Should new couples be given genetic tests for adult on-set diseases?

Haaretz    A panel of experts is considering adding tests for diseases that develop in adulthood to the standard genetic tests given to young couples when they are starting a family. Currently, these tests only cover diseases that develop in childhood. [...]

The National Bioethics Council, which advises the Health Ministry, set up the panel in response to a proposal to add one specific test, for a mutation of the GNE gene that is common among Jews of Persian origin and causes HIBM, a neuromuscular disease for which there is currently no treatment. HIBM begins with muscle weakness, usually when the patient is in his thirties, and ends in total paralysis.

The National Bioethics Council, which advises the Health Ministry, set up the panel in response to a proposal to add one specific test, for a mutation of the GNE gene that is common among Jews of Persian origin and causes HIBM, a neuromuscular disease for which there is currently no treatment. HIBM begins with muscle weakness, usually when the patient is in his thirties, and ends in total paralysis.

The National Bioethics Council, which advises the Health Ministry, set up the panel in response to a proposal to add one specific test, for a mutation of the GNE gene that is common among Jews of Persian origin and causes HIBM, a neuromuscular disease for which there is currently no treatment. HIBM begins with muscle weakness, usually when the patient is in his thirties, and ends in total paralysis.a

Because the current tests relate only to diseases that develop in childhood, this counseling only addresses the possible implications for the couple’s children, while ignoring the implications for the parents. Yet a genetic mutation can affect the parent even if he hasn’t developed the disease it causes. For instance, a mutation of the FMR-1 gene can cause autism or developmental delays in children, but women who carry this mutation face an increased risk of early menopause and of developing neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s later in life.[...]       

Rav Sternbuch: Written psak to report Kolko to police

Cautionary note: Even though in the case addressed in the letter there was a confession, Rav Sternbuch has told me that is not a necessary condition to require going to the police. I did not post this as a teshuva - since Rav Sternbuch did not write it to explicate the parameters for reporting. For those interested his views are discussed in details in my books on abuse as well as various postings that can be found by searching for "police" on this blog. THE REASON I POSTED IT IS TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE GEDOLIM WHO REQUIRE GOING TO THE POLICE -  contrary to what one would conclude who has been following the  pronouncements of the Lakewood establishment and Rav Belsky concerning child abuse.

Update 5/ 23/ 13: A rough translation is:

Concerning your question regarding someone who is suspected of the disgusting and serious crime [of pedophilia], And there are those who claim he confessed and a high level rav verified that there seems to be a solid basis to the suspicions and it is also well known that this disease [pedophilia] is difficult [for the pedophile to stop abusing children]. Therefore we are obligated to report him because he is a danger to the community. In addition someone who interferes with reporting him can possibly be causing additional harm to the community. In particular in our days where pedophilia has become widespread - we are obligated to report him. See the Taz Yoreh Deah, #154.

ט"ז יורה דעה סימן קנז

(ח) חייב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי. - נראה דלהכי נקטיה כשבע בן בכרי דאע"פ דבדין תורה לא היה חייב מיתה אלא מצד חוק המלכות שמרד בדוד מ"מ מוסרין אותו אם יחדוהו ומינה אף בזמנינו מי שפושע ומורד במלכות שלו מוסרין אותו וה"ה בשאר עבירות שאחד מוחזק בהם כגון עוסק בזיופי' או שאר דברים שיש בהם סכנה פשיטא שמוסרין אותו ומן הראוי למסור אותו אפי' אם לא יחדוהו כיון שהוא כמו רודף לשאר ישראל ע"י מעשיו הרעים שעושה בפשיעה כן נראה לי בזה ועוד נראה לי דבמקום שאין מוסרין אותו אין חילוק בין מסירה למיתה או לשאר יסורים או אפילו לממון דלענין יסורים פשיטא שהם גרועים ממיתה כדאמרינן באלו נערות (דף ל"ג) אלמלא נגדוהו לחנניא מישאל ועזריה הוה פלחו לצלמא ויליף מזה דיסורים קשים ממיתה ויליף דמלקות חמור ממיתה וראיה דהא בירושלמי לא קאמר תבעיתיה מלכא להריגה אלא סתם תבעיתיה אפשר ליסורין לחוד (ואין) [ויש] לנו להחמיר מספק ואפי' לממון מצינו בפרק הגוזל בתרא דקאמר על זה קרא כתוא מכמר כיון שנפל בידי עובדי כוכבים שוב אין מרחמין עליו כן נראה לע"ד

[translation from my Child and Domestic Abuse volume II page 99]

