Journal of Medical Humanities

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 191–207 | Cite as

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

  • Aviad Raz
  • Christina Schües
  • Nadja Wilhelm
  • Christoph Rehmann-Sutter


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.


Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis Sibling donors Germany and Israel Media decoding 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Advisory Bioethics Committee 2003. Guidelines for using PGD. Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Anderson, C. 2006. The Long Tail. NY: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  5. Benedict XVI, Sovereign Pontiff. 2008. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions.,
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowker, G. and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bundesministerium der Justiz. 2011. Bundesgesetzblatt I (BGBI), I S. 2228, PräimpG.Google Scholar
  9. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 2008. Dignitas Personae: On Certain Bioethical Questions. Google Scholar
  10. DeGrazia, D. 2012. Creation Ethics: Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deutsche Ethikrat, 2011. Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Stellungnahme. Berlin.
  12. Diekämper, J. 2011. Reproduziertes Leben. Biomacht in Zeiten der präimplantationsdiagnostik. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD). 1987. Zur Achtung vor dem Leben – Maßstäbe für Gentechnik und Fortpflanzungsmedizin.
  15. 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.
  16. Evangelische Kirche Deutschland. 2012. Stellungnahme der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland zum Entwurf einer Rechtsverordnung der Bundesregierung über die rechtmäßige Durchführung einer Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Präimplantationsdiagnostikverordnung – PIDV). Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, S. and C. Roberts. 2006. Born and Made. An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Genetics and Public Policy Center. 2004b. Reproductive Genetic Testing: What America Thinks. Report of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University.
  20. German Bundestag. 2002. Final Report. Submitted by the Study Commission on Law and Ethics in Modern Medicine.
  21. Habermas, J. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Hackenberg, H., ed. 2010. Beim Leben meiner Schwester, Katholisches Filmwerk GmbH. (13.03.14).
  23. Hall, S. 1973. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. Birmingham, England: Centre for Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  24. Harari, S. 2005. A Present for the Future. Kinneret Zmora-Bitan Dvir Publishing House, Israel (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  25. Hart, J., K.L. Walker, and J.L. Gregg 2007. “Communication Ethics and My Sister's Keeper.” Communication Teacher 21 (4): 123-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. 2007. A Life (Un)Worthy of Living: Reproductive Genetics in Israel and Germany. Berlin: Springer-Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. -----. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Harris J. 1998. Genes, Clones and Immortality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Henning, T. Retter-Kinder. 2013. “Instrumentalisierung und Kants Zweckformel.“ Ethik in der Medizin. doi  10.1007/s00481-013-0253-9.
  31. 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
  32. Hepp, H. 2003. “Pränatalmedizin und Embryonenschutz—ein Widerspruch der Werte.” Der Gynäkologe 36 (7): 572-581.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. -----. 2011. “’Be fertile and multiply’: The Foundation of the Ethics of Procreation and Genetic Technologies.” Medical Law and Bioethics 4, 15-36 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  35. Horkheimer, M. and T. Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, translated by G. Schmid Noerr and E. Jephcott. Stanford, Calif.Google Scholar
  36. Israeli parliament (Knesset). 2005. “PGD for Sex Selection and other Medical Purposes.” The Science and Technology Committee, protocol number 124. (Hebrew)
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kollek, R. 2002. Preimplantationsdiagnostik. Embryonenselektion, weibliche Autonomie und Recht. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Lai, A. 2011. “To be or not to be my Sister’s Keeper?” Journal of Legal Medicine 32 (3): 261-293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laufs, A., in Laufs, A./Kern, B.-R., ed. 2010. Handbuch des Arztrechtes, § 6, München: Beck.Google Scholar
  42. Maio, G., ed. 2007. Der Status des extrakorporalen Embryos. Perspektiven eines interdisziplinären Zugangs. Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. McGee, G. 2000. The Perfect Baby. Parenthood in the New World of Cloning and Genetics. 2nd ed. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  45. Meister, U. et al. 2005. “Knowledge and Attitudes towards Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Germany.” Human Reproduction 20 (1): 231-238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merkel, R. 2002. Forschungsobjekt Embryo. Verfassungsrechtliche und ethische Grundlagen der Forschung an menschlichen embryonalen Stammzellen. dtv, München.Google Scholar
  47. Ministry of Health, State of Israel. 2006. Guidelines for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Circulation letter 50. (Hebrew).
  48. Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften. 2011, Januar. Ad-hoc-Stellungnahme, PID- Auswirkungen einer begrenzten Zulassung in Deutschland.
  49. National Ethics Council. 2003. “Report on Genetic Diagnosis before and during Pregnancy.” Berlin.
  50. National Ethics Council. 2011. “Report on PGD.”
  51. Picoult, J. 2004. My Sister’s Keeper. Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pühler W., C.D. Middel and M. Hübner, eds. 2009. Praxisleitfaden Gewebegesetz. Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Kommentierungen. Deutscher Ärzteverlag.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ———. 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.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 2010. “Through the Looking Glass: Engaging in a Socio-ethical, Cross-cultural Dialogue.” New Genetics and Society 29 (1): 55-59.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rehmann-Sutter C. 2007. “Embryoselektion zur Gewebespende? Fälle von PID-HLA und ihre Analyse in individual- und sozialethischer” Perspektive. Ethica 15:115-143.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 2009. “Why Non-directiveness is Insufficient. Ethics of Genetic Decision making and a Model of Agency.” Medicine Studies 1:113-129.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. Revel, M., ed. 2008. Ethical Issues in PGD. Jerusalem: Israel National Bioethics Committee and the Israel National Academy of Sciences (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  61. Richter-Kuhlmann E. 2011. “Präimplantationsdiagnostik: Der Bundestag hat entschieden, dass Gentests an Embryonen künftig erlaubt sein sollen.” Dtsch Arztebl, 108:1322-1323.Google Scholar
  62. Sandel, M.J. 2007. The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Savulescu, J. 2001. “Procreative Beneficience: Why We Should Select The Best Children.” Bioethics 15 (5): 413-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmidt-Recla A. 2009. Kontraindikation und Kindeswohl. Die zulässige “Knochenmarkspende durch Kinder.” GesR 11:565-572.Google Scholar
  65. Schües, C. 2008. Philosophie des Geborenseins. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
  66. ———. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Schües, C./Rehmann-Sutter, C., 2013. “The well- and unwell-being of a Child.” Topoi  10.1007/s11245-013-9157-z.
  68. Schwinger E. 2002. Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Medizinische Indikation oder unzulässige Selektion? Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  69. Shalev, C. 2009. “End-of-life Care in Israel—The Dying Patient Law 2005.” Israel Law Review 42 (2): 279-305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. ———. 2010. “Reclaiming the Patient’s Voice and Spirit in Dying: An Insight from Israel.” Bioethics 24 (3): 134–144.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Valkenburg, G. and E. Aarden. 2011. “Constructing Embryos, Constructing Politics: Connecting Politics and Technology in the Netherlands and Germany.” BioSocieties 6:447-465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wiesemann, C. 2006. Von der Verantwortung, ein Kind zu bekommen. Eine Ethik der Elternschaft. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aviad Raz
    • 1
  • Christina Schües
    • 2
  • Nadja Wilhelm
    • 2
  • Christoph Rehmann-Sutter
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyBen-Gurion University of the NegevBe’er-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Institut für Medizingeschichte und WissenschaftsforschungUniversität zu LübeckLübeckGermany
  3. 3.Biowissenschaften Institut für Medizingeschichte und WissenschaftsforschungUniversität zu LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations