Skip to main content
Log in

Saving or Subordinating Life? Popular Views in Israel and Germany of Donor Siblings Created through PGD

  • Published:
Journal of Medical Humanities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To explore how cultural beliefs are reflected in different popular views of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for human leukocyte antigen match (popularly known as “savior siblings”), we compare the reception and interpretations, in Germany and Israel, of the novel/film My Sister’s Keeper. Qualitative analysis of reviews, commentaries and posts is used to classify and compare normative assessments of PGD for HLA and how they reproduce, negotiate or oppose the national policy and its underlying cultural and ethical premises. Four major themes emanated from the comparison: loss of self-determination and autonomy; loss of dignity through instrumentalization; eugenics and euthanasia; and saving life. In both countries, most commentaries represented a dominant position, with a few negotiated positions. We also highlight the decoding of a relatively less explored bioethical aspect of My Sister’s Keeper’s narrative, namely the meaning of euthanasia. We conclude by discussing how the findings relate to attempts of providing cultural explanations for the regulation of HLA-PGD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarden, E., et al. 2009. “Providing Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Germany: A Comparative in-depth Analysis of Health-care Access.” Human Reproduction 24 (7): 1542–1547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Bioethics Committee 2003. Guidelines for using PGD. Jerusalem.

  • Akrich, M. 1992. “The De-Scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. Bijker, and J. Law, 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. 2006. The Long Tail. NY: Hyperion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedict XVI, Sovereign Pontiff. 2008. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html,

  • Borkenhagen, A. et al. 2007. “Attitudes of German Infertile Couples towards Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Different Uses: A Comparison to International Studies,” Human Reproduction 22 (7): 2051–2057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium der Justiz. 2011. Bundesgesetzblatt I (BGBI), I S. 2228, PräimpG.

  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 2008. Dignitas Personae: On Certain Bioethical Questions.

  • DeGrazia, D. 2012. Creation Ethics: Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life. Oxford University Press.

  • Deutsche Ethikrat, 2011. Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Stellungnahme. Berlin. http://www.ethikrat.org/dateien/pdf/stellungnahme-praeimplantationsdiagnostik.pdf.

  • Diekämper, J. 2011. Reproduziertes Leben. Biomacht in Zeiten der präimplantationsdiagnostik. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.

  • Düwell, M., D. Mieth, and U. Knoerzer, eds. 1998. Ethik in der Humangenetik. Die neueren Entwicklungen in der genetischen Frühdiagnostik aus ethischer Perspektive. Tübingen: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD). 1987. Zur Achtung vor dem Leben – Maßstäbe für Gentechnik und Fortpflanzungsmedizin. http://www.ekd.de/EKD-Texte/achtungvordemleben_1987.html.

  • Evangelische Kirche Deutschland (EKD). 2003. Sterbebegleitung statt aktiver Sterbehilfe. Eine Textsammlung kirchlicher Erklärungen (mit einer Einführung des Vorsitzenden der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und des Vorsitzenden des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland); herausgegeben vom Kirchenamt der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. http://www.ekd.de/EKD-Texte/44666.html.

  • Evangelische Kirche Deutschland. 2012. Stellungnahme der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland zum Entwurf einer Rechtsverordnung der Bundesregierung über die rechtmäßige Durchführung einer Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Präimplantationsdiagnostikverordnung – PIDV).

  • Franklin, S. and C. Roberts. 2006. Born and Made. An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genetics and Public Policy Center. 2004a. Reproductive Genetic Testing: Issues and Options for Policymakers. Report of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University. http://www.DNApolicy.org.

  • Genetics and Public Policy Center. 2004b. Reproductive Genetic Testing: What America Thinks. Report of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University. http://www.DNApolicy.org.

  • German Bundestag. 2002. Final Report. Submitted by the Study Commission on Law and Ethics in Modern Medicine. http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/gremien/kommissionen/archiv15/ethik_med/archiv/schlussbericht_14_WP_engl.pdf.

  • Habermas, J. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Polity Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackenberg, H., ed. 2010. Beim Leben meiner Schwester, Katholisches Filmwerk GmbH. http://www.materialserver.filmwerk.de/arbeitshilfen/AH_beimlebenmeinerschwester_A4_web.pdf (13.03.14).

  • Hall, S. 1973. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. Birmingham, England: Centre for Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harari, S. 2005. A Present for the Future. Kinneret Zmora-Bitan Dvir Publishing House, Israel (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, J., K.L. Walker, and J.L. Gregg 2007. “Communication Ethics and My Sister's Keeper.” Communication Teacher 21 (4): 123-127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. 2007. A Life (Un)Worthy of Living: Reproductive Genetics in Israel and Germany. Berlin: Springer-Kluwer.

