Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling 3/2016

01-06-2016 | Original Research

The Moral Reasoning of Genetic Dilemmas Amongst Jewish Israeli Undergraduate Students with Different Religious Affiliations and Scientific Backgrounds

Authors: Merav Siani, Orit Ben-Zvi Assaraf

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to shed light on the moral reasoning of undergraduate Israeli students towards genetic dilemmas, and on how these are affected by their religious affiliation, by the field they study and by their gender. An open ended questionnaire was distributed among 449 undergraduate students in institutions of higher education in Israel, and their answers were analyzed according to the framework described by Sadler and Zeidler (Science Education, 88(1), 4–27, 2004). They were divided into two major categories: those whose reasoning was based on the consideration of moral consequences (MC), and those who supported their opinion by citing non-consequentialist moral principles (MP). Students’ elaborations to questions dealing with values towards genetic testing showed a correlation between the students’ religious affiliation and their reasoning, with religious students’ elaborations tending to be more principle based than those of secular ones. Overall, the students’ elaborations indicate that their main concern is the possibility that their personal genetic information will be exposed, and that their body’s personal rights will be violated. We conclude the paper by offering several practical recommendations based on our findings for genetic counseling that is specifically tailored to fit different patients according to their background.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Alvarado, K. A., Templer, D. I., Bresler, C., & Thomas-Dobson, S. (1995). The relationship of religious variables to death depression and death anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 202–204.CrossRefPubMed
Aqueel, A. I. (2007). Islamic ethical framework for research into and prevention of genetic diseases. Nature Genetics, 39, 1293–1298.CrossRef
Atkinson, B. E., & Malony, H. N. (1994). Religious maturity and psychological distress among older Christian women. Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 4, 165–179.CrossRef
Awwad, R., McCarthy, V. P., Bartels, D. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2008). Culture and acculturation influences on Palestinian perceptions of prenatal genetic counseling. Genetic Counseling, 17, 101–116.CrossRef
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2010). Effects of justice and utilitarianism on ethical decision making: a cross-cultural examination of gender similarities and differences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19, 309–325.CrossRef
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.CrossRef
Boerwinkel, D. J., Knippels, M. C., & Waarlo, A. J. (2011). Raising awareness of pre-symptomatic genetic testing. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 213–221.CrossRef
Bowling, B. V., Acra, E. E., Wang, L., Myers, M. F., Dean, G. E., Markle, G. C., et al. (2008). Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics, 178, 15–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367.CrossRef
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.CrossRef
Curtis, M. B., Conover, T. L., & Chui, L. C. (2012). A cross-cultural study of the influence of country of origin, justice, power distance, and gender on ethical decision making. Journal of International Accounting Research, 11(1), 5–34.CrossRef
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: an indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.CrossRef
Dickerson, D. L., Dawkins, K. R., & Penick, J. E. (2008). Clergy’s views of the relationship between science and religious faith and the implications for science education. Science & Education, 17, 359–386.CrossRef
Dietz, T., Fitzgeralds, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 335–372.CrossRef
Dormandy, E., Tsui, E. Y. L., & Marteau, T. M. (2007). Development of a measure of informed choice suitable for use in low literacy populations. Patient Education and Counselling, 66, 278–295.CrossRef
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., et al. (2012). Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361–1367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Narvaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development, and multicultural experiences: relations and cognitive underpinnings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 403–419.CrossRef
Evers-Kiebooms, G., Welkenhuysen, M., Claes, E., Decruyenaere, M., & Denayer, L. (2000). The psychological complexity of predictive testing for late onset neurogenetic diseases and hereditary cancers: implications for multidisciplinary counselling and for genetic education. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 831–841.CrossRef
Gordis, R. (1978). Abortion: major wrong or basic right. Midstream, 24, 44–49.
Gordon, E. S., Griffin, G., Wawak, L., Pang, H., Gollust, S. E., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2012). “It’s not like judgment day”: public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 423–432.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Haga, S. B., Barry, W. T., Mills, R., Ginsburg, G. S., Svetkey, L., Sullivan, J., & Willard, H. F. (2013). Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 17(4), 327–335.
