Christoph Rehmann-Sutter

In light of scientific advances such as genomics, predictive diagnostics, genetically engineered agriculture, nuclear transfer cloning, and the manipulation of stem cells, the idea that genes carry predetermined molecular programs or blueprints is pervasive. Yet new scientific discoveries—such as rna transcripts of single genes that can lead to the production of different compounds from the same pieces of dna—challenge the concept of the gene alone as the dominant factor in biological development. Increasingly aware of the tension between certain empirical results and interpretations of those results based on the orthodox view of genetic determinism, a growing number of scientists urge a rethinking of what a gene is and how it works. In this collection, a group of internationally renowned scientists present some prominent alternative approaches to understanding the role of dna in the construction and function of biological organisms. Contributors discuss alternatives to the programmatic view of dna, including the developmental systems approach, methodical culturalism, the molecular process concept of the gene, the hermeneutic theory of description, and process structuralist biology. None of the approaches cast doubt on the notion that dna is tremendously important to biological life on earth; rather, contributors examine different ideas of how dna should be represented, evaluated, and explained. Just as ideas about genetic codes have reached far beyond the realm of science, the reconceptualizations of genetic theory in this volume have broad implications for ethics, philosophy, and the social sciences. Contributors. Thomas Bürglin, Brian C. Goodwin, James Griesemer, Paul Griffiths, Jesper Hoffmeyer, Evelyn Fox Keller, Gerd B. Müller, Eva M. Neumann-Held, Stuart A. Newman, Susan Oyama, Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, Sahotra Sarkar, Jackie Leach Scully, Gerry Webster, Ulrich Wolf.

Current challenges in medicine and healthcare raise new questions regarding the moral relations between generations, thus highlighting the increasing relevance of intergenerational perspectives in healthcare ethics. However, the underlying notions of generations often remain vague and heterogeneous. This contribution aims to clarify the scope of conceptual meanings of ‘generation’ through explication and differentiation in order to advance the analytical potential of intergenerational perspectives in healthcare ethics. We argue that the concept of generations needs theoretical elaboration with regard to the dimensions of collectivity and temporality. We first introduce three approaches towards the theoretical conceptualization of generations: a genealogical, a chronological, and a socio-cultural approach. Regardless of their differences, all three essentially share an understanding of generations as collectives situated in time. Accordingly, we then examine the scope of underlying notions of collectivity and temporality, touching upon fundamental ontological, epistemological, and moral philosophical implications. We distinguish a skeptical individualist, an aggregationist, and an entity view of collectivity, as well as a formal, linear, a subjective, existential-narrative, and a socio-cultural understanding of temporality. The combination of these dimensions allows the development of a systematic matrix of conceptions of generations and intergenerational relations in healthcare ethics whose analytical potential we illustrate with regard to three paradigmatic examples. We provide a systematic summary of our considerations and outline a research agenda that addresses desiderata for intergenerational perspectives in healthcare ethics, encompassing clinical ethics, research ethics, and public health ethics, as well as meta-ethical questions.

AbstractÜber das eigene Lebensende autonom bestimmen zu können, ist der Wunsch vieler Menschen. Höchste Gerichte in Deutschland und Österreich erkennen das Recht auf assistierten Suizid als eine Form des selbstbestimmten Sterbens an. In der Schweiz tragen Sterbehilfeorganisationen zu einer breiteren Akzeptanz bei. Wie aber ist die Suizidhilfe ethisch zu rechtfertigen? Und wie soll die emergente Praxis geregelt und gelebt werden? Die Beiträger*innen widmen sich diesen Fragen aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive. Sie beleuchten dabei vor allem das Problem der Freiverantwortlichkeit eines Suizidwunschs sowie neu entstehende Vulnerabilitäten und analysieren so die soziokulturellen Herausforderungen für eine gute Versorgung am Lebensende.

