To truly understand a perspective we must have some framework or background in which to explore the perspective as it relates to a community and individuals within that community. Bhattachary specifically advises against creating a “Hindu ethic” less it be exclusionary to large confounding factors such as location- this to say the American Hindu ethic might have noticeable differences than the Sri Lankan Hindu ethic; and the New York American Hindu ethic might be much different than the Sea Coral Drive in San Diego California Hindu Ethic (Bhattachary 3). As such I feel the framework provided by Simpson in Impossible Gifts which is based both in policy/regulatory history and fieldwork experiences with clinicians provides a viable framework as it considers the bi-directional relationship of culture (individualized beliefs, religious myths, and behaviors) and institutional policy (Simpson 840).
With Theravada Buddhism being the state religion of Sri Lanka, it is reasonable to say that the two are fairly intertwined; and thus, views historically held by Sri Lanka which were dependent on Buddhist philosophy might aide in extrapolation of their view on up and coming phenomenon such as IVF. Theravada Buddhism stresses charity and donation as a means of ethical development in aide of removing the ego and becoming above oneself. This idea of giving is broken down into levels consisting of worldly goods, body parts, and life (Simpson 841). Practically, this translates to donating blood being a very common occurrence in Sri Lanka- going so far as to having blood donation centers at religious events not being an uncommon sight. Simpson tells of a man relaying to him the notion that he hopes he ties from a brain hemorrhage so that little damage is done to his body and as much of it as possible can be donated.
These beliefs extend to the world of policy in many ways but is chiefly illustrated by eye donations. Sri Lanka leads the world in eye donation and so much so that the supply of donated eyes outstrips the need for new eyes in the country leading to groups being put in place to manage the export of eyes to over sixty other countries, irrespective of their cultural identity (Simpson 846). Furthering this notion that giving is a cornerstone of the Theravada and subsequently the Sri Lanka culture.
It is with that said and before I transition into IVF and such that I want to recognize this idea that the Sri Lanka culture and the Theravada Buddhist beliefs are i) not monoliths and ii) not inherently identical. Simply because a religion says to live one way and because a country is a majority of that religion does not mean every individual in that country will treat every situation the same and draw the same conclusions from a given situation. As such policies must be passed. such as outlawing the sell or purchase of body parts, tissues, and fluids in Sri Lanka, providing tangible consequence to actions deemed immoral (Simpson 850). This also explains why certain dissenting opinions exist such as those individuals who worry about the export of eyes to countries of different cultural make up- no individual exists in a vacuum.
As with every country some individuals have reproductive barriers and the idea of donor insemination isn’t a new one, but in the 1900s Sri Lanka decided that for the public good they would form and subsequently regulate sperm banks (Simpson 852). Simple enough but one major problem got in the way- lack of donors. Well that happens to the best of business and the solution is simple- advertise! For some strange reason advertisements asking for sperm donations were not deemed acceptable by the public conscious so the question had to be asked- what underlying cause is stopping the Sri Lankan people from donating sperm? If blood and eye donations are such a hit why does that not extend to sperm donations?
One major problem Simpson found was stress- for every individual on every side of the donor insemination, IVF with donated sperm, etc. debate there was stress (Simpson 852). Stress about questions of infidelity. Stress about questions of personal identity for the child. And, stress about the collection method of samples to be donated. When physical pleasure is minimized to become less associated with your physical self it is hard to justify the methods associated with giving a sperm sample. So the conclusion is simple, the Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists are not in favor of IVF, right?
Let’s look at the other half of IVF- ova donation. The collection of ova involves surgery and thus physical pain solving the last problem (Simpson 854). Socially, Simpsons found, women were more likely to help others in the ingroup dissolving questions of infidelity. Reproduction isn’t associated with some physical act as explained by Bhattacharyya so there is no immediate objection to the IVF itself (Bhattacharyya 52). In short, there are no religious qualms with ova donation.
