According to Mauss, gifts are never “free.” The giver may benefit from repayment in the future and the receivers are obliged to reciprocate. Parry and Laidlaw tried to debunk the various meanings, connotations, and intentions embedded in gifts. Based on their works, Simpson’s article “Impossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka” explores the ideologies and issues behind organ donation in Sri Lanka. As Cohen described, voluntary organ and tissue donation, or the “gift of life,” is a form of “ethical publicity,” which reflects the core values of society, culture, and religion (840). It expresses an abstract notion of altruism that entails devotion and potential rewards in the “imagined” community.
For Theravada Buddhists in Sri Lanka, the first perfection to be observed on their journey to liberation is charity or donation (dana). Giving could help overcome egoism and greed, which is the ultimate goal of Buddhists. Donation of bodily parts demonstrates a healthy detachment from the body, selfhood and ultimately life itself (843). Given its importance in ethical and religious development, there is much pride in eye donation in Sri Lanka. The donation movements are inspired and assisted by religious figures, such as the King Sivi and monks, which helps to establish a link between donating bodily parts and accumulating merits, thus ensuring a better rebirth in the next life (847).
Buddhism extols the abstract generosity that requires giving bodily parts with pure altruism and without thought for loss or gain, promoting a sense of boundary-less compassion (851). However, Simpson points out that this is almost impossible to achieve, especially in the larger social and global context (840). For example, blood donation at times of war and violence is strongly associated with Sinhala Buddhist identity and patriotism (849). In addition, there are other kinds of norms and values conveyed through donation, such as the moral obligations between kins, as exemplified in the “family replacement” system (850). Moreover, there may also be a sense of vulnerability and fear besides altruism, when faced with foreign influences such as structural adjustment plans and commercialized organ trade (852).
Not all types of organ donation are viewed as altruism and meritorious giving in Buddhism. For instance, sperm donation is a matter of controversy. In Ayurvedic medicine, semen is considered the highest of substances that symbol male reproductive potency and fatherhood (853). Thus, sperm donation may cause confusion in inheritance and kinship relationships. Furthermore, the way to collect semen (i.e. masturbation) is also problematic because it involves physical pleasure, which cannot be justified as “charity” in Buddhism (854). On the other hand, ova donation is considered more similar to blood and eye donation, and entails less public debate and anxiety, because the retrieval process involves pain and discomfort, which fits well with the concept of dana and giving (854).
In the book Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology, Bhattacharya aims to broaden current bioethical discussions that mainly focus on Christian and Jewish religious traditions, adding diverse religious and cultural insights reflected in the Hindu epic Mahabharata.
In Chapter 1, Bhattacharya emphasizes the role of religion in the practice of medicine and bioethics. Religion has been associated with medicine and healing since antiquity. As medical technologies advanced in the 1960s and 70s, religious voices and figures played an important formative role in the revival of bioethics (11). However, after the 1960s, religion was excluded from bioethics in academia and policy-making, due to the rise of secularism that established a dichotomy between reason and faith. Morality ought to be judged based on observed consequences rather than beliefs (12). Nevertheless, religion is often involved in the clinical setting, as it deals with fundamental elements in human experiences such as birth, life and death (15), so the bioethical problems arisen due to religion’s marginalization lead to its re-emergence in the field of bioethics (17). Moreover, in order to better handle cross-cultural (cross-religions) issues in the clinical setting, “cultural competency” is proposed to encourage providing culturally and religious compatible care to patients and their families. It also requires the medical personnel to understand how their own culture, beliefs and background affect clinical practice (21).