Definition of the problem This article examines the ethical implications of genomic newborn screening (gNBS) from a hermeneutic perspective. Decisions on criteria for preventive actionability, as well as on the detailed analysis and disclosure of genetic information to parents or to those affected, largely depend on the meaning and significance of the genetic information in question. gNBS represents a new form of genetic communication in which also popular understandings of the special significance of the genome play a role. Arguments The concept of „temporal vulnerability“ (Janna Thompson) can highlight the challenges faced by children who cannot consent to the collection of their genomic data at birth. Based on two case studies that are far apart in terms of _actionability_—familial hypercholesterolemia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome—the paper discusses how to find the ethically relevant reasons that play a role in deciding about early genetic diagnosis. Conclusions We advocate for a nuanced ethical framework that considers not only medical actionability but also the broader societal impacts of making genomic information available from birth.

Definition of the problem This article examines the ethical implications of genomic newborn screening (gNBS) from a hermeneutic perspective. Decisions on criteria for preventive actionability, as well as on the detailed analysis and disclosure of genetic information to parents or to those affected, largely depend on the meaning and significance of the genetic information in question. gNBS represents a new form of genetic communication in which also popular understandings of the special significance of the genome play a role. Arguments The concept of „temporal vulnerability“ (Janna Thompson) can highlight the challenges faced by children who cannot consent to the collection of their genomic data at birth. Based on two case studies that are far apart in terms of actionability—familial hypercholesterolemia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome—the paper discusses how to find the ethically relevant reasons that play a role in deciding about early genetic diagnosis. Conclusions We advocate for a nuanced ethical framework that considers not only medical actionability but also the broader societal impacts of making genomic information available from birth.

It is hard not to set an alarmist tone when it comes to the disastrous impacts of the human-made climate crisis today. Yet unrestricted heating of the atmosphere due to record-level greenhouse gases leads to extreme weather events with spiraling negative impacts on planetary and human health (World Meteorological Organization 2025; Hamilton et al. 2021; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2023). Yet, despite both the observable acceleration and escalation of extreme weather and the scientific data that attribute such changes to the climate crisis, societies have not implemented the necessary changes to prevent further socio-ecological damage. To prevent further harm, social transformation and effective policy... Read More.

To understand the escalating climate crisis from a critical bioethical perspective it is essential to view it as a relationship of injustice between generations. However, future generations are not an abstract cohort of yet-to-exist people. Instead, sequentially overlapping generations coexist at all times in generative intergenerational relationships. Polities are intergenerational communities that involve childbearing, parenting, caregiving, and shared responsibility for the wellbeing and flourishing of younger people, who, in turn, will care for their own descendants. Janna Thompson’s philosophical work on intergenerational justice helps us grasp the moral significance of redefining intergenerational relations in terms of moral obligations that extend both backward and forward in time.

