Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 419–429 | Cite as

Religious Scholars’ Attitudes and Views on Ethical Issues Pertaining to Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Malaysia

Original Research

Abstract

Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) represents the first fusion of genomics and assisted reproduction and the first reproductive technology that allows prospective parents to screen and select the genetic characteristics of their potential offspring. However, for some, the idea that we can intervene in the mechanisms of human existence at such a fundamental level can be, at a minimum, worrying and, at most, repugnant. Religious doctrines particularly are likely to collide with the rapidly advancing capability for science to make such interventions. This paper focuses on opinions and arguments of selected religious scholars regarding ethical issues pertaining to PGD. In-depth interviews were conducted with religious scholars from three different religious organizations in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. Findings showed that Christian scholars are very sceptical of the long-term use of PGD because of its possible effect on the value of humanity and the parent-children relationship. This differs from Islamic scholars, who view PGD as God-given knowledge in medical science to further help humans understand medical genetics. For Buddhist scholars, PGD is considered to be new medical technology that can be used to save lives, avoid suffering, and bring happiness to those who need it. Our results suggest that it is important to include the opinions and views of religious scholars when it comes to new medical technologies such as PGD, as their opinions will have a significant impact on people from various faiths, particularly in a multi-religious country like Malaysia where society places high value on marital relationships and on the traditional concepts of family.

Keywords

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis Religious scholar Attitudes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The results of this study come from a research project entitled, “Ethical Implications of PGD: A qualitative study on three selected groups in Malaysia,” supported by a post-graduate grant (University of Malaya) [UM,TNC2/IPPP/UPGP/GRANT(PPP)/PS385/2010B] and publication grant DLP-2015-004. We thank all participants in this study for their time and efforts in the interviews.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