  • Hashiloni-Dolev, Y and S Shkedi. 2007. “On new Reproductive Technologies and Family Ethics: Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis for Sibling Donor in Israel and Germany.” Social Science & Medicine 65 (10): 2081-2092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • -----. 2010. “The Regulation of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Sibling Donors in Israel, Germany and England: A Comparative Look at Balancing Risks and Benefits." In Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies among Jewish Israelis, edited by Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli and Yoram S. Carmeli, 61-84, Oxford: Berghahn.

  • Harris J. 1998. Genes, Clones and Immortality. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning, T. Retter-Kinder. 2013. “Instrumentalisierung und Kants Zweckformel.“ Ethik in der Medizin. doi 10.1007/s00481-013-0253-9.

  • Hens, K. et al. 2013. “Dynamics and Ethics of Comprehensive Preimplantation Genetic Testing: A Review of the Challenges.” Human Reproduction Update. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmt009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepp, H. 2003. “Pränatalmedizin und Embryonenschutz—ein Widerspruch der Werte.” Der Gynäkologe 36 (7): 572-581.

  • Heyd, D. 1998. “Are we our Descendants' Keepers?” In Germ-Line Intervention and our Responsibilities to Future Generations, edited by E. Agius and S. Busuttil, 131-145. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • -----. 2011. “’Be fertile and multiply’: The Foundation of the Ethics of Procreation and Genetic Technologies.” Medical Law and Bioethics 4, 15-36 (in Hebrew)

  • Horkheimer, M. and T. Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, translated by G. Schmid Noerr and E. Jephcott. Stanford, Calif.

  • Israeli parliament (Knesset). 2005. “PGD for Sex Selection and other Medical Purposes.” The Science and Technology Committee, protocol number 124. http://www.knesset.gov.il/protocols/data/rtf/mada/2005-03-16.rtf (Hebrew)

  • Knoppers, B.M., S. Bordet, and R.M. Isasi. 2006. “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: An Overview of Socio-ethical and Legal Considerations.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 7:201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollek, R. 2002. Preimplantationsdiagnostik. Embryonenselektion, weibliche Autonomie und Recht. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, A. 2011. “To be or not to be my Sister’s Keeper?” Journal of Legal Medicine 32 (3): 261-293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, R. 2008. “Sex Selection for Social Purposes in Israel: Quest for the ‘Perfect Child’ of a Particular Gender or Centuries old Prejudice against Women?” Journal of Medical Ethics 34:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufs, A., in Laufs, A./Kern, B.-R., ed. 2010. Handbuch des Arztrechtes, § 6, München: Beck.

  • Maio, G., ed. 2007. Der Status des extrakorporalen Embryos. Perspektiven eines interdisziplinären Zugangs. Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, P. K., and B. Cullum-Swan. 1994. “Narrative, Content, and Semiotic Analysis.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by A. Denzin, K. Norman, A. Lincoln, and A. Yvonna, 464–466. S. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, G. 2000. The Perfect Baby. Parenthood in the New World of Cloning and Genetics. 2nd ed. Rowman and Littlefield.

  • Meister, U. et al. 2005. “Knowledge and Attitudes towards Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Germany.” Human Reproduction 20 (1): 231-238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, R. 2002. Forschungsobjekt Embryo. Verfassungsrechtliche und ethische Grundlagen der Forschung an menschlichen embryonalen Stammzellen. dtv, München.

  • Ministry of Health, State of Israel. 2006. Guidelines for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Circulation letter 50. http://www.health.gov.il/download/forms/a2930_mr50_06.pdf (Hebrew).

  • Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften. 2011, Januar. Ad-hoc-Stellungnahme, PID- Auswirkungen einer begrenzten Zulassung in Deutschland. http://www.leopoldina.org/de/politik/empfehlungen-und-stellungnahmen/nationale-empfehlungen/praeimplantationsdiagnostik-pid.html

  • National Ethics Council. 2003. “Report on Genetic Diagnosis before and during Pregnancy.” Berlin. http://www.natethikrat.de/_english/press/Opinion_Genetic_Diagnosis.pdf

  • National Ethics Council. 2011. “Report on PGD.” http://www.ethikrat.org/presse/pressemitteilungen/2011/pressemitteilung-03-2011

  • Picoult, J. 2004. My Sister’s Keeper. Washington Square Press.

  • Pühler W., C.D. Middel and M. Hübner, eds. 2009. Praxisleitfaden Gewebegesetz. Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Kommentierungen. Deutscher Ärzteverlag.

