Embryos, cells and God

Ethical Guiding Principles of "Do No Harm" and the "Intention to Save Lives" in relation to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Finding Common Ground between Religious Views and Principles of Medical Ethics

One of the goals of medicine is to improve well-being, in line with the principle of beneficence (do no harm). Likewise, scientists claim that the goal of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research is to find treatments for diseases. In hESC research, stem cells are harvested from a 5-day-old embryo. Surplus embryos from infertility treatments or embryos created for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells are used in the research, and in the process the embryos get destroyed. The use of human embryos for research purpose raises ethical concern. In this context, the religious leaders play the role to be the moral compass and "reality check" to engage with the public. In Malaysia, the Ministry of Health has outlined the Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Therapy, reflecting on Islamic principles. Since there has not been much focus on the viewpoints of other faiths in Malaysia, this study attempts to (i) explore the ethical guiding principles deliberated by religious leaders from the Buddhist, Hindu and Catholic traditions and (ii) identify if there is a common ground between the mainstream religious views and principles of medical ethics, in relation to hESC research. Eleven religious leaders representing the Buddhist, Hindu and Catholic traditions were interviewed. Interestingly, though reasoning of religious leaders came from different angles, their underlying concerns revolve around the values of "do no harm" and "intention to save lives". These values are also the key principles in medical ethics. The findings are applied to answer the question as to whether religious and medical guiding principles can co-exist and complement in ethical decision-making, without compromising the values.

Normative Criteria and Their Inclusion in a Regulatory Framework for New Plant Varieties Derived From Genome Editing

Any legal regulation has to take into account fundamental interests and concerns, whether of private or public nature. This applies in particular to the politically and socially sensitive question of regulating plant biotechnology. With the advent of new breeding techniques, such as genome editing, new challenges are arising for legislators around the world. However, in coping with them not only the technical particularities of the new breeding techniques must be taken into account but also the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests of the various stakeholders. In order to be able to draft a suitable regulatory regime for these new techniques, the different interests and concerns at play are identified. Subsequently, a determination is made on how these interests relate to each other, before regulatory concepts to reconcile the conflicting demands are presented. The examined normative criteria, which can have an impact on regulatory decisions regarding genome edited plants and products derived from them, include: industry interests, farmer interests, public opinion, consumer rights and interests, human health and food safety, food security, environmental protection, consistency, and coherence of the regulatory framework and ethical or religious convictions. Since those interests differ from country to country depending on the respective political, economic, and social circumstances, the respective legislator has the task of identifying these normative criteria and must find a suitable balance between them. To this end, a concept is developed on how the different interests can be related to each other and how to deal with conflicting and irreconcilable demands. Additionally, a legislator may have recourse to a number of further analyzed regulatory measures. An approval or notification procedure can be used for a risk assessment or a socio-economic evaluation. Coexistence measures and labeling provisions are able to reconcile interests that are at odds with each other and the precautionary principle can justify certain safeguard measures. As a result, the individual country-specific regulatory outcomes regarding genome edited plants are likely to be as manifold as the interests and regulatory measures at hand.

Using Surplus Embryos and Research Embryos in Stem Cell Research: Ethical Viewpoints of Buddhist, Hindu and Catholic Leaders in Malaysia on the Permissibility of Research

The sources of embryos for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) include surplus embryos from infertility treatments, and research embryos which are created solely for an ESCR purpose. The latter raises more ethical concerns. In a multi-religious country like Malaysia, ethical discussions on the permissibility of ESCR with regard to the use surplus and research embryos are diversified. Malaysia has formulated guidelines influenced by the national fatwa ruling which allows the use of surplus embryos in ESCR. Input from other main religions is yet to be documented. In light of this, this study addresses (i) the ethical viewpoints of Buddhist, Hindu and Catholic leaders on the permissibility of using surplus and research embryos; and (ii) the moral standpoints of religious leaders towards attaining a consensus on the practice of ESCR in Malaysia. Responses from the religious leaders were obtained via semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. The findings show that generally the Buddhist and Hindu leaders approve the use of surplus embryos. Their responses on the creation of research embryos for ESCR are varied. Meanwhile, the Catholic leaders distinctively objected to ESCR regardless of the embryo sources, referring to it as the destruction of life. Taking into account the diverse views, this study explores the response of the religious leaders for a general consensus wherever possible. The ethical discourse surrounding ESCR in a multi-religious setting offers new perspective, which needs to be explored in a broader global community.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BIOETHICAL ISSUES FROM VIEW POINTS OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY, ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND ORTHODOX JUDAISM

The arguments set forth by religious authority are important since they play a crucial role in shaping the social values of the public and influence the decision of individuals in practice pertaining to bioethical issues. The Religious Affairs Administration (RAA) was established at the inception of the Republic of Turkey in 1924 to guide religious considerations moving out of the Ottoman caliphate to a secular bioethical framework. In this article, the bioethical views of the RAA under Islamic tradition is examined and contrasted with those influenced by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Judaic traditions. On bioethical deliberations related to the beginning and end-of-life, all three religious traditions justify sacredness of life and that of God's will in its preservation it. Assisted reproduction techniques between spouses is considered to be appropriate, although third party involvement is explicitly forbidden. Organ transplantation is approved by all three religious traditions, except uterine transplantation. Contraceptive practices are approved under certain conditions - views differ most on approaches to contraception and the appropriateness of methods. The RAA judgement on cloning is to prohibit it, like Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism. In other topics, cosmetic surgery and gender determination are approved only for treatment.

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

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.