Thus, it seems there are no major problems with IVF as a technology and utilizing IVF as a means to create progeny, but the question of will or won’t a society adopt a technology is filled with nuance which can’t be answered solely by historical contingency or by analyzing religious values without context. Culture is a fluid thing which can answer many questions if applied correctly, but no country is a monolith and no people are all the same. I have to wonder though, to what extent to these religious considerations survive outside of the majority? Are Hindu bioethics surviving on Sea Coral Drive in San Diego California?
Thanks to all the bloggers of this week for your insightful posts on the readings. I included some of my own interpretations and elaborations on points made about the readings.
First, I thought that the non-objection of IVF in Hinduism can be interpreted, as Bhattacharyya mentioned, from the Mahabharata as the intention of the couple trying to overcome infertility. The lack of lust is what is important in these cases of begetting a child, as that is what makes the baby a child of the couple, able to inherit in the case of Kings, and able to perform the funeral rites of the father. Therefore, IVF can be taken as a parallel, as the child is not begotten with lust, and the intent is for the couple to overcome their infertility and have a child.
To ask what extent the religious considerations survive outside the majority is to look at the thought differences in the majority themselves – not all of the majority fall under the same umbrella when discussing reproductive rights which may be due to familial reasons, education, open interpretation of religious texts, and the adjustment of religious thought to the context of the modern world. These considerations that are not included in the majority may, therefore, shift when the religious thought of those in Sea Coral Drive change which will happen as the years pass. That change is necessary as Hinduism – as well as other religions – has never claimed to be static, and continuous interpretations of Hindu stories will occur as new technologies are made available for public use.
I also thought that the stories told in Hinduism are especially unique and liberal in their refusal to shun unique methods to reproduce. For example, the story of the widow who lay with her dead husband in order to beget a child, as well as the story of Gandhari who, when faced with a clot, divided up her embryo into 101 pots in order to conceive 101 children. Although Gandhari was warned of her eldest child’s destructive intent, the method in which she conceived was not viewed with any level of disgust – instead, they were viewed with the intent of a mother wishing to have her children born.
I do not think that Hindu and Buddhist perspectives will ever be taken into account for legislative and policy decisions unless they eventually shift and merge with Christian viewpoints – a possibility that may occur, as more people in North America continue to marry between religions.
Additionally, I would disagree that the matriarchs of the Mahabharata stories take control as equally as the Gods. In the grand scheme of the story, the Pandavas and Kauravas were meant to be born. The boons that the matriarchs received aided them in their efforts to conceive children, but these boons were only granted upon the matriarchs, as the Divine saw fit. If the children were not meant to be, then infertility would have continued and no boon would have ever been granted in order for children to be born upon these families. Such thought connects Hinduism to other religions as well in the matter of reproductive technology and how it may be manipulated in the case of infertility – only to a point and that point must be what God wills upon those praying to Him.
Thank you to all the bloggers for the week for some really insightful posts!
The first thing I wanted to address was the question posed by Pamela in if healthcare workers should be well-informed on the cosmologies of various religions. I think to some extent, any person working in a field that requires interactions with people of different backgrounds and religions (and nowadays, that is nearly every profession) should be informed to some degree of the religious principles of the respective religions. However, as Battacharyya mentions eloquently in her book, the goal is not to become an expert on every religion’s teachings, but to be “culturally competent” (Battacharyya, 21). Since religion is incredibly intertwined in the clinical setting, healthcare workers and doctors must be open minded, sensitive, and informed when talking to people from different backgrounds. Being in a hospital invokes such vulnerability in a patient and having a doctor that can empathize and relate slightly better to your views certainly makes the experience less excruciating.
Something that both Emma and Karen touched up in their posts/responses was the contrast of Simpson’s article on Buddhism and sperm donation compared to the Hindu view. The idea that sperm donation in Buddhism is considered more shameful than altruistic is quite different from the ideas in Chapter 3 of Battacharyya’s book regarding creativity and conception. The desire for progeny in Hinduism, based heavily on religious texts like the Mahabharata, combined with the flexibility of the teachings in conception render concepts like sperm donation and artificial insemination more acceptable. I also think it’s interesting to look at the multivalence of Hindu ideas when considering these perspectives. In my own experiences growing up in a Hindu household and coming to college to hear other perspectives on views I thought were universally “Hindu,” there is so much flexibility in how Hindus interpret religious texts and scriptures. Each particular “sect” of Hinduism, in my opinion, differs on their views on reproductive technologies and parenthood in general. For us, ideas of adoption and ART are much more widely accepted than other family members who practice differently. To them, kinship and blood is a much stronger value than ideas of parenthood in general, and thus creates a bit more confusion on the uses of these technologies.
It is also quite interesting to note how different the stigma is around ova donation in Buddhism. It is seen as a donation of the body as it creates pain and discomfort for the woman donating. Contrasted to this is sperm donation, where a man is not inflicted with discomfort, but rather is overcome with shame due to the act of masturbation to produce sperm. The support that women receive from other women regarding infertility is quite opposite from the difficulty that men face with infertility. Adultery is no longer an issue with ova donations but is certainly an issue with sperm donations. These ideas are akin to the control that women have in Hindu views on conception. Indeed, women have been treated as “property” (Battacharyya) in Hindu views for centuries, but they have also had more freedom in reproduction as it relates to creative approaches, such as niyoga. A Hindu woman’s choice in participating in niyoga in the effort to produce a child (or heir) is respected and supported by each party, similar to the support mentioned earlier. This ultimately ties back to the overall idea that Hindus have in procreation as a necessity in life, as it is seen as the most important of the four stages (Battacharyya, 64).
Hi Brandon,
I really liked how your post focused on the culture of giving and how this related to IVF. The other bloggers emphasized the more religious aspect of old stories and such but yours took a different path that I thought did an excellent job to shine light on previously not discussed topics. For example, I find it so interesting that giving an eye is more popular than giving sperm. You did a great job of starting the conversation about stress related to IVF and I would like to expand on that.
When giving an eye, it is easy to say who it came from and who it now belongs to. However, when giving sperm, one is not just giving a singular organ that will stay the same. Instead, they are donating something which will turn into a human being and questions of belonging and parenthood will be raised. Thus, while people and the culture support giving and the idea of IVF, it is difficult for one to actual agree to this type of giving. You said that there are no major issues with IVF as a technology to help with reproduction, but I think you have contradicted yourself because if people are not willing to donate, then they do have some qualms with IVF as a means for reproduction. If they did not have any, then finding people to donate would not be an issue.
Hi Brandon! Thank you for the comprehensive summary on the reading. A point you brought up from the reading that I found relevant to our coursework was the bidirectional influence of culture and institutional policy on ethical issues. This is an important consideration because I often view culture as something that views policy, and not the contrary. Furthermore, I likes the mention of refraining from a “Hindu ethic” because as we mentioned in class, not everyone belonging to a culture shares all the same cultural beliefs. Often, those that identify with a particular religion may not be incredibly strict or adhere to the rules of the religion, especially those in more industrialized or westernized regions of the world.
I thought the reading was interesting in that the Buddhist perspective focuses a lot on helping others, which carries over to medicine and technology. In the other big three monotheistic religions, the topics of debate have been very focused on the individual level.
It was not surprising given that background on morality and the past readings that although Sri Lanka approved sperm banks and the use of IVF, many were apprehensive donate and receive sperm due to a question of identity. Ova donation on the other hand, was deemed more acceptable. Once again we are seeing disparities in the acceptability of gamete donation between genders.
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for the great post. I think you did a great job summarizing the key theme of Bhattacharya’ book along with discussing the topic of tissue donation in Sri Lanka. One thing that I think is important to mention is that fact that the government worded its policies on tissue donation vaguely in order to encompass all donated tissues, organs, and fluids. Despite the government grouping all bodily donation together, the people do view specific donations differently. The concept of tissue donation in Sri Lanka is reliant on the teaching of dana, or donation. Dana is important because it is one of the methods required to achieve niblana, the ultimate goal of all Buddhists. Eye donations are considered a universal good as the concept of donating the eye is found in the story of King Sivi and thus is a concrete example of dana.