Herman, T., Be’ery, G., Heller, E., Cohen, C., Lebel, Y., Mozes, H., et al. (2014). The national-religious sector in Israel 2014. Israel: Israel Democracy Institute.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341–368.CrossRef
Inglehart, R. F., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703.CrossRefPubMed
Kaufman, D. J., Bollinger, J. M., Dvoskin, R. L., & Scott, J. A. (2012). Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 413–422.CrossRefPubMed
King, P. M., & Mayhew, M. J. (2002). Moral judgement development in higher education: insights from the defining issues test. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 247–270.CrossRef
Koenig, H., King, D., & Carson, V. B. (2012). Handbook of religion and health. Oxford University Press.
Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: moral reasoning about ecological commoms dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261–272.CrossRef
Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857–887.CrossRef
Lewis, L. J. (2002). Models of genetic counseling and their effects on multicultural genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 11(3), 193–212.CrossRefPubMed
Lindahl, M. G. (2009). Ethics or morals: understanding students’ values related to genetic tests on humans. Science & Education, 18(10), 1285–1311.CrossRef
Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (1998). Attitudes toward women’s roles in society: a replication after 20 years. Sex Roles, 39(11–12), 903–912.CrossRef
Makoul, G., & Clayman, M. L. (2006). An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(3), 301–312.CrossRefPubMed
Marteau, T. M., Dormandy, E., & Michie, S. (2001). A measure of informed choice. Health Expectations, 4, 99–108.CrossRefPubMed
Ngim, C. F., Lai, N. M., Ibrahim, H., & Ratnasingam, V. (2013). Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and abortion in a multi-ethnic country: a survey among parents of children with thalassaemia major in Malaysia. Journal of Community Genetics, 4(2), 215–221.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior crass-nationally: values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462–483.CrossRef
Ota Wang, V. (2001). Multicultural genetic counseling: then, now, and in the 21st century. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 106, 208–215.CrossRef
Parette, P. (1999). Transition planning with families across cultures. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 213–211.CrossRef
Parsons, E. C., & Carlone, H. B. (2013). Culture and science education in the 21st century: extending and making the cultural box more inclusive. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 1–11.CrossRef
Peters, K. F., & Petrill, S. A. (2011). Development of a scale to assess the background, needs, and expectations of genetic counseling clients. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155(4), 673–683.CrossRef
Pivetti, M., & Melotti, G. (2013). Prenatal genetic testing: an investigation of determining factors affecting the decision-making process. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 76–89.CrossRefPubMed
Pivetti, M., Montali, L., & Simonetti, G. (2012). The discourse around usefulness, morality, risk and trust: a focus group study on prenatal genetic testing. Prenatal Diagnosis, 32(12), 1205–1211.CrossRefPubMed
Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: an experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605–628.CrossRef
Raz, A. E. (2004). Important to test, important to support”: attitudes toward disability rights and prenatal diagnosis among leaders of support groups for genetic disorders in Israel. Social Science & Medicine, 59(9), 1857–1866.CrossRef
Raz, A. E. (2009). Community genetics and genetic alliances: Eugenics, carrier testing, and networks of risk. New York: Routledge.
Raz, A. E., & Atar, M. (2003). Nondirectiveness and its lay interpretations: the effect of counseling style, ethnicity and culture on attitudes towards genetic counseling among Jewish and Bedouin respondents in Israel. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12(4), 313–332.CrossRefPubMed
Rosner, G., Rosner, S., & Orr-Urtreger, A. (2009). Genetic testing in Israel: an overview. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 10, 175–192.CrossRefPubMed
Rothbart, M. K., Hanley, D., & Albert, M. (1986). Gender differences in moral reasoning. Sex Roles, 15(11–12), 645–653.CrossRef
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 6). Pittsburgh: Rws Publications.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.CrossRef
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.CrossRef
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.CrossRef
Schiff, D. (2002). Abortion in Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65.CrossRef
Seth, S. G., Goka, T., Harbison, A., Hollier, L., Peterson, S., Ramondetta, L., et al. (2011). Exploring the role of religiosity and spirituality in amniocentesis decision-making among Latinas. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(6), 660–673.CrossRefPubMed
Shaw, A. (2011). Risk and reproductive decisions: British Pakistani couples’ responses to genetic counselling. Social Science & Medicine, 73(1), 111–120.CrossRef
Shaw, A., & Hurst, J. A. (2008). “What is this genetics, anyway?” Understandings of genetics, illness causality and inheritance among British Pakistani users of genetic services. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17, 373–383.CrossRefPubMed
Sher, C., Romano-Zelekha, O., Green, M. S., & Shohat, T. (2003). Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 120(3), 418–422.CrossRef
