Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, stem cells and Jewish law

Tradition

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 54-75

  Broyde, Michael J ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CHIMERA; EMBRYO RESEARCH; ETHICS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RELIGION; RELIGIOUS APPROACH; STEM CELL;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; RELIGIOUS APPROACH;

CHIMERA; EMBRYO RESEARCH; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HUMANS; JUDAISM; PREIMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; STEM CELLS;

EID: 21744445106     PISSN: 00410608     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. This material is taken from the Genetics and Public Policy Center manual entitled "Reproductive Genetic Testing: The Science and Regulatory Environment," distributed at the conference of January 6-7, 2003, Washington, DC, and their preliminary report, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: A Discussion of Challenges, Concerns, and Preliminary Policy Options Related to the Genetic Testing of Human Embryos, dated January 2004, available at their website, www.dnapolicy.org. In the real world, PGD serves as an alternative to prenatal testing in which one diagnoses a genetic disease or condition in a developing fetus. Two broad categories of prenatal testing are available. Invasive procedures, such as amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, are those in which a sample of fetal cells or tissue is obtained. The non-invasive procedures are ultrasound or taking a sample of the mother's blood. All of these prenatal testing techniques lead to abortion as a way of avoiding the birth of a child with a defect, although CVS testing is at a much earlier stage in pregnancy than amniocenteses.
2. Judah Loew of Prague (Maharal), Bi'ur ha-Gola, pp. 38-39 (Jerusalem, 5731).
3. Genesis 1:26.
4. Jewish law permits this enjoyment. Such conduct was prohibited by Jewish law because it was not part of the Divine mission for the Jewish people. Jewish law is not a general ethical category governing the conduct of all, but its scope and application is limited to Jews, not merely jurisdictionally, but even theologically. This point of view would seem apparent from the general attitude that the Jewish tradition takes to a number of proselytizing issues; for more on this, see Michael Broyde, "Proselytizing and Jewish Law," in John Witte, Jr. and Richard C. Martin, eds., Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs of Proselytism, pp. 45-60 (Maryknoll, NY, 1999).
5. Exodus 21:19.
6. "Will Cloning Beget Disaster?" Wall Street Journal, Friday, May 2, 1997.
7. Shulhan Arukh, Yorch De'a 336:1.
8. Catholic Medical Association, Human Cloning: Position Paper of the Catholic Medical Association
9. reprinted in Issues of Law & Medicine 15:323, pp. 323-324 (2000).
10. See Hastings Law Journal 53:1143, 1182.
11. See Laurence Tribe, "Second Thoughts on Cloning," New York Times, Dec. 5, 1997 (advocating the free market approach to cloning).
12. Gina Kolata, "Human Cloning: Yesterday's Never Is Today's Why Not?" New Tork Times, Dec. 2, 1997.
13. Press release dated August 21, 2001, which can be found online at www.jlaw.com/PressReleases/01-08-21.html
14. See Leroy Walters and Julie Gage Palmer, The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy (1997) and President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Splicing Life, pp. 25-30 (1982).
15. See also "Note, Regulating Human Gene Therapy: Legislative Overreaction to Human Subject Protection Failures," Administrative Law Review 53:315, pp. 320-321 (2001). It may not be readily apparent to all readers that this third category-testing-belongs in a discussion of genetic engineering. Examination and analysis, after all, is a far cry from actually altering the structure of genetic material within living beings. Nonetheless, testing here should be viewed in the broader context of sorting and selecting for the purpose of passing genetic material on to future generations. In a world of limited resources, the process of sorting is a form of genetic engineering.
16. See J. David Bleich, "The Obligation to Heal in the Judaic Tradition," in J. David Bleich and Fred Rosner eds., Jewish Bioethics (Hebrew Publishing Company, NY, 1979).
17. See for example Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, 328 and comments of Magen Avraham, 328:6.
18. The observation of R. Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Ketsi'a 328, is worth noting: "A person is obligated to be treated . . . only when the doctor is using a well established medically effective cure which has been proven reliable. When it has, a person in danger may be treated against his will."
19. R. Moses Feinstein in Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh De'a 3:36,
