According to Mauss, gifts are never \u201cfree.\u201d 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\u2019s article \u201cImpossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka\u201d explores the ideologies and issues behind organ donation in Sri Lanka. As Cohen described, voluntary organ and tissue donation, or the \u201cgift of life,\u201d is a form of \u201cethical publicity,\u201d 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 \u201cimagined\u201d community. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201cfamily replacement\u201d 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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201ccharity\u201d 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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the book Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology<\/em>, 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<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s 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, \u201ccultural competency\u201d 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 <\/em>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\u2019s 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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201ccomplete\u201d and to fully secure her position in her husband\u2019s 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 <\/em>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<\/em>. 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, <\/em>the wife is perceived more as a copartner in marriage who could decide to reject niyoga<\/em> and choose other ways to have children (i.e. through mantra) (54). Fourth, in Mahabharata<\/em>, 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<\/em>, prayers, surrogacy and levitate marriage are the only human initiated activities to procreation in Hebrew bible (59). <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201csperm donor,\u201d 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<\/em> 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<\/em>, in the society changes (69). In addition, Mahabharata <\/em>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<\/em> dictates individuals\u2019 behaviors, warning of the consequences of their decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s explanation and illustration of Hindu religious traditions and ideologies, through the lens of epic Mahabharata<\/em>, though I think her claims are a little too extrapolative. For example, she states that Mahabharata <\/em>shows the stability of the society in spite of complex familial relationships (94). I doubt how numerous wars and violence could symbolize \u201cthe stability of the society.\u201d In addition, the \u201cfield\u201d and \u201cits owner\u201d metaphor does not seem to be consistent with the Hindu view of Jaycee\u2019s identity. If Jaycee is the \u201cfruit\u201d of her surrogate mother\u2019s \u201cfield\u201d (i.e. womb) (40), should the surrogate mother\u2019s husband be her father?\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Comparing these two readings, I find Simpson\u2019s 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<\/em> 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Works Cited<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bob Simpson, \u201cImpossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka.\u201d Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10 (2004): 839-59.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Swasti Bhattacharya, Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology (Suny University Press, 2006).<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" According to Mauss, gifts are never \u201cfree.\u201d 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\u2019s article \u201cImpossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka\u201d explores… Continue reading Inventing Bioethics: Buddhist and Hindu Point of View<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7206,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7206"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44\/revisions\/46"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religionandbioethicsspring2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}