  • Raz, A., and S. Schicktanz 2009a. “Lay Perceptions of Genetic Testing in Germany and Israel: The Interplay of National Culture and Individual Experience.” New Genetics and Society 28 (4): 401-414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009b. “Diversity and Uniformity in Genetic Responsibility: Moral Attitudes of Patients, Relatives and Lay People in Germany and Israel.” Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 12 (4): 433-442.

  • ———. 2010. “Through the Looking Glass: Engaging in a Socio-ethical, Cross-cultural Dialogue.” New Genetics and Society 29 (1): 55-59.

  • Raz, A., I. Jordan, and S. Schicktanz. 2014. “Exploring the Positions of German and Israeli Patient Organizations in the Bioethical Context of End-of-Life Policies.” Health Care Analysis 22:143-159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehmann-Sutter C. 2007. “Embryoselektion zur Gewebespende? Fälle von PID-HLA und ihre Analyse in individual- und sozialethischer” Perspektive. Ethica 15:115-143.

  • ———. 2009. “Why Non-directiveness is Insufficient. Ethics of Genetic Decision making and a Model of Agency.” Medicine Studies 1:113-129.

  • Rehmann-Sutter, C. and C. Schües. 2013. Retterkinder.“ In Rettung und Erlösung. Politisches und Religiöses Heil in der Moderne, edited by Lehmann and H. Thüring, München: Fink: 79-98.

  • Revel, M., ed. 2008. Ethical Issues in PGD. Jerusalem: Israel National Bioethics Committee and the Israel National Academy of Sciences (Hebrew).

  • Richter-Kuhlmann E. 2011. “Präimplantationsdiagnostik: Der Bundestag hat entschieden, dass Gentests an Embryonen künftig erlaubt sein sollen.” Dtsch Arztebl, 108:1322-1323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M.J. 2007. The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Harvard University Press.

  • Savulescu, J. 2001. “Procreative Beneficience: Why We Should Select The Best Children.” Bioethics 15 (5): 413-426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Recla A. 2009. Kontraindikation und Kindeswohl. Die zulässige “Knochenmarkspende durch Kinder.” GesR 11:565-572.

  • Schües, C. 2008. Philosophie des Geborenseins. Freiburg: Karl Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. “Menschliche Natur, glückliche Leben und zukünftige Ethik. Anthropologische und ethische Hinterfragungen.” In Verbesserte Körper und gutes Leben? Bioethik, Enhancement und die Disability Studies, edited by M. Eilers, K. Grüber, and C. Rehmann-Sutter, 41-62. Series: Praktische Philosophie Kontrovers, Frankfurt: Lang Verlag.

  • Schües, C./Rehmann-Sutter, C., 2013. “The well- and unwell-being of a Child.” Topoi 10.1007/s11245-013-9157-z.

  • Schwinger E. 2002. Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Medizinische Indikation oder unzulässige Selektion? Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalev, C. 2009. “End-of-life Care in Israel—The Dying Patient Law 2005.” Israel Law Review 42 (2): 279-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. “Reclaiming the Patient’s Voice and Spirit in Dying: An Insight from Israel.” Bioethics 24 (3): 134–144.

  • Takizawa, H., U. Schanz, and M. G. Manz. 2011. “Ex vivo expansion of hematopoietic stem cells: mission accomplished?” Swiss Medicine Weekly 141:w13316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, G. and E. Aarden. 2011. “Constructing Embryos, Constructing Politics: Connecting Politics and Technology in the Netherlands and Germany.” BioSocieties 6:447-465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesemann, C. 2006. Von der Verantwortung, ein Kind zu bekommen. Eine Ethik der Elternschaft. München: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, M., et al. 2013. “Ethical Attitudes of German Specialists in Reproductive Medicine and Legal Regulation of Preimplantation Sex Selection in Germany.” PLoS ONE 8 (2): e56390. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. M., J. P. Kahn, and J.E. Wagner. 2003. “Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to Create a Stem Cell Donor.” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31: 327-339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woopen C. 1999. “Präimplantationsdiagnostik und selektiver Schwangerschaftsabbruch. Zur Analogie von Embryonenselektion in vitro und Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach Präimplantationsdiagnostik im Rahmen der medizinischen Indikation des §218a Abs.2 StGB aus ethischer Perspektive.” Z Med Ethik 45:233-244.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aviad Raz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raz, A., Schües, C., Wilhelm, N. et al. Saving or Subordinating Life? Popular Views in Israel and Germany of Donor Siblings Created through PGD. J Med Humanit 38, 191–207 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-016-9388-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-016-9388-2

Keywords

Navigation