Abstract: This working paper focuses on the question whether there is a therapeutic imperative that, in specific situations, would oblige us to perform genome editing at the germline level in the context of assisted reproduction. The answer to this central question is discussed primarily with reference to specific scenarios where preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) does not represent an acceptable alternative to germline genome editing based on either medical, or ethical, or – from the perspective of the potential parents – moral or religious grounds. This article deals with four different types of case constellations that result from these possible reasons against PGD as well as from the necessity or dispensability of a subsequent “control PGD.” These cases are discussed based on hypotheses concerning contextual factors and theoretical assumptions. In conclusion, we point out that if our assumptions are correct, there is probably no therapeutic imperative for genome editing at the germline level. We draw this rationale from the fact that germline interventions are likely not person-affecting. However, we caution the reader that our result is preliminary and needs to be more carefully examined in future work in light of the bioethical debate and potential objections. // Abstract: Im Zentrum dieses Working Papers steht die Frage, ob es einen therapeutischen Imperativ geben kann, der uns, in bestimmten Situationen, verpflichten würde, eine Genomeditierung (genome editing) auf Keimbahnebene im Rahmen der assistierten Befruchtung vorzunehmen. Die Antwort auf diese zentrale Frage wird insbesondere mit Bezug auf Fälle diskutiert, in denen das Verfahren der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID) keine aus entweder medizinischen oder ethischen oder – aus Sicht der potentiellen Eltern – moralischen bzw. religiösen Gründen akzeptable Alternative zu einem Keimbahneingriff darstellt. Die möglichen Gründe gegen die PID sowie die Erforderlichkeit oder Verzichtbarkeit einer nachfolgenden «Kontroll-PID» ergeben vier verschiedene Fallkonstellationen, denen sich der Beitrag zuwendet. Auf Grundlage von Hypothesen zu kontextuellen Faktoren und theoretischen Annahmen diskutieren wir diese Fälle. Im Ergebnis verweisen wir darauf, dass es, wenn unsere Annahmen zutreffen, vermutlich keinen therapeutischen Imperativ zum genome editing auf Keimbahnebene gibt. Dies begründet sich daraus, dass der Keimbahneingriff vermutlich nicht als personenbezogen (person-affecting) zu bezeichnen ist. Wir weisen jedoch darauf hin, dass unser Ergebnis vorläufig ist und unter Berücksichtigung der bioethischen Debatte und möglicher Einwände genauer geprüft werden muss. // Résumé: Ce Working Paper se concentre sur la question de l’existence d’un impératif thérapeutique qui, dans des situations spécifiques, nous obligerait à réaliser une édition du génome au niveau de la lignée germinale dans le cadre de la procréation assistée. Afin de répondre à cette question centrale nous développons quatre scénarios spécifiques dans lesquels le diagnostic préimplantatoire (DPI) ne représente pas une alternative acceptable à l’édition du génome germinal pour des raisons médicales, éthiques ou – du point de vue des futurs parents – morales ou religieuses. Cet article traite de quatre constellations différentes de cas résultant des raisons mises en avant pour s'opposer au DPI ainsi que de la nécessité ou de l’inutilité d’un ultérieur « DPI de contrôle » Ces cas sont discutés sur la base d’hypothèses portant sur les facteurs contextuels et sur les présupposés théoriques. En conclusion, nous soulignons que si nos hypothèses sont correctes, il n’y a probablement aucun impératif thérapeutique justifiant l’édition du génome au niveau de la lignée germinale. Nous arrivons à cette conclusion parce qu’une intervention au niveau de la lignée germinale n’est probablement pas susceptible d’affecter la personne. Cependant, nous mettons en garde le lecteur sur le fait que notre conclusion est préliminaire et qu’elle doit être examinée avec soin dans des futurs travaux instruits par le débat bioéthique et par les éventuelles objections.

In a series of writings, the Australian philosopher Janna Thompson (1942 - 2022) developed a political ethics of intergenerational justice. She combines the responsibilities of the present in regard of the injustice of previous generations with the responsibilities of the present for the injustice to those not yet born. Her political ethics of intergenerational justice contains an argument for the justification of intergenerational care and responsibility, which is based on vulnerability and dependency in intergenerational practices. It criticises the notion of future generations as unconnected, as yet non-existent individuals and instead describes society as a diachronic continuum of interdependent members of overlapping, interconnected generations whose members share duties and responsibilities for predecessors and successors. This article attempts to reconstruct Thompson's argument for "temporal vulnerability", i.e. for the justification of a responsibility for the well-being of unborn future generations, in the context of climate ethics. At the centre are not only the actions or decisions that are subject to norms, or the rights of future generations, but social practices that, by continuing collectively, contain a material normativity in the present from the future. The duties of the present can be recognized by examining whether these practices are justifiable vis-à-vis the future. These are duties of care and responsibility that arise from intergenerational relationships. This argument is confronted with two questions: 1) Does its validity depend, as Thompson seems to suggest, on presuppositions of a contract theory of justice? 2) How strong seems the normative binding force that emanates from her argument and how does this binding force work? Through her diachronic approach, Thompson offers an approach to intergenerational justice that looks both backwards into the past and forward into the future, leading to a nuanced understanding of the responsibility of the present generation living in structures already established by previous generations. Their responsibility can be specified in terms of what is in their power to do to stop a harmful dynamic.

The moral status of the human embryo has gained much attention in debates over the acceptability, or otherwise, of human embryonic stem cell research. Far less attention has been paid to the suppliers of those embryos: people who have undergone IVF treatment to produce embryos to assist them to have a baby. It is sociologically and ethically important to understand their views and experiences of being asked to donate embryos for research if we are to fully understand the wider social and regulatory aspects of hESC science. This paper reports on parallel studies investigating these issues in the UK and in Switzerland. The studies reveal the inextricable entangling of the social and moral status of embryos. Since donors participate in different discursive domains and contexts (public, clinic, family) that shape their perception of “what” an embryo is, their views of embryos embody conflicting ideas and ambivalences.