As Bhattacharya illustrated at the end of Chapter 1, Hinduism is complex, fluid and polycentric, without one foundational voice (27). It is a collection of dynamic movements and processes that flow, split, and converge like rivers (3). Religion is viewed as a kind of experience that intertwines with activities of daily life (27). In Chapter 2, Bhattacharya introduces that Mahabharata is the paradigmatic narratives that tell the great history of humankind (31), which convey and legitimize social norms, ethics, values and political patterns fundamentally important to Hindu civilization (34). The epic reflects a struggle against infertility and an attitude of openness and creativity towards procreation (39), which parallel contemporary assisted reproductive strategies. For instance, Kunti and Pandu carefully selected the god who they wanted to obtain sperms from, just like modern couples choosing sperm donors in sperm banks (41). They both try to control the factors that may determine what kind of children are to be born (43). In addition, Bhattacharya underscores the importance of interpreting the stories based on the specific situation and context of individuals. Gandhari’s action of beating on her stomach could be commonly seen as attempts to abort the child while her true intention was actually to figure out what is going on in her body and even to spur on the birth of the fetus (46).
In Chapter 3, Bhattacharya explores four major topics in Hinduism in the epic. First, having children is viewed as of high importance in Hindu society. Women have to have children in order to be “complete” and to fully secure her position in her husband’s family (50). Moreover, sons save their ancestors from hell by performing the funeral ceremonies, so having children is a familial obligation (51). Second, in Hinduism there is huge creativity in conception that permits all kinds of reproductive strategies. Mahabharata seems to accept various creative approaches in the process of procreation but it also warns against misuse or abuse of such methods (53). Third, women seem to have relatively more control over their procreation in Mahabharata. In many traditional Hindu texts, women were portrayed as powerless and passive recipients of instructions and decisions made by others about their lives (53). However, in Mahabharata, the wife is perceived more as a copartner in marriage who could decide to reject niyoga and choose other ways to have children (i.e. through mantra) (54). Fourth, in Mahabharata, gods and humans are in a relatively more egalitarian relationship in the process of procreation. They actively cooperate to reproduce (55). On the contrary, in Judaism and Catholic church, God has the ultimate control over human reproduction (56). Different from the creativity reproductive methods in Mahabharata, prayers, surrogacy and levitate marriage are the only human initiated activities to procreation in Hebrew bible (59).
In Chapter 4, Bhattacharya explains Hindu traditions, thoughts and beliefs. In Hindu traditions, the society is considered as high priority. When deciding which god to call upon as the “sperm donor,” Kunti and Pandu considered the needs and the greater good of the society rather than their own needs (63). They also considered whether the child and their actions will be accepted by the society (64). There are different obligations that individuals have to take in society, at different life stages. The grhastha stage, or child-bearing stage, is the most important because individuals in this stage function to support the society. As individuals move forward to different life stages, their obligations and responsibility, or dharmas, in the society changes (69). In addition, Mahabharata reflects the flexible and multivalent nature of Hinduism. It acknowledges extraordinary and difficult situations in human life experiences. Individuals have to perform their duties according to their own abilities and circumstances (70). The theory of karma dictates individuals’ behaviors, warning of the consequences of their decisions.
In Chapter 5, Bhattacharya applies Hindu ideologies to a case regarding the use of assisted reproductive strategy. She argues that while Christianity generally views assisted reproductive strategies as a threat to traditional families, Hinduism is more acceptive because it has a more broad definition of extended family (93). I generally understand Bhattacharya’s explanation and illustration of Hindu religious traditions and ideologies, through the lens of epic Mahabharata, though I think her claims are a little too extrapolative. For example, she states that Mahabharata shows the stability of the society in spite of complex familial relationships (94). I doubt how numerous wars and violence could symbolize “the stability of the society.” In addition, the “field” and “its owner” metaphor does not seem to be consistent with the Hindu view of Jaycee’s identity. If Jaycee is the “fruit” of her surrogate mother’s “field” (i.e. womb) (40), should the surrogate mother’s husband be her father?
Comparing these two readings, I find Simpson’s article more convincing and logical. This is partially because I am more familiar with Buddhism and Buddhist ideologies, and less familiar with Hinduism. In addition, Simpson cited a lot of evidence such as historical social movements, facts, and figures. On the other hand, Bhattacharya relies on the epic Mahabharata as the sole example and evidence, supplemented by interviews with a few Hindu people, so her claims seem to be less convincing and harder for me to comprehend.
