The Issue of “Embryonic Destruction” in Jurisprudence: If an embryo is destroyed naturally or due to unintended medical procedures (for example, leftover IVF embryos that reach the blastocyst stage but are unusable for implantation), using its cells for treatment presents fewer challenges compared to embryos destroyed intentionally for extraction. In jurisprudence, cases where destruction of life occurs intentionally to preserve another life require careful examination of the arguments of necessity (żarūrat) and emergency (ażṭirār). In the case of ESCs, this embryonic destruction often occurs to achieve therapeutic benefits, giving rise to a direct conflict between preserving potential life (the embryo) and preserving actual life (the patient requiring treatment).

Section Two: Challenges of Cell Banking, Storage, and Ownership

Following extraction, stem cells enter complex biotechnological processes that raise questions of ownership and storage.

Challenges of Stem Cell Banking

Cell banking[10] includes the collection, processing, freezing (cryopreservation), and long-term storage of cells. This encompasses umbilical cord blood banking (ASCs) as well as embryonic cell banking (in facilities where the culture and maintenance of ESCs are possible).

The jurisprudential issue is whether storage and banking services are defined under the category of “safekeeping” (ḥifẓ-e amānat) or “medical services” (khadamāt-e darmānī). If cells are considered quasi-financial entities, do their storage contracts fall under the provisions of lease (ijārah), agency (wakālah), or loan for use (‘āriyah)? In current scientific custom, these services are treated as specific contracts for the storage of biological samples with defined obligations, and transactions regarding “storage services”—rather than the cells themselves as commodities—are customary.

The Issue of Cell Ownership

The most significant legal and jurisprudential challenge in this area is determining the legal status of stem cells: Is a stem cell a “human component” (juz’-e insānī) or a possessable “property” (māl)?

Cell as a Human Component: If a stem cell—even when isolated from the body—is still considered subject to human dignity and the rulings pertaining to human body parts, its sale or donation in the conventional sense of “property” will not be valid. According to the jurisprudential rule “lā ḍarar wa lā ḍirār fī al-Islām“[11] as stated by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family): “In Islamic legislation, the ground for harm has been removed, and no harmful ruling or causing harm from one person to another exists,” any component connected in some way to human personality is not subject to financial transaction.

Cell as Biological Material (Property): Conversely, some analyses maintain that after isolation, processing, mass expansion, and purification, the stem cell acquires the characteristics of “property” (māl) (i.e., capability of exchange), particularly in the case of induced cells (iPSCs) or ESCs that have lost their original direct connection to a single individual.

Jurisprudential Consequences of Ownership

Inheritance: If cells are deemed property (māl), upon the death of the original owner (donor), they are considered part of the estate (tarakah). If considered a human component, inheritance rules do not apply to them.

Donation and Sale: The permissibility or impermissibility of direct sale of stem cells (especially ESCs) depends on the above ruling. In the event that sale is impermissible, any amount received for transferring samples must be framed within the context of service fees or compensation for labor, not the price of a commodity.

In the case of iPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells), which are derived from differentiating adult cells (e.g., skin cells) into a pluripotent state and then into specialized cells, challenges are fewer; because here, the raw material (skin) belongs to the individual, and the alteration of the cell state is a technological process that usually leads to intellectual property or ownership over the final product, rather than the sale of the cell itself as an entity dependent on human dignity.

Section Three: Summary of Key Fatwas and Jurisprudential-Legal Enactments

The High Shi’i Authorities of Emulation (Marāji’ al-Taqlīd) in Iran and Iraq, taking into account jurisprudential standards and medical advancements, have presented relatively distinct viewpoints regarding the use of stem cells, which have shaped the legal framework of the country.

Fatwa of the Supreme Leader (Use of Embryonic Cells): One of the most important fatwas in this domain is the viewpoint of the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei), according to which the use of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) extracted from unowned embryos (such as leftover embryos from IVF that are destined for destruction) or embryos with severe, non-viable defects (whose abortion is permissible) carries conditional permissibility, provided it is necessary for the treatment of severe and incurable diseases. This fatwa was issued based on the rule of conflict (taẓāḥum) and medical necessity (żarūrat), with emphasis that these cells must not be used for re-fertilization/re-implantation or non-therapeutic purposes, nor should healthy embryos be intentionally destroyed for this purpose.

Viewpoint of Other Authorities (Marāji’): Many other authorities place greater emphasis on the prohibition of destroying the embryo at any stage and do not consider the use of ESCs permissible under any circumstances due to the prohibition of destruction (talaf-e nafs), unless the source of the cells is embryos that definitely lacked the capability to survive, or non-human sources (such as engineered animal cells) are utilized.

Jurisprudential-Legal Enactments in Iran: The legal framework of Iran in the field of biomedical research and regenerative medicine has attempted to place the use of ESCs under strict supervision and conditions of medical emergency, taking into account the fatwa of conditional permissibility. These regulations typically emphasize the following:

• Priority of using ASCs and iPSCs.

• Restricting the use of ESCs strictly to cases where non-use would lead to the loss of human life.

• Absolute prohibition of buying and selling human stem cells as commodities.

Conclusion and Outlook

Stem cell technology, although promising revolutionary treatments, has challenged traditional ethical and jurisprudential boundaries. While the use of adult stem cells (ASCs) has been largely accepted within the jurisprudential framework, the primary issue revolves around embryonic origin (ESCs), which conflicts with the ruling on the prohibition of destroying life (talaf-e nafs).

For the future, moving toward dynamic jurisprudence (fiqh-e pūyā / jurisprudential dynamism) is necessary. This requires two main orientations:

1. Development of Alternative Technologies: Maximum support for the development of iPSCs, which resolves the ethical challenges of embryonic origin, as a desirable jurisprudential-scientific solution.

2. Redefining the Legal Status of the Cell: Understanding that stem cells, after isolation, differentiation, and expansion, move far beyond the status of a living “human component.” More precise definitions must be provided for “possession of benefits” (tamalluk-e manāfi’) of these biological materials within the framework of medical services, rather than absolute commodity ownership.

So long as the jurisprudential authority emphasizes the preservation of human dignity, the use of stem cells must occur within a strict framework of therapeutic necessity and avoidance of any direct financial transactions involving human components, particularly embryonic ones. This path requires continuous dialogue among jurisprudence, medical ethics, and biotechnology to ensure that scientific innovations remain in the service of the noble objectives of preserving human life and dignity.

---

[1] Adult Stem Cells – ASCs
[2] Embryonic Stem Cells – ESCs
[3] Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells – iPSCs
[4] ASCs
[5] Embryonic Stem Cells – ESCs
[6] Inner Cell Mass – ICM
[7] Usually 5 to 7 days post-fertilization
[8] ESCs
[9] Implantation
[10] Cell Banking
[11] Sheikh Saduq, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, vol. 4, p. 334.