Background Treatment of chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) aims to improve patients’ quality of life and the extent of treatment success is measured via patient reported outcomes (PROs). However, questionnaires used to collect PROs often include scales that are not specific to IBDs. Improving these scales requires a deeper understanding of patients’ lived experience. With this study we give first insights and develop hypotheses on how patients with IBDs experience their body and self and how they adjust their life plans in the context of precision medicine (PM). The guiding question is to understand what they need to achieve a good life, while facing their disease. Methods We developed a conception of the “good life” that draws on Philippa Foot’s “naturalized” approach and distinguishes six different dimensions that are relevant for a good life. This conception guided us as we conducted 10 qualitative interviews with patients suffering from IBD who were in precision medicine clinical research settings. The interviews aimed to gain insights for answering our research question: How do body experiences affect the good life of patients with IBD? We analyzed the interviews with interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Results Five group experiential themes emerged: (i) Life options and plans, (ii) other people’s responses, (iii) strategies to deal with others’ responses, (iv) perception of the body and self, and (v) perception of life as good despite suffering. We report here on three of them (i, iv and v), which are primarily relevant for evaluating the outcomes of PM care. Whereas with “life options and plans (i),” our study predominantly confirmed previous research, with “perception of the body and self (iv),” we found that some of the patients changed their relationship to their body and themselves. They perceived the body or the disease as the “other” and their self appears divorced from their own body. Although this might be an avoidance strategy patients use to assign responsibility for their condition and its “disgusting” symptoms to the “other,” it is important to include it in patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments. Conclusions We conclude with the insight that the multi-dimensional approach based on Foot’s concept of a good life is well-suited as a basis for investigating the quality of life of people with IBD. Interviews based on this concept produced results that go beyond the understanding of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Additionally, we offer some considerations about patients’ opportunities for achieving a good life and suggestions for further developing patient reported outcome scales.

Was kann die ‚dritte‘ Geschlechtsoption jenseits von ‚weiblich‘ und ‚männlich‘ bedeuten? Auf der Grundlage der Entscheidung des deutschen Bundesverfassungsgerichts von 2017, welche die explizite Anerkennung einer dritten Geschlechtskategorie ‚divers‘ forderte, diskutiert dieser Beitrag die soziale Funktion von nichtbinären Geschlechtskategorien. Es argumentiert, dass die dritte Option nicht nur ein negativer Begriff ist, der beide traditionellen Geschlechter verneint. Sie muss auch als positive Kategorie (oder als Familie von Kategorien) gedacht werden, welche über eine Identifikation mit der Freiheit von traditionellen Geschlechtsidentitäten und Geschlechternormen gebildet ist. Die Kategorie ‚divers‘ kann deshalb keine einheitliche Identifikationskategorie sein. ‚Divers‘ soll vielmehr selbst als eine in sich diverse Kategorie gedacht werden – als ein offener Möglichkeitsraum. Wie weit kann aber die Diversifizierung der Geschlechtsidentität gehen? Der Beitrag argumentiert für eine kategorielle Pluralität der Geschlechtsanerkennung. Diese Position beinhaltet zwei Aussagen: (a) Die soziale, intersubjektive Geschlechteranerkennung braucht in der Tat Kategorien; eine vollständige Individualisierung von Geschlecht auch in dem Bereich ‚inter‘ ist nicht möglich und wäre auch nicht wünschbar. (b) Gesellschaften sollten es zulassen, dass die Geschlechtermatrix dynamisch erweitert wird, über nur zwei (oder nur drei) Kategorien hinaus. Die Gründe für diese Position werden in drei Schritten erklärt: (i) Die Pluralität von Geschlechtsidentitäten innerhalb des dritten Raumes ist eine soziale Tatsache, die zuerst einmal anerkannt werden muss. (ii) Pluralität innerhalb der dritten Geschlechtskategorie ist ethisch erforderlich, weil andere in sozialen Beziehungen ein Recht darauf haben, darüber anerkannt zu werden, als was sie gesehen werden wollen. Dieses Argument ergibt sich aus einer Rekonstruktion von Emmanuel Lévinas’ phänomenologische Ethik der Intersubjektivität. (iii) Aus der Dekonstruktion von Geschlechtsidentitäten in Werken von Judith Butler, Gundula Ludwig und Finn Mackay ist zu lernen, dass Geschlechtsidentitäten eine soziale Funktion haben: Sie machen Subjekte intelligibel, d. h. sie ermöglichen es anderen, sie zu ‚lesen‘. Deshalb müssen Geschlechtsidentitäten dem Leben des Individuums in Varianten auch vorgängig anerkannt sein und sie müssen eine Gemeinsamkeit für eine Mehrzahl von Menschen konstituieren.