Works Cited
Bob Simpson, “Impossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10 (2004): 839-59.
Swasti Bhattacharya, Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology (Suny University Press, 2006).
I’d like to start off by saying that Joanne’s blog post is great! I appreciate the thorough and detailed summarization of the two readings.
Unlike Joanne, who has an understanding of Buddhism, I cannot say that I confidently understand Buddhism or Hinduism. Even after completing these readings, I have more information than I did before, but I still would not comfortably say I understand these religions. I would go so far as to say the same thing about Christianity and even my own religion, Islam. I always think that there is more to learn, more to know, more to understand before someone can make a concrete statement about religion. I’d like to take my limited knowledge about these specific religions, however, to point out a few things. For now, I want to focus on the part where Joanne states, “…It expresses an abstract notion of altruism that entails devotion and potential rewards in the “imagined” community.” I think this is a really well written statement, one that not only summarizes the analysis provide in the reading but also gives insight into Joanne’s thought process. Specifically, I would like to focus on the idea of “imagined community.” This phrase, specifically the word “imagined,” makes me pause. In my opinion, I think using the word “imagined” in this way, in this case, implies that the beliefs of the people who believe in a sort of afterlife are possibly untrue or fake. However, to those who believe in the “imagined community,” this is a false statement; to those who really believe something after life, this is not “imagined”. Instead it is known, at some internally determined level, and therefore addressing it as “imagined” may unintentionally reduce those people’s beliefs into something more rudimentary than what they actually feel/mean. I don’t think that Joanne is the only one to make mention of this; in my understanding, Simpson also approached the idea of “gift of life” in a way that I think limits the significance of the “imagined community.” However, I do understand what Joanne is trying to say, and do not fault her for using such a phrase. Instead, I think I better understand where she is coming from because of it.
Secondly, I’d like to agree with another statement Joanne made: “I think her [Bhattacharya] claims are a little too extrapolative.” I understand that Hinduism, as Joanne summarizes, “is complex, fluid and polycentric, without one foundational voice.” Because of the unique foundation of Hinduism, there is not a lot of physical material to use to analyze these topics. So, to make an analysis, one much use what is present. But, I think that Bhattacharya put too much emphasis on the epics detailed; the analysis made was thorough and complete, but relied to heavily on a single source. I think the argument made about ideas relating to tissue donation could have been further supplemented and supported with more ethnographically focused resources as well. If anything, I think that accounts of people who actively/actually use/used the Mahabharata as a point of reference when making real life decisions about donation/gifting would have had a significant impact on the analysis.
I hope that all makes sense and thanks again Joanne for writing a good post!
Firstly, I think that Joanne did an amazing job of summarizing and connecting Bhattacharya and Simpson’s work. Both authors covered expansive material that branches off from discussions we’ve had on Judaism and Christianity.
I think it is interesting that the field of bioethics, which has traditionally been anchored in Western Judeo-Christian society, ‘left behind’ other religions that are attached to relatively less secular political systems. In particular, I admired Bhattacharya’s initiative to take on the overwhelming process of developing a foundational bioethics system for Hinduism. That said, I agree with Joanne that Bhattacharya could have inferred too much about practicing Hindu’s attitudes toward abortion or in vitro fertilization, simply because the Mahabharata is an ancient text that is open to ambiguous interpretations. I think that a follow-up ethnographic study that relies on interviews with practicing Hindus would provide more conclusive evidence about the intersection between lived experiences, social-structural features and culture. Hinduism is a broad, decentralized religion, and I think that there must be a lot of variation in beliefs about reproductive technology within Hindu communities.
In Simpson’s reading, I thought that it was interesting that many Buddhists view sperm donation as immoral because masturbation involves physical pleasure. On the other hand, ovum donation is viewed in a more positive light because it involves physical suffering, which requires a detachment from the physical body. I want to know more about Buddhist view on ethicall complex practices such as abortion, which may cause some women to experience severe emotional and physical suffering but also necessitates a loss of life, which seems to contradict the Buddhist principle of not harming other living beings.
