The Moral Reasoning of Genetic Dilemmas Amongst Jewish Israeli Undergraduate Students with Different Religious Affiliations and Scientific Backgrounds
- 276 Downloads
The main objective of this study was to shed light on the moral reasoning of undergraduate Israeli students towards genetic dilemmas, and on how these are affected by their religious affiliation, by the field they study and by their gender. An open ended questionnaire was distributed among 449 undergraduate students in institutions of higher education in Israel, and their answers were analyzed according to the framework described by Sadler and Zeidler (Science Education, 88(1), 4–27, 2004). They were divided into two major categories: those whose reasoning was based on the consideration of moral consequences (MC), and those who supported their opinion by citing non-consequentialist moral principles (MP). Students’ elaborations to questions dealing with values towards genetic testing showed a correlation between the students’ religious affiliation and their reasoning, with religious students’ elaborations tending to be more principle based than those of secular ones. Overall, the students’ elaborations indicate that their main concern is the possibility that their personal genetic information will be exposed, and that their body’s personal rights will be violated. We conclude the paper by offering several practical recommendations based on our findings for genetic counseling that is specifically tailored to fit different patients according to their background.
KeywordsMoral reasoning Genetic dilemma Undergraduate students Decision making Religious affiliation Genetic testing Qualitative analysis
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No grants or funding obtained for this study.
Conflict of Interest
Merav Siani and Orit Ben-Zvi Assaraf declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Studies and Informed Consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Evers-Kiebooms, G., Welkenhuysen, M., Claes, E., Decruyenaere, M., & Denayer, L. (2000). The psychological complexity of predictive testing for late onset neurogenetic diseases and hereditary cancers: implications for multidisciplinary counselling and for genetic education. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 831–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gordis, R. (1978). Abortion: major wrong or basic right. Midstream, 24, 44–49.Google Scholar
- Haga, S. B., Barry, W. T., Mills, R., Ginsburg, G. S., Svetkey, L., Sullivan, J., & Willard, H. F. (2013). Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 17(4), 327–335.Google Scholar
- Herman, T., Be’ery, G., Heller, E., Cohen, C., Lebel, Y., Mozes, H., et al. (2014). The national-religious sector in Israel 2014. Israel: Israel Democracy Institute.Google Scholar
- Koenig, H., King, D., & Carson, V. B. (2012). Handbook of religion and health. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2015). http://www.ninds.nih.gov. Retrieved 25/2/2015.
- National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2013). http://www.nsgc.org. Retrieved 20/11/2013.
- Raz, A. E. (2009). Community genetics and genetic alliances: Eugenics, carrier testing, and networks of risk. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Richardson, H. S. (2014). In E. N. Zalta (ed.), “Moral reasoning”, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter Edition), URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/reasoning-moral/.
- Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 6). Pittsburgh: Rws Publications.Google Scholar
- Signorielli, N. (2012). Gender-role socialization in the twenty-first century. In A. N. Valdivia (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies: Media history and the foundations of media studies. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from doi: 10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems116.
- Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
- Tibben, A. (1993). What is knowledge but grieving? On psychological effects of presymptomatic DNA-testing for Huntington’s disease. Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
- Wert, G. D., Meulen, R. T., Mordacci, R., & Tallacchini, M. (2003). Ethics and genetics: A workbook for practitioners and students. Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
- Zayts, O., Sarangi, S., Thong, M. K., Chung, B. H. Y., Lo, I. F. M., Kan, A. S. Y., ... & Wasant, P. (2013). Genetic counseling/consultation in South-East Asia: a report from the workshop at the 10th Asia Pacific conference on human genetics. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(6), 917–924.Google Scholar