Indem dieser Band sich auf das Verhältnis von Naturerkennen und Natursein konzentriert, thematisiert er einen wesentlichen Ausschnitt aus dem weiten Spektrum von Böhmes philosophischer Arbeit. Um die Naturthematik möglichst breit zu entfalten und für Querverbindungen offenzuhalten, ist der vorliegende Band in drei Abschnitte gegliedert. Im ersten Abschnitt stehen Charakter und Reichweite der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis von Natur im Mittelpunkt. Der zweite Teil des Bandes stellt alternative Perspektiven auf Natur vor. Im dritten Teil schließlich stehen der Mensch und sein Verhältnis zu sich selbst im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchungen. Inhaltsverzeichnis Krohn, Wolfgang: Wissenschaftsentwicklung zwischen Dezentrierung und Dekonstruktion. Stehr, Nico: Von den Grenzen der Macht wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis. Schäfer, Wolf: Zweifel am Ende des Baconschen Zeitalters. Kamper, Dietmar: Wissen ist Ohnmacht. Macht ist Unwissen. Gamm, der Technik. Janich, Peter: Zeit und Natur. Kimmerle, Heinz: »Es ist Zeit, daß es Zeit wird«. Wie kann Zeit Zeit werden? Schiemann, Gregor: Natur auf dem Rückzug. Zur Relevanz der aristotelischen Unterscheidung von Natur und Technik. Hauskeller, Michael: Ist Schönheit eine Atmosphäre?. Zur Bestimmung des landschaftlich Schönen. Schmitz, Hermann: Situationen und Atmosphären. Zur Ästhetik und Onthologie bei Gernot Böhme. Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph: Über Relationalität. Was ist das »Ökologische« in der Naturästhetik? Meyer-Abich, Klaus Michael: Erinnerung an die natürliche Mitwelt. Andreas-Griesebach, Manon: Idee plus Erfahrung. Goethes Begründung eines neuen Typs von Naturwissenschaft. Engelhardt, Dietrich von: Madame de Stael über Naturphilosophie, Naturwissenschaft und Medizin in De l'Allemagne. Deneke, Michael: Schramm, Engelbert: »Soziale Naturwissenschaft«. Zwischen Sozialwissenschaften und Naturwissenschaften. Böhme, Hartmut: Enthüllen und Verhüllen des Körpers. Biblische, mythische und künstlerische Deutungen des Nackten. Lippe, Rudolf zur: Eine Logik des gestischen Wissens. Müller, Rudolf Wolfgang: Gernot Böhme - Anima naturaliter japonica. Hoffmann, Gisbert: Das menschliche Sein als mediales. Martens, Ekkehard: »Natürlich« denken?. Heideggers Pseudosokratismus als Irrationalismus. Fleischer, Helmut: Naturalität ohne Naturalismus. Zum lebensweltlichen Fundus jeder höheren Erkenntnis-Artistik. Gerhard: Technik als Medium. Grundlinien einer Philosophie.

