Isaac Unbound: The Akeidah, Research Ethics, and Dignitary Harms
Alyssa Henning, JD/PhD Candidate, Northwestern University
The story of the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-18) figures prominently in the theological reflections of all three Abrahamic faiths. Traditional readings of this text typically focus on Abraham or God; in some cases, interpretations focus on Sarah. However, to date, little attention has been paid to the effects of these events on Isaac. Bringing this story to bear on conversations about the ethics of scientific research with human subjects, I read Isaac as an unknowing and/or unwilling subject in an “experiment” which God designs and consider how Isaac’s experiences help shed light on classic research ethics cases like the 1963 Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case.
Isaac is surely harmed when Abraham binds him to a sacrificial altar; yet, he is not physically harmed. How should we understand the nature of Isaac’s “injury?” Under the U.S. legal system, Isaac’s best chance at recovering damages is asserting “emotional distress,” a category which fails to account for the dignitary harm which Isaac suffers by nature of being “used.” Drawing on close readings of the biblical text and related midrashim, feminist tort theory, and bioethics scholarship, this paper explores the nature and ethical significance of these dignitary injuries.
Through this reading, the narrative of Genesis 22 sheds light on the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case. In 1963, doctors injected chronically-ill patients with cultured cancer cells to study the patients’ immune responses. The doctors told them neither that the injections contained cancer cells nor that the injections were part of an experiment. The power differentials between God, Abraham, and Isaac illuminate how discrepancies in knowledge and power between researchers and research participants shape the nature of dignitary harms. Abraham’s complicity with God’s command or request for Isaac’s sacrifice suggests that dignitary harms from research participation are constituted in part by a breach of trust. The doctors involved in the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case took advantage of the trusting relationship between the patients and their attending physicians.
I am especially excited to present this paper, which is part of my dissertation, at the Conference on Medicine and Religion. This conference provides a unique opportunity for scholars and practitioners of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to consider, together, how the theological legacy of the binding of Isaac in all three traditions can contribute to a more robust, nuanced understanding of dignitary harm and the ethics of research with human subjects
The story of the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-18) figures prominently in the theological reflections of all three Abrahamic faiths. Traditional readings of this text typically focus on Abraham or God; in some cases, interpretations focus on Sarah. However, to date, little attention has been paid to the effects of these events on Isaac. Bringing this story to bear on conversations about the ethics of scientific research with human subjects, I read Isaac as an unknowing and/or unwilling subject in an “experiment” which God designs and consider how Isaac’s experiences help shed light on classic research ethics cases like the 1963 Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case.
Isaac is surely harmed when Abraham binds him to a sacrificial altar; yet, he is not physically harmed. How should we understand the nature of Isaac’s “injury?” Under the U.S. legal system, Isaac’s best chance at recovering damages is asserting “emotional distress,” a category which fails to account for the dignitary harm which Isaac suffers by nature of being “used.” Drawing on close readings of the biblical text and related midrashim, feminist tort theory, and bioethics scholarship, this paper explores the nature and ethical significance of these dignitary injuries.
Through this reading, the narrative of Genesis 22 sheds light on the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case. In 1963, doctors injected chronically-ill patients with cultured cancer cells to study the patients’ immune responses. The doctors told them neither that the injections contained cancer cells nor that the injections were part of an experiment. The power differentials between God, Abraham, and Isaac illuminate how discrepancies in knowledge and power between researchers and research participants shape the nature of dignitary harms. Abraham’s complicity with God’s command or request for Isaac’s sacrifice suggests that dignitary harms from research participation are constituted in part by a breach of trust. The doctors involved in the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital case took advantage of the trusting relationship between the patients and their attending physicians.
I am especially excited to present this paper, which is part of my dissertation, at the Conference on Medicine and Religion. This conference provides a unique opportunity for scholars and practitioners of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to consider, together, how the theological legacy of the binding of Isaac in all three traditions can contribute to a more robust, nuanced understanding of dignitary harm and the ethics of research with human subjects