ABSTRACT
Religious convictions are often regarded as having direct influence on reproductive decisions, for example with regard to termination of pregnancy or to family planning. Those critical of the potential misuse of genetic technologies can also refer to religion as setting limits on medical interventions that verge on ‘playing God’. However, the notion of playing God can be differently interpreted. The Catholic interpretation is rather restrictive on this matter, arguing for example that reproductive genetic technologies should be opposed. Judaism, in contrast, argues that Man is to be perceived as co-creator with God. We should thus strive to improve on God’s creation without falling into the illusion that we are Godlike – as happened in the story of the Tower of Babel. No doubt religious faith contributes to the cultural variation in attitudes towards genetic testing, and especially towards prenatal testing. There are, however, at least three arguments that seriously undermine such generalisations. First, religious denominations such as Christianity or Judaism do not imply a singular and monolithic view. For example, whereas higher religiosity in the Christian context often correlates with more sceptical/hostile attitudes towards new genetic technologies (Evans, 2007), it was found that British Christians perceived religious arguments in a less constraining manner within concrete scenarios that related to their own life-worlds (Prainsack and Spector, 2006). Second, religious restrictions regarding prenatal testing represent formal statements which follow general principles, while actual decision making is performed by lay people in concrete situations. Religion can certainly provide a more restrictive or permissive backdrop for individual decision making, but it does not predict it. Among Muslims in Britain, for example, as many as 67 per cent said that they would consider termination following a prenatal diagnosis of thalassaemia (Atkin et al., 2008). Third, the articulation of religious faith is made by people in the context of other cultural, political and historical narratives, which shape their attitudes. In this chapter I use the case of the modern-religious Jewish community to provide an actual setting for these quandaries. My initial premise is that when shifting from the declarative to the more practical, personal and concrete theme of decision making, we might find a more pragmatic outlook amongst participants. It is possible that when making a decision regarding genetic testing, responsibilities for one’s own future, as well as one’s family, are seen as more influential than religion per se (Atkin et al., 2008).