The concept of the ‘well-being of the child’ (like the ‘child’s welfare’ and ‘best interests of the child’) has remained underdetermined in legal and ethical texts on the needs and rights of children. As a hypothetical construct that draws attention to the child’s long-term welfare, the well-being of the child is a broader concept than autonomy and happiness. This paper clarifies some conceptual issues of the well-being of the child from a philosophical point of view. The main question is how well-being could in practice acquire a concrete meaning and content for a particular issue or situation. A phenomenological-hermeneutic research perspective will be outlined that allows the child’s well-being to be elucidated and specified as an anthropological and ethical idea. It is based on a contextual understanding of generative relationships, a combination of the theory and practice of making sense, here described as ‘generative insight’, which could provide ethical guidance for decision making in families, legal practice, medicine or biomedical research

ZusammenfassungDie allogene Transplantation von Blutstammzellen aus dem Körper von Kindern, die der Spende nicht selbst zustimmen können, in den Körper eines kranken Geschwisterkindes wirft schwierige ethische Fragen auf. Wie kann ein risikobehafteter, fremdnütziger medizinischer Eingriff ethisch gerechtfertigt werden? In dieser Arbeit werden Argumente kritisch untersucht, nach denen das Spenderkind eine Pflicht habe, bei der Transplantation mitzumachen. Die Idee der Pflicht ist nachvollziehbar aus der Perspektive der Eltern, die zwar in einem Fürsorgekonflikt sind (ein Kind zu Gunsten der Rettung des anderen verletzen zu müssen), aber selbst eine Pflicht haben, für das Leben des kranken Kindes zu kämpfen. Eine Analyse des Pflichtbegriffs zeigt jedoch, dass die Erfüllung einer Pflicht daran gebunden ist, entscheidungskompetent zu sein. Drei Wege werden untersucht, eine solche Pflicht dennochzuzuschreiben: i) die Eltern übertragenihre Pflicht auf das Kind; ii) die Interessen des Spenderkindes implizieren eine Pflicht; iii) Geschwisterkinder haben aufgrund ihrer vertrauten Familienbeziehungen Pflichten untereinander, die auch die Pflicht zu spenden beinhalten. Alle drei Zuschreibungsstrategien werden als unhaltbar kritisiert. Das Ergebnis lautet, dass die Pflicht, einem Geschwisterkind Körpergewebe zu spenden, einem nicht-einwilligungsfähigen Kind nicht zugeschrieben werden kann. Andere philosophische Ansätze zur Stammzellspende von Kindern an Familienangehörige müssten entwickelt und geprüft werden.

Definition of the problemFrom an ethical point of view we analyse the ruling of the German Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G‑BA) of September 2019 to revise the guidelines about the coverage of noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT) by mandatory health insurance, in order to include them under specified conditions. The decision contains four essential elements: a definition of the aim of NIPT testing (to avoid invasive testing), a criterion of access (test must be “necessary” for the pregnant woman to tackle her individual situation), statements about the process of decision-making (after counselling by a physician and case by case) and a normative contextualization (termination of pregnancy under § 218 a German penal law) which is to be found in its explanations. There are tensions in the proposed model that oscillate about two axes: (1) The suffering that results from a possible birth of a child with trisomy or from not knowing about the genetic condition of the fetus can ultimately only be evaluated subjectively, from the perspective of the pregnant woman. (2) The meaning of an individual decision in the case-by-case model remains unclear because when judging about individual cases general points of view also need to be considered. However, we argue that the model of the G‑BA could be a sociopolitically and ultimately also ethically defensible pragmatic solution, exactly because of its paradoxes and its inherent flexibility.

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.

The routinization of prenatal diagnosis is the source of bioethical and policy debates regarding choice, autonomy, access, and protection. To understand these debates in the context of cultural diversity and moral pluralism, we compare Israel and Germany, focusing on two recent repro-genetic “hot spots” of such policy-making at the beginning of life: pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and non-invasive prenatal genetic testing, two cutting-edge repro-genetic technologies that are regulated and viewed very differently in Germany and Israel, reflecting different medicolegal policies as well as public and bioethical considerations. First, we compare policy-making in the context of PGD for HLA typing, used to create sibling donors, approved in Israel under specific conditions while prohibited in Germany. Second, we compare policy-making in the context of NIPT, which came under fire in Germany, while in Israel there has been little public debate about it. Both countries justify their contrasting policies as reflecting a concern for the well-being and care of the embryo/child, thus highlighting different concepts of embryo/child protection, autonomy, family relations, and the impact of religion and history on the promotion/protection of life. We use the juxtaposition of PGD and NIPT to highlight some inconsistencies in policies concerning the protection of extra- and intra-corporeal embryos. We conclude by drawing on the comparison to show how national variations exist alongside co-evolution.