This study has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdul Majeed Alaro, A.R. 2010. Assisted reproductive technology (ART): The Islamic law perspective. In Islam and bioethics, edited by B. Arda and V. Rispler-Claim, 85–97. Ankara University.Google Scholar
  2. Abdul Rahman, N.A. 2008. The Muslim religious elite of Singapore. In Religious diversity in Singapore, ed. A.E. Lai, 248–274. Singapore: ISEAS; LYKSPP;IPS.Google Scholar
  3. Abraham, C. 2012. Unnatural selection: Is evolving reproductive technology ushering in a new age of eugenics? Saturday’s Globe and Mail, January 17. www.theglobalandmail.com/life/parenting/unnatural-selection-is-evolving-reproductive-technology-ushering-in-a-new-age-of-eugenics/articles1357885/?[age=all.
  4. Ahmad, N.H. 2003. Assisted reproduction-Islamic views on the science of procreation. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 13(2): 59–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Albar, M.A. 2002. Ethical considerations in the prevention and management of genetic disorders with special emphasis on religious considerations. Saudi Medical Journal 23(6): 627–632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Allum, N., E. Sibley, P. Sturgis, and P. Stoneman. 2013. Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics. Public Understanding of Science 23(7): 833–849.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Al-Aqeel, A. 2005. Ethical guidelines in genetics and genomics: An Islamic perspective. Saudi Medical Journal 26(12): 1862–1870.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Borkenhagen, A., E. Brahler, and H. Kentenich. 2007. Attitudes of German infertile couples towards multiple births and elective embryos transfer. Human Reproduction 22(11): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, C.B. 2002. Protestant perspective on the use of the new reproductive technologies. Fordham Urban Law Journal 30(1): 135–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole-Turner, R. 2003. Religious meets research. In God and the embryo: Religious voices on stem cells and cloning, ed. B. Waters and R. Cole-Turner, 7–18. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Colombo, R. 2005. The status and rights of the human embryo and fetus. In The embryo: Scientific discovery and medical ethics, ed. S. Blazer and E.Z. Zimmer, 40–52. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
  12. Cornel, M.A. 2010. Genetics and religion. Journal of Community Genetics 1(3): 159–160.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawford, C.S. 2003. Hindu ethics. In Hindu bioethics for the twenty-first century, 11–30. State University of New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
  14. Doolin, B., and J. Motion. 2010. Christian lay understandings of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Public Understanding of Science Journal 19(6): 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutney, A. 2007. Religion, infertility and assisted reproductive technology. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 21(1): 160–180.Google Scholar
  16. Ehrich, K., C. Williams, and B. Farsides. 2008. The embryo as moral work object: PGD/IVF staff views and experiences. Sociology of Health and Illness 30(5): 772–787.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, J.H. 1997. Multi-organizational fields and social movement organization frame content: The religious pro-choice movement. Sociological Inquiry 67(4): 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, J.H. 2006. Religious belief, perceptions of human suffering and support for reproductive genetic technology. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31(6): 1047–1074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, J.H., and K. Hudson. 2007. Religion and reproductive genetics: Beyond views of embryonic life? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(4): 565–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fadel, H.E. 2007. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: Rationale and ethics, an Islamic perspective. Journal of the Indian Medical Association 39(4): 150–157.Google Scholar
  21. Frazetto, G. 2004. Embryos, cells and God. The European Molecular Biology Organisation Report 5(6): 553–555.Google Scholar
  22. Harvey, P. 2008. A Buddhist perspective on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. BioNews. www.bionews.org.uk/page-38031.asp.
  23. Hug, K. 2006. Therapeutic perspective of human embryonic stem cell research versus the moral status of a human embryo—Does one have to be compromised for the other? Medicina (Kaunas) 42(2): 107–114.Google Scholar
  24. Husain, F.A. 2003. Reproductive issues from the Islamic perspective. Human Fertility 3(2): 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, Jr. H.W. 1999. New reproductive technologies. Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 13(4): 473–490.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, G. 2004. Playing God. Scientific, ethical and technological challenges. http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CIS/st-edmunds/jones/pdf/jones_lecture.pdf 22nd June, 2004, St.Edmund College, Cambridge
  27. Kalfoglou, A.L., T. Doksum, B. Bernhard, et al. 2005. Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies: Hopes and fears for our genetic future. Fertility and Sterility 83(6): 1612–1621.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Keown, D. 2000. Contemporary Buddhist ethics. Surrey, UK: Curzon.Google Scholar
  29. Kings, D.S. 1999. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the ‘new’ eugenics. Journal of Medical Ethics 25(2): 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kurjak, A., J.M. Carrere, and F.A. Chervenak. 2009. The ethical concept of the fetus as a patient and the beginning of human life. Periodicum Biologorum 111(3): 341–438.Google Scholar
  31. Mahmoud, F. 2010. Assisted reproductive technology (ART)-ethics, religion and the law. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 32(3): 49–52.Google Scholar
  32. Mills, C.W. 1959. The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Moore, K.L., E.M. Johnson, T.V.N. Persaud, G.C. Goeringer, Z. Abdul-Majeed, and M.A. Ahmed. 1981. Human developments as described in Khur’an and Sunnah. In Some evidence for the truth of Islam, 5th ed. Philadephia: Saunders with Dar al-Qiblah for Islamic Literature. Jeddah.Google Scholar
  34. Nordin, M.M. 2011. Human genetic and reproductive technologies. An international medico-legal religious impasse. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science 10(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen, T.S. 2005. Just diagnosis? Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and injustices to disabled people. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(4): 231–234.Google Scholar
  36. Ratanakul, P. 2010. Buddhism and human genome research. In Genetics and religion, ed. G. Pfleiderer, K. Lindpaintner, and G. Brahier, 138–150. Basel: Karger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts, M., 2009. Is the embryo sacrosanct? Faith in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Bionews. www.bionews.org.uk/page-38043.asp.
  38. Saunders, P. 2006. The moral status of the embryo. Nucleus Summer: 17–26. http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content/?context=article&id=1811. Accessed January 10, 2012.
  39. Schenker, J.G. 1992. Reproductive health care policies around the world, religious views regarding treatment of infertility by assisted reproductive technologies. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 9(1): 3–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Serour, G.I. 2005. Religious perspectives on ethical issues in ART. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 10(3): 185–190.Google Scholar
  41. Sinclair, K. 2008. Is the embryo sacrosanct? Multi-faith perspectives. BioNews. http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_38036.asp.
  42. Tang, A. 2008. Biomedical ethical decision-making. http://www.kairos2.com/reproductive_tech.htm.
  43. Volster, J.M. 2011. A Christian ethical perspective on the moral status of human embryo. Acta Theologica 31(1): 189–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pusat Citra UniversitiUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM BangiBangiMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Science and Technology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations