Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Nov;12(4):433-42.
doi: 10.1007/s11019-009-9215-x. Epub 2009 Jul 24.

Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel

Affiliations

Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel

Aviad E Raz et al. Med Health Care Philos. 2009 Nov.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Andre J, Fleck L, Tomlinson T. On being genetically “irresponsible”. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2000;10:129–146. doi: 10.1353/ken.2000.0010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Badcott D. The expert patient: Valid recognition or false hope? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2005;8:173–178. doi: 10.1007/s11019-005-2275-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Banks S, Scully JL, Shakespeare T. Ordinary ethics: The ethical evaluation of the new genetics by lay people. New Genetics and Society. 2006;25(3):289–303. doi: 10.1080/14636770601032890. - DOI
    1. Barnoy S. Genetic testing for late-onset diseases: Effect of disease controllability, test predictivity, and gender on the decision to take the test. Genetic Testing. 2007;11(2):187–193. doi: 10.1089/gte.2006.0509. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Birnbacher D. Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. Stuttgart: Reclam; 1988.