Taz (Y.D. 157:8): If he is liable to the death penalty like Sheva ben Bichri. It would appear that the reason why Sheva ben Bichri is used as an example is that even though he was not liable to the death penalty according to the law of the Torah but rather according to the law of kings in that he had rebelled against Dovid – nevertheless he was handed over since he was singled out. We learn from this that even today that someone committed a transgression and rebelled against his secular government – he is to be handed over to the government. This is true for other sins that are inherently a danger to the community such as counterfeiting – they are handed over to the government. They are to be given over even if the government did not specify that particular person since he is like a rodef (pursuer) that is endanger the rest of the Jews by his bad deeds that are transgressions of the law. This is my opinion

:

Are physical attacks on innocent people by religious Jews - terrorism? by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times   How very horrifying it was to see video footage of the Tsarnaev brothers gleefully place down a bomb that murdered four and injured dozens.  It is not just the callous banality of their deeds, it was the smirk on one of their faces.  It was their joy in their involvement that sickens and repels us.

But are we really so different?  As of this writing there are protests going on in Israel concerning the government’s decision to draft Yeshiva students.  The draft and its protest is not the issue.  The issue is how can we not condemn the horrifying actions of religious Jewish men pushing and shoving huge metallic garbage bins into a large crowd of people?

Let us just do a double take here.  Did we really see this?  There is no question that unleashing such a large, massive, metallic object into a crowd of people can cause both serious injury and or death.  How is this so substantially different than the sickening actions of the Tsarnaev brothers?

One difference is that perhaps the victims hit by the massive garbage bin have a greater chance of getting out of the way.  But what if they can’t?  What if they get stuck, or fall and trip?  It is deeply grieving that our brethren could even contemplate this, much less actually do it.    The combination of the mass and velocity here could very easily create deadly force.

One of the fundamental principles of the Mussar movement is that learning the relevant sections of halacha to a particular sin, raises our awareness to that Aveirah.  With this in mind, let us briefly review what the Shulchan Aruch Choshan Mishpat section has to say about such behavior.

The general prohibition of trying to hurt another person is found in Choshain Mishpat 420:1.  There, the Shulchan Aruch writes that the Torah is concerned that additional injury not be caused to someone receiving a punishment – all the more so in regard to innocent people in a crowd. [...]

Kolko debacle: How to look up to rabbis who support a confessed pedophile?

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn, 

Can you please help me?

I went to a Rabbi for guidance about how to deal with my own anger against how the Kolko affair was handled by Lakewood rabbis. My anger stems from the fact that I want to look up to these Rabbis as leaders I can trust. So I feel betrayed in a personal way. He said, without any indifference to molestation or opposition to police involvement, that I have no way of knowing what the facts really are.  Therefore I could not assume the rabbis acted stupidly or insensitively.

You can't discuss your anger about X by being questioned whether X happened.  I therefore didn't get what I was looking for.

Would you dispute the premise that I cannot know what happened?  if not, how should I relate personally to the issue? What is your response to this?  

With your permission I would like to show your response to the Rabbi.

thank you

p.s.

do I have the right  to assume they have done wrong, or only that they have failed to explain what they did?
=============update 5 24 2013
2nd letter

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

My previous letter to you was unclear, resulting in confusion among readers.  I would like to set the record straight about my interaction with a Rabbi.  This Rabbi is

1. very sensitive to the issue of molestation, and has thought about it deeply,

believing it is the major cause of people leaving Judaism

2. totally supports going to the police when evidence is present

3. knew nothing of and had read nothing about this case but based his on-the-spot response on my flawed oral report

4. was sincerely agnostic, not biased in Lakewood's favor.  He never said I should assume their innocence.

  Thus, the Rabbi was dealing not with abuse per se but with the question of what facts can one know from media. 

A lesson from this story is that there is limit to what Rabbis can do when talmidim want quick answers to personal problems.  

Rav Sternbuch's speech at a protest demonstration held on Isru Chag Shavuos

  Atzeret Neged Giyus 

Jordan Murray pleads not guilty to molesting two of his students

KIRO TV  [includes video]  A former private school teacher has pleaded not guilty to charges of molesting two of his students.

Police said the victims were first- and second-graders at a private Jewish school in Seattle’s Columbia City neighborhood.

The teacher, Jordan Murray, who was addressed as "rabbi," pleaded not guilty to four counts of child molestation. 

Murray, 32, has been a first- and second-grade teacher at Torah Day School the past two school years. 

Does early psychological intervention prevent or cause trauma?

Scientific American     Devastating tornadoes have a lot in common with other major traumas, like life-threatening accidents, the Boston bombing and the Newtown shooting – especially the emotional distress they leave in their aftermath. As predictable and common as that distress is, though, early psychological response after trauma is still surprisingly controversial. It’s the center of a heated scientific debate that stewed and bubbled and then boiled over.

It began when a technique from the battlefield crossed over to civilian life. Soldiers traditionally debrief to share information and learn from missions and incidents. Psychological debriefing evolved along with military psychiatry instead of only discussing what happened, groups discussed feelings and coping too.

Psychological debriefing then spread to civilian first responders. Like soldiers, trauma was in the line of normal duty for them. They needed to be prepared and to cope with the stress, and debriefing was part of normality

Then psychological debriefing spread out to victims of trauma, too. And on to experiences like childbirth.

Some people expected that professional care could prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychological harm. But in the search for an affordable and efficient intervention that could be offered to everyone, it was often a single session. [...]

Just as we worry about saying the wrong thing and further distressing someone in crisis, professionals can make things worse for people too. And maybe everyone doesn’t benefit from dwelling on the trauma in the immediate aftermath of a crisis.

A few trials of single session debriefing were done in the ‘90s. The people weren’t traumatized in the line of duty. They had suffered traumas like burns, road accidents or crimes. Or they had been debriefed around childbirth. And when discouraging results came in, controversy erupted. [...]

Problem of Convicted Sex Offenders: Where are they allowed to live?

Female LGBT Reform rabbi married to a non-Jewish woman protests the Reform movement's prohibition against intermarried rabbinical students

Forward   I am writing to urge you to reconsider the HUC-JIR requirement that all prospective rabbinical students sign an agreement that “any student engaged, married, or partnered/committed to a person who is not Jewish by birth or conversion will not be admitted or ordained.”

It matters to me: I am a HUC-JIR rabbi, ordained in 1991 and partnered with a non-Jew since 1984. In 1993 I founded a now thriving congregation that has engaged hundreds of people in Jewish life. I have worked toward conversion with dozens of candidates. The HUC-JIR requirement might have prevented me from becoming a rabbi, as it will future rabbis whose efforts would be as significant as mine.

My partner is a woman. I was an LGBT student at a time when this status was not recognized at the college and there was no such required agreement to sign. We were married under a chuppah on our 20th anniversary, in 2004, and were legally married when we could do so in New York State, in 2011. We have a grown daughter who celebrates the Sabbath and holidays. In 1988, my partner began welcoming the Sabbath in our home even when my student pulpit took me away. She attends services in my congregation, reads Jewish texts with interest and annually counts the Omer with me.

Match made in hell: Ami Popper weds mother of abused kids

YNET   In a ceremony held Sunday in Jerusalem, Ami Popper, who is serving multiple life sentences for the murder of seven Palestinians, married the woman who allowed self-proclaimed rabbi Elior Chen to viciously abuse her children. One of M.'s sons is still comatose in a vegetative state. 

New Psak: cigarette smokers can't be witnesses

NRG פסק הלכה של אב בין הדין בירושלים, הרב אליהו אברג'יל, קובע כי מעשנים פסולים לעדות, כך נקבע בפסק הלכה שפרסם בשנתון 'תחומין ל"ג'. בנימוק לקביעה החריפה, הסביר הרב אברג'יל כי "אדם שמודע לחומרת הנזק שגורמות הסיגריות, וממשיך בזה, עובר על 'השמר לך' ועל הציווי 'ונשמרתם מאוד לנפשותיכם' ".

הרב אברג'יל מבהיר כי לפי הפוסקים, כשאדם מזיק לעצמו הוא עובר על איסור מהתורה ולכן אסור מלכתחילה לקחת אותו לעדות קידושים וכדומה. בנוגע לאדם המעשן סמים קובע הרב אברג'יל כי "בוודאי פסול עדות כאשר הוא מכלה גופו ונפשו".

בנוסף, קובע הרב אברג'יל, כי היות ונזקי העישון מפורסמים וידועים לכל, שכן על קופסאות העישון מופיעה הודעה שהעישון מסוכן, לא ניתן להחשיב את המעשן כשוגג, שאינו מתכוון לעבור עבירה. 

Mussar Movement was haskala - a man-based vision to revive religion

In my investigation into the Seridei Aish's description of the Mussar Movement as "frum haskala", I have come back to my original understanding. At this point I disagree with Prof. Shapiro that "frum haskala" simply meant concern with spiritual development and fear of G-d. 

The Haskala was a man based vision - not a religious one.  I just posted the Seridei Ish's vision of the Jew in the ghetto - not only was it repressive economically and psychologically but most found   religion also to be repressive. http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/seridei-aish-haskala-why-did-religious.html

Mussar was clearly a man based program to revive  religion as was Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz. It also involved participation in the world, tikun olam and an awareness of human knowledge and a focus on the individual human being. This is clearly the opposite of Chassidus which is a movement based on ruach hakodesh, revelation and Daas Torah and subjugation to authority. The Mussar Movement was also  opposed to the ghetto - either of the body or mind and deprivation of wordly pleasures and experience.