Joanne did an exceptional job summarizing, contrasting and reflecting on this week’s readings. In response to “Impossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism, and Bioethics Sri Lanka,” Joanne effectively summarized the key points, including the role of ethical publicity that accompanies the “gift of life” and the values of giving in Buddhism. Simpson accurately identified the societal need for giving to be observed, which I believe to be problematic. Because ethical publicity is intertwined with what otherwise would be an altruistic gift, whether it is possible for there to ever be pure altruism is very complex. This conflict, which continuously resurfaces in bioethical debates, especially regarding organ donation, is prevalent in many cultures. While in Buddhism the potential coercion is an effect of societal pressure, any involvement of finances as compensation for organ donation, gametes, or surrogacy can easily become exploitation and coercion for an individual who is financially vulnerable. This is seen frequently in other cultures, and no doubtedly complicates whether someone is donating to give, or for the compensation. While this is the predominant conflict regarding altruism in the United States, it is fascinating to learn about how in Buddhism, the pleasure in the act of collecting sperm is the factor that devalues the gift. In the United States, this is barely acknowledged as the value of compensation is seen to outweigh any other pleasures of the activity. Thus, I found the cultural aspect of ethical publicity in the various forms of giving the “gift of life” very problematic as it takes away from the motivation and makes it difficult to determine one’s ethical autonomy regarding if an individual made the decision to give freely.
Similarly to Fatima, I did not have a previous understanding of Buddhism or Hinduism. These sources provided me the incredible opportunity to learn about two religions that were new to me at the same time. One aspect of Hinduism that stood out to me specifically in “Magical progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology” was the importance of having sons. While I know this is common in many religions and cultures, my particular interest originates from my time working in a fertility clinic. I assisted many patients of different cultural backgrounds, and paid special attention to those requesting sex selection when going through the assisted reproductive technology procedures. It was evident to me then that many cultures felt the need to have these procedures done to ensure a son. I am still conflicted on whether I believe sex selection should be done during IVF, as it allows one sex to be seen as superior and borders on designer babies. However, while I am still learning about and trying to understand these cultures, I am hesitant to form an opinion on the use of these procedures. Overall, Joanne did an incredible job with her reflection and I look forward to our discussion in class.
-Samantha Feingold
Joanne thoroughly and accurately touched upon many of the most critical points in this weeks reading. I especially appreciated her delving into quick synopses of the chapters, as it helped reorient my memory to those specific points.
Much like Fatima, I also knew very little (and still don’t know too much) about Buddhism and Hinduism as religious entities, let alone how they exist as social, cultural or historical functions. I found the differences between the ways in which religion is used to inform the concept of donation and giving to be incredibly interesting and also a major point of insight on how different cultures prioritize the value of charity differently. Growing up in a household that practiced both Judaism and Christianity (Mom Jewish, Dad Catholic — both stubborn), I had never quite considered that the idea of donation and altruism could differ so much. Specifically, I found the Buddhist distinctions within dana, the first perfection, to be revelatory about a canonically human phenomenon in respect to God. The fact that semen donation was perceived as a negative — due to the pleasurability of masturbation — made it no longer altruistic, while the pain of egg extraction made it a sure devotion to selflessness and altruism reveals a few things. The first insight I inferred from this was the possessive connotation of paternity on kinship. Second, is the idea that pain may bring you closer to God. This is a general motif that has popped up a few times this semester, notably in Week 1, when Islamic patients refused to get life saving surgery and found solace in the pain he endured beneath God’s will. I think that finding these similarities across religions, cultures, and countries helps remind us that the human experience, while so nuanced and diverse, shares many of the same fundamental experiences of finding meaning.
Hey Joanne! Thank you for posting a great summary of the readings for this week.