Blood and sperm donations do not have such a universal outlook. While blood donation is common among the Buddhists, those of other faiths do not commonly donate blood as “acts of donation had become strongly associated with Sinhala Buddhist identity and patriotism.” (Simpson 849). Thus, while donation among the Buddhists was common, donation from other faiths was rare and even caused terrorist attacks. On the other hand, sperm donation is completely frowned upon as the act of giving semen is attributed with pleasure and thus, goes against Buddhist teachings. As you mention in your blog, this contrasts with the donation of ova since collection does not involve pleasure but rather pain. I found these varying outlooks on the donation of different tissues and fluids to be very interesting as I had only really seen an all or nothing approach in regard to tissue and fluids donations.
Thanks for your post Brandon! I enjoyed the way you structured your article logically; first you established principles and the foundations for these principles then you examined the intersection of these principles resulting in what people actually do. I want to comment a little on your second and third paragraphs where you discuss bodily donations. You discuss how practitioners of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka view the donation of body parts, such as eyes, is not only seen as charitable but actually practice it to a high degree. This idea comes from religious beliefs about removing ones ego to reach an enlightened stage. You then argue that sperm donations are different due to stress over paternity and method of sampling collected (as it involves pleasure not pain). While Simpson shows that female ova donation is less morally ambiguous in Sri Lanka, do you think that the differences between sperm donations and organ donations can be due to other factors? When I first read this I thought about the difference in donations would arise with the use of the donation. Sperm/ova donations promote reproduction while body part donations are used to preserve life. Simpson explains body parts are a “gift of life” but I don’t recall any passage that says Buddhism promotes childbearing such as we see in Judaism and Christianity. Do you think that this distinction may also be a factor in the low rates of sperm donation in Sri Lanka?
Hi Brandon,
This was a very thoughtful and thorough post. Throughout this semester, we have read about religious attitudes that apply to groups of people in certain places, and it is always important to remember that not everybody in a country or region follows or interprets such laws and recommendations in the same manner. I found it interesting that even within religious texts and teachings, there is often difference in interpretation itself. Bhattacharyya discusses some fundamental variation in Hindu writings that provide a foundation for flexible interpretation of greater actions, behavior, and ethics. Narratives such as these have provided a basis for thinking about ethics in Hindu contexts, as well as the fluid role of women in society as portrayed by works such as the Mahābhārata’s depiction of “[…] dominating patriarchal social system, it nevertheless preserves stories that depict women in a variety of roles, positions of power, and with varying levels of influence” (Bhattacharyya 53). This original basis of understanding is unlike other Christian religious texts that provide little interpretation for the role of women in society. While greater means of interpretation are certainly important in giving individuals agency in decision, I can’t help but relate this back to questions of greater religious authority in Orthodox Jewish communities that give people satisfaction in their decisions and form other levels of kinship between religious authorities and people. I’d be curious to learn more about how somebody who practices Hinduism might approach amniocentesis testing.
Your question at the end is one that I also addressed in response to Pamela’s and Emma’s blog posts. It is difficult to determine the extent to which Hindu thoughts and perceptions towards IVF and other reproductive technologies might exist in a different context than one with a majority who follow, and part of this is due to fundamental differences in decision-making between cultures. I return to my previous musing, however, in asking the rest of the class how effective a centralized religious authority figure is in creating such an influence for a religion outside its primary context. Thanks!
Thanks for your post. I agree that Hinduism’s position on ART isn’t as easily explained as some of the other cultures we have studied. I think Pamela did a great job explaining what Bhattacharyya was trying to emphasize. Instead of trying to lay out explicit mandates as to what is allowed and what isn’t when it comes to ART, Hindu values, particularly a woman’s dharma, or social duty to have a child, a commitment to do no harm to any living creature (ahimsa), and karmic consequences drive what Hindu’s do. As such, Hindus are free to use most ARTs (Bhattacharyya, 52). While it isn’t directly stated to be allowed in the Mahabharata or other texts, Kunti and Gandhari are important examples that serve to demonstrate that procreation is possible outside the typical husband-wife scenario.
I also wanted to address the common question of whether Buddhist and Hindu stances on bioethics will ever be taken into consideration. Personally, I doubt that they will ever be given as much consideration and importance in American bioethical debates as religions we have studied since they are a very small minority in America. Also, they are not a vocal minority; they tend to be more flexible in their beliefs than other cultures so perhaps they try less to make their position be known. However, I do value the importance of having clinicians understand religious and cultural contexts a little bit better. As Pamela mentioned, I think courses in medical school that teach students about facilitating patient communication with patients of different backgrounds would be greatly beneficial: it would improve a patient’s satisfaction and help give another dimension to medical treatment.
Brandon,
Thank you for another thoughtful blog post. I enjoyed how you kicked things off with a reminder of how all perspectives must be taken with a grain of salt in the sense of the framework they are being viewed in. It can be easy to overlook the sheer impact framework has and I appreciated how you reminded us all of this.
The “Hindu ethic” was a great example of this and I agreed with the examples you pulled from the text regarding the differences present in Hindus across the world. I could really envision the differences present in the New York American Hindu and the Californian American Hindu that you mentioned. Being from New York City, I have ease understanding the powerful effects one’s geographical location and geographical culture can have on the culture they have within them from their place of birth and upbringing. Some places just have such powerful effects on the people living there and it was interesting to see an author recognize the type of change that can occur due to one’s surroundings.
In the midst of this intense discussion of the Sri Lanka culture and the Theravada Buddhist beliefs, I can’t help but think of the Emory community as an example. As you said, “Simply because a religion says to live one way and because a country is a majority of that religion does not mean every individual in that country will treat every situation the same and draw the same conclusions.” Emory has such a diverse community which allows us to interact with students of many different and similar religions throughout our daily academic pursuits. It is easy to see the differences inherently present in these religions due to one’s upbringing regardless of how their religion suggests they should conduct themselves.
Brandon,
I enjoyed reading your post! You wonderfully set up the disconnect between the Theravada Buddhist attention to givingness and reproductive-related donation. While I don’t have any answers, I appreciated your ending questions and feel that you investigated the texts in a way that leaves me with a better sense of understanding for these texts. I feel that the issue of stress amidst the development of sperm banks in Sri Lanka acutely highlights the elevated moral questioning that surrounds reproductive technology. To accompany what you described of the popularity of eye and blood donation in Sri Lanka, it is very interesting to investigate the difference in meaning that humans place on the donation of their non-reproductive body versus their sperm and eggs. As many responses have mentioned, these readings suggest to me that the ethical stance that many Hindu and Buddhist communities take on reproductive technology is perhaps flexible, depending on the individual case.
Brandon,
Thank you for the thoughtful engagement with the material. As it is coming to be a theme in our class, cultural humility and respect towards others and their beliefs is an important concept to incorporate into American values. I especially appreciated your discussion of stress revolving around sperm donation and Buddhist perspectives toward IVF. It immediately reminded me of our discussion of kinship and the Muslim opinions towards IVF we discussed earlier in this class. We discussed the loophole that some couples find when female fertility is compromised by engaging in polygamous marriages with wives they then can accept gamete donation from. Due to the lack of a similar loophole for male infertility, I was reminded of this by your discussion post and the comments and thought to how we discussed the inequality in the ability for women to marry multiple men for sperm donation.
The lack of eagerness to donate sperm therefore also speaks to earlier discussion of the man’s responsibility for providing the seed of reproduction. By linking sperm donation with pleasure and thus showing disapproval towards it, I wonder if Buddhist views are subconsciously reinforcing these gender roles we see in many other contexts. Is the use of stress simply a way to disguise these expectations in heterosexual relationships?
Brandon,
I appreciated your analysis of Simpson’s article. You understood the issues at stake and navigate the arguments very well. I was intrigued by Simpson’s use of language that implied some sense of uncertainty about the status of reproductive technology in Sri Lanka. While there was a clear sense that sperm donations are not in line with Buddhist values for a number of reasons (do not fit one of the categories of Dana, masturbation being problematic), Simpson discussed that there is no glaring problem with egg donation according to the Buddhist tradition. Yet, egg donation does not seem to be a popular practice in Sri Lanka according to Simpson. Is Simpson implying that this practice is on the rise? I’d like to reconcile this question by noting how Simpson concludes his writing, as he says “given the inexorable spread of a Western bioethics with its core assumptions about liberal universalism and radical personal autonomy, deliberations on the meaning of organ and tissue donation that fall outside the Euro-American context provide an important insight into the complex linkage between resistance and acquiescence in the face of emergent forms of global governance and exchange” (Simpson 855). I believe this sums of the crux of what Simpson is doing. While we, as Westerners, are doing our best to understand a Buddhist culture with all its complexities and struggles with modernity, we must recognize that a tension exists. We must not come in on our high horses and ask why they are not adopting a certain practice that we believe is right, but rather we must seek to understand the rich tradition that allows them to believe what they believe.
Thank you for your post. It was very good just like the other bloggers of the week. When looking at these posts as well as the response posts, there was one thing that stood out. That was the focus on how western society looks at these specific situations and religions, and how it incorporates it into our society. As we sit now, I would say that we are not very tolerant of these minority religious groups such as Buddhism when it comes to healthcare. Almost any religious hospital I know is either Christian or Catholic. There is not much of a lens here in western society where we can understand how other countries that are becoming more modern go about their medical practices. Cultures are going to vary and be very different from each other, and one will never see eye to eye. However, I think this country needs to become more adaptable and more tolerant to be able to understand these different practices and offer outlets for individuals in this western society to pursue a route that they are comfortable with.
Great post, Brandon! Something you touched on that I found really interesting from the reading was the Buddhist concern about the pleasurable aspects of sperm donation. Simpson writes that “knowledge that a man has made a donation would be a source not of pride but of shame” (854). This is in direct contrast to the pride and merit that surrounds donating other organic material, like blood or organs. This understanding of Buddhists backing away from sperm donation due to the methods through which it must be obtained – pleasurable methods that do not include the pain or discomfort that other donations entail – is vital to understanding the moral weight of such donations of organic material. In the case of sperm donation, the merit gained from donation does not outweigh the problematic moral nature of self-pleasure, which is forbidden in Buddhist practice. This also serves as a reminder that reproductive technology, despite being a medical practice, is still deeply entrenched in moral and religious questions. Even though reproductive technology serves the purpose of distancing reproduction from sex itself, it still bears the stigma and moral associations that sex bears in public opinion, especially in religious communities.
Awesome post Brandon. The culture of giving among Sri Lankans is clearly an example of religious and cultural encouragement towards medical technology. One chapter that I thought related back to prior research in our class was the chapter “Narrative as a Source of Ethics”, which interpreted religious texts to provide a natalist perspective. The fact that Hinduism, the counterpoint of Bhattacharyya’s arguments, is a religion of “options, alternatives, and divergent beliefs” (Bhattacharyya, 49), causes its stance on reproductive and medical technologies to fall more in line with that of the Orthodox Jews. While lacking the organized and final stance provided by the Catholic Church, lessons such as how “Pandu laments the fact that without children he will neither fulfill his obligation to his ancestors nor reach the summit of the sun” (Bhattacharyya, 51) provide a natalist perspective similar to Orthodox Judaism. In addition, the sex-postive culture of Hinduism that “accepts creativity in the process of procreation” (Bhattacharyya, 52), promotes birth in a different manner than that of the Jewish community’s use of reproductive technologies. However, much as Hinduism promotes a divergency of beliefs, so to is that idea followed by a divergency of opinion, illustrated in the multiple interpretations of the ‘Mahabharata’. This writing includes passages that have been interpreted to both advocate for a “passive, powerless” role for women in reproduction, and as “another example of a woman taking control and determining her own reproductive destiny” (Bhattacharyya, 54). This divison of opinion is a byproduct of the lack of a formal declaration by religious leaders on reproductive rights, and is not necessary a bad nor good aspect of the Hindu view on reproductive technology. Rather, this division allows for a greater spread of legitimate viewpoints, and promotes a more tailored faith experience, in line with Hinduism’s network of personal interpretations.