This book is a comprehensive, empirically-grounded exploration of the relationship between bioethics, culture, and the perspective of being affected. It provides a new outlook on how complex "bioethical" issues become questions of everyday life. The authors focus on two contexts, genetic testing and end-of-life care, to locate and demonstrate emerging themes of responsibility, such as self-responsibility, responsibility for kin, and the responsibility of society. Within these themes, the duty to know versus the right not to know one's genetic fate (in (...) the context of genetic testing), or the sanctity of life versus self-determination (in the context of end of life care) are identified as culturally embedded dilemmas that are very much relevant for lay persons. Furthermore, cultural factors such as religion, history, utopian and dystopian views of biomedical technologies, outlooks on the body and on health/illness, and citizenship are examined. Health issues are increasingly becoming a question of assessing risk and responsibility: How can we better prepare ourselves for the future? We all make such assessments in a way that combines personal inclinations, professional recommendations, and cultural framings. There is still much to be learned about the interplay between these three dimensions. (shrink)

The routinization of prenatal diagnosis is the source of bioethical and policy debates regarding choice, autonomy, access, and protection. To understand these debates in the context of cultural diversity and moral pluralism, we compare Israel and Germany, focusing on two recent repro-genetic “hot spots” of such policy-making at the beginning of life: pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and non-invasive prenatal genetic testing, two cutting-edge repro-genetic technologies that are regulated and viewed very differently in Germany and Israel, reflecting different medicolegal policies as well (...) as public and bioethical considerations. First, we compare policy-making in the context of PGD for HLA typing, used to create sibling donors, approved in Israel under specific conditions while prohibited in Germany. Second, we compare policy-making in the context of NIPT, which came under fire in Germany, while in Israel there has been little public debate about it. Both countries justify their contrasting policies as reflecting a concern for the well-being and care of the embryo/child, thus highlighting different concepts of embryo/child protection, autonomy, family relations, and the impact of religion and history on the promotion/protection of life. We use the juxtaposition of PGD and NIPT to highlight some inconsistencies in policies concerning the protection of extra- and intra-corporeal embryos. We conclude by drawing on the comparison to show how national variations exist alongside co-evolution. (shrink)

The professional and institutional responsibility for handling genetic knowledge is well discussed; less attention has been paid to how lay people and particularly people who are affected by genetic diseases perceive and frame such responsibilities. In this exploratory study we qualitatively examine the attitudes of lay people, patients and relatives of patients in Germany and Israel towards genetic testing. These attitudes are further examined in the national context of Germany and Israel, which represent opposite regulatory approaches and bioethical debates concerning (...) genetic testing. Three major themes of responsibility emerged from the inter-group and cross-cultural comparison: self-responsibility, responsibility for kin, and responsibility of society towards its members. National contrast was apparent in the moral reasoning of lay respondents concerning, for example, the right not to know versus the duty to know (self-responsibility) and the moral conflict concerning informing kin versus the moral duty to inform (responsibility for kin). Attitudes of respondents affected by genetic diseases were, however, rather similar in both countries. We conclude by discussing how moral discourses of responsibility are embedded within cultural (national, religious) as well as phenomenological (being affected) narratives, and the role of public engagement in bioethical discourse. (shrink)