I agree with Joanne, Fatima and Chris that ethnographic interviews with practicing Hindus would reveal some of the nuanced connections between modern Hinduism and bioethics that Bhattacharya examines in her work. For example, Bhattacharya references the fable of Kunti and Pandu, who select sperm ‘donors’ to control the characteristics of their future children. Their attempt to engineer children who will make positive contributions to society suggests that they deeply value social ideals. I want to know more about the intersection of the caste system, a hierarchy in Hindu society based on ethnic features, and reproductive technologies such as sperm donation. Do reproductive technologies in Hindu communities reflect norms and prejudices upheld by the traditional caste system? How does the distribution of economic and political power within Hindu communities affect who has access to reproductive technology?
I think that Simpson’s connection between organ donation in Sri Lanka and Buddhist principles that emphasize charity is an example of how political dynamics shape religious practices and views. This passage reminded me of the Buddhist monks who demonstrated against the South-Vietnamese government by deliberately setting themselves on fire in public settings, thus sacrificing their bodies and lives to make a political statement. Is this kind of radical self-sacrifice comparable to the ‘charity’ that it takes for women to particpate in ova donaton? More generally, what are Buddhist perspectives on the female body and processes unique to women, such as birth?
Joanne, great blog post! You did a great job of summarizing this weeks’ readings. Your analyzation of Buddhism was very good and am very interested in the idea of Buddhists having a “healthy detachment” from the body in order to be where they want to be in the after life. I also found the idea of true altruism to be very interesting because I personally couldn’t name another religion that regards people who donate their body parts as incredibly altruistic. The stipulations that surround what someone practicing Buddhism can and can’t donate makes sense when you start to understand the practice of Buddhism overall. The fact that women can donate their ovaries because it represents pain and enduring suffering but a man cannot altruistically donate sperm because they experience a level of pleasure is difficult to wrap my head around. But given the main values of Buddhism I could understand their decision making. In contrast to this, I was surprised to learn that Hinduism generally supports the idea choosing someone to donate sperm while also supporting the idea of assisted reproductive technology.
Similar to Fatima, I have very little understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism but think Joanne did a great job of summarizing each, especially Buddhism, stating, “Buddhism extols the abstract generosity that requires giving bodily parts with pure altruism and without thought for loss or gain, promoting a sense of boundary-less compassion (851).” She also incorporated some of the main values of Hinduism including how family is very important to society. I was also surprised to learn that the Mahabharata allows for many different kinds of reproductive strategies yet cautions Hindus to not get too creative.
I appreciated this week’s readings because I want to better understand different religions and their social and cultural customs. I’m not very religious myself so having a better understanding of religions and their values is of interest to me. Overall, Joanne had a great analysis of the two readings and posed some great questions as well!
Joanne’s post does a great job in summarizing the main points covered in this week’s readings; The blog is full of detail and captures the sentiments strongly.
Anthropologist have studied the process of exchange through gifts which allow them to test the rules that govern practices of exchange and social construction.
Mauss argued that no gifts are free and there is an expectation of reciprocation. In this way, organ and sperm and egg donations can be seen as gifts and therefore shed light upon the values of the overall society. As mentioned by Joanne, for Theravada Buddhists in Sri Lanka, the first perfection to be observed on their journey to liberation is charity or donation (dana). Therefore voluntary organ and tissue donation is seen as a way to demonstrate this culture giving and detachment from your body: core values. However, the “gift of life” idea is “Ethical publicity”: that drives people to donate under a system of indebtedness. Also in this case, altruism ultimately benefits the self and the selflessness of this altruistic act is brought to question. These gifts are not free, they expect moral gratification and religious reciprocations. It is interesting to compare how to different values are imposed on the system of giving in organ and tissue donation. As the “gift of life” idea is not applicable when considering sperm donations — it is not thought of in the same positive moral giving light.
This system of exchange under Buddhust values in Sri Lanka is fascinating to contrast with Western American society where we are are allowed to sell (or rent) our reproductive cells, organs, and function. What does this say about our social construction and values?