Shiloh, S. (1994). Heuristics and biases in health decision making: their expression in genetic counseling. In L. Heath, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 13–30). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRef
Siani, M., & Assaraf, O. B. (2015). University students’ attitudes towards genetic testing: a comparative study. American Journal of Public Health Research, 3(3), 81–90.CrossRef
Signorielli, N. (2012). Gender-role socialization in the twenty-first century. In A. N. Valdivia (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies: Media history and the foundations of media studies. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from doi:10.​1002/​9781444361506.​wbiems116.
Solli, A., Bach, F., & Åkerman, B. (2014). Learning to argue as a biotechnologist: disprivileging opposition to genetically modified food. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(1), 1–23.CrossRef
Starr, L. J. (2010). Does anyone really know anything? An exploration of constructivist meaning and identity in the tension between scientific and religious knowledge. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 191–200.CrossRef
Stephens, M., Jordens, C. F., Kerridge, I. H., & Ankeny, R. A. (2010). Religious perspectives on abortion and a secular response. Journal of Religion and Health, 49(4), 513–535.CrossRefPubMed
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmantally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRef
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
Taylor, S. (2011). A population-based survey in Australia of men’s and women’s perceptions of genetic risk and predictive genetic testing and implications for primary care. Public Health Genomics, 14(6), 325–336.CrossRefPubMed
Ten Have, H. (2001). Genetics and culture: the geneticization thesis medicine. Health Care and Philosophy, 4, 295–304.CrossRef
Tibben, A. (1993). What is knowledge but grieving? On psychological effects of presymptomatic DNA-testing for Huntington’s disease. Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Tytler, R. (2012). Socio-scientific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 155–163.CrossRef
Van der Zande, P., Akkerman, S. F., Brekelmans, M., Waarlo, A. J., & Vermunt, J. D. (2012). Expertise for teaching biology situated in the context of genetic testing. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1741–1767.CrossRef
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: a follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1057–1095.CrossRef
Wagner, S. C., & Sanders, G. L. (2001). Considerations in ethical decision-making and software piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1–2), 161–167.CrossRef
Weil, J. (2001). Multicultural education and genetic counseling. Clinical Genetics, 59(3), 143–149.CrossRefPubMed
Wert, G. D., Meulen, R. T., Mordacci, R., & Tallacchini, M. (2003). Ethics and genetics: A workbook for practitioners and students. Berghahn Books.
Williams, D. R., Larson, D. B., Buckler, R. E., Heckmann, R. C., & Pyle, C. M. (1991). Religion and psychological distress in a community sample. Social Science & Medicine, 32(11), 1257–1262.CrossRef
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Woltanski, A. R., Cragun, R. T., Myers, M. F., & Cragun, D. L. (2009). Views on abortion: a comparison of female genetic counselors and women from the general population. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(1), 28–41.CrossRefPubMed
Zayts, O., Sarangi, S., Thong, M. K., Chung, B. H. Y., Lo, I. F. M., Kan, A. S. Y., ... & Wasant, P. (2013). Genetic counseling/consultation in South-East Asia: a report from the workshop at the 10th Asia Pacific conference on human genetics. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(6), 917–924.
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251–283.CrossRef
Zlotogora, J. (2002). Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy with an abnormal finding after an invasive prenatal test. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22(12), 1102–1106.CrossRefPubMed
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Moral Reasoning of Genetic Dilemmas Amongst Jewish Israeli Undergraduate Students with Different Religious Affiliations and Scientific Backgrounds
Authors
Merav Siani
Orit Ben-Zvi Assaraf
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9918-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Journal of Genetic Counseling 3/2016 Go to the issue

Original Research

Reproductive Decision-Making in MMR Mutation Carriers After Results Disclosure: Impact of Psychological Status in Childbearing Options

Original Research

Communication Between Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Inconclusive Genetic Test Results and Their Daughters and Sisters Years After Testing

Original Research

Genetic Test Results and Disclosure to Family Members: Qualitative Interviews of Healthcare Professionals’ Perceptions of Ethical and Professional Issues in France

Original Research

Predictive Genetic Testing and Alternatives to Face to Face Results Disclosure: A Retrospective Review of Patients Preference for Alternative Modes of BRCA 1 and 2 Results Disclosure in the Republic of Ireland

Original Research

Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling

Original Research

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: a Survey of Perspectives on Carrier Testing and Communication Within the Family