20. quotes Mishnat Hakhamim as prohibiting such treatment. Indeed, R. Feinstein's view is itself unclear, as in Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh De'a 2:58 he formulates a rule different from the one he formulates in Yoreh De'a 3:36.
21. See "The Foetus and Foeticide," from David M. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law (Third edition, New York, 1995),
22. and "Abortion in Halakhic Literature," in J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 1, pp. 325-371.
23. Maxwell J. Mailman, "The Law of Above Averages: Leveling the New Genetic Enhancement Playing Field," Iowa Law Review 85:517 (2000).
24. See George J. Annals, "The Man on the Moon, Immortality and Other Millennial Myths: The Prospects and Perils of Human Genetic Engineering," Emory Law Journal 49:753 (2000) who states: On the national level, I (and others) called for a moratorium on human gene transfer experiments, what are more commonly (and incorrecdy) referred to as "gene therapy" in early 2000. Many experiments were halted, but others continued, as does the debate about whether we know enough at this time to use them on humans. Formal moratorium or not, we must have a national (and international) debate on the goals of the research, and whether the lines between somatic cell and germ line research, or between treatment and enhancement research are meaningful. My own view is that the boundary line that really matters is set by the nature of the species itself, and that species-altering experiments should be outlawed.
25. See Scale Harris, Bunting's Miracle: The Story of the Discovery of Insulin (Lippincott, 1946).
26. For a fine volume on this topic, see The Orthodox Forum Proceedings VI: Jewish Responsibilities to Society, (D. Shatz & C. Waxman eds., 1997).
27. However, subsequent reports indicate that the "Chief Rabbinate doesn't reject genetic engineering in principle, but limits must be set, Chief Rabbis Eliahu Bakshi-Doron and Yisrael Lau told the Knesset Science and Technology Committee at Hechal Shlomo on Monday;" Jerusalem Post, April 2, 1997, p. 3, "News in Brief."
28. Robert Langreth, "Cloning Has Fascinating, Disturbing Potential" (Wall Street Journal, Monday, February 24, 1997), states that: In producing the first clone of an adult mammal, researchers plied a seemingly simple technique to achieve what many thought to be impossible. Here's how it worked: - Researchers took mammary-gland cells culled from an adult sheep, put them into a test tube and forced the cells into an inactive state by limiting their intake of nutrients. - Next, they took unfertilized eggs from female sheep and mechanically removed the DNA-containing nucleus from each egg. - They then used standard lab techniques to insert 277 of the adult DNA cells into 277 eggs. - Of these fused egg cells, only 29 survived for a few days and were surgically implanted into the wombs of 13 ewes. - One of the 13 sheep became pregnant and gave birth to a lamb that was an exact genetic replica of the adult donor, carrying none of the mother's genes.
29. Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources Principles (Philadelphia, 1996), pp. 1103-1204.
30. See "Compelling Tissue Donations," J. David Bleich, Tradition 27:4, pp. 59-89 (1993). The rationale for this being that such donations (which are not really donations according to Jewish law, as they can be compelled) are neither statistically harmful nor particularly painful, and thus one who engages in this activity fulfills the biblical obligation not to stand by while their neighbor's blood is shed. This activity is compulsory activity in the same way one must jump into the water to save one who is drowning, if one knows how to swim and such activity poses no danger.
31. Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 154:6-7;
32. and Yehiel Michel Epstein, Arukh ha-Shulhan, Even ha-Ezer 154:52-53.
33. "Halakhic Approaches to the Resolution of Disputes Concerning the Disposition of Preembryos," Yitzchok A. Breitowitz, Tradition 31:1, 64-91 (1996).
34. See Michael Broyde, "Child Custody and Jewish Law: A Review," Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 36, pp. 21-46 (1999).
35. For further discussion on this topic see "Experimental Procedures and Pikuach Nefesh: The Concept of Refu'ah Bedukah," J. David Bleich, Tradition 25:1, pp. 50-58 (1989).
36. Gina Kolata, "Human Embryos Created Through Cloning," New York Times, February 12, 2004.
37. See Michael Broyde, "Cloning People: A Jewish View," Connecticut Law Review 30:2, pp. 503-535 (1997).
38. Human-mouse hybrid experiments have been considered-see Nicholas Wade, "Stem Cell Mixing May Form a Human-Mouse Hybrid," New York Times, November 27, 2002;
39. as have human-cow hybrids-see Nicholas Wade, "Human-Cow Hybrid Cells Are Topic of Ethics Panel," New York Times, November 18, 1988.
40. Niddah 3:2.