In the most recent centuries, ethical debates have been dominated by Euro-American perspective, which has largely been influenced by the Judeo-Christian religious texts and principals. Swasti Bhattacharyya’s book entitled Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Assisted Reproductive Technology, and Bob Simpson’s article entitled, “Impossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka” attempt to freshen the discourse by introducing Hindu and Buddhist thought and principles. Simpson locates the underlying spiritual influence of donated body parts, including sperm and eggs, and discusses its ongoing implication in modern society. Bhattacharyya advocates for the use of religious language in debates raised within the public sphere, and emphasizes the importance of acknowledging all religious perspectives when working with others in the clinical, university, and legal settings. Together, both of these works use the thoughts of Hinduism and Buddhism to challenge the conventional approaches of ethical discussion platforms and aspire to revitalize an understanding of diverse perspective from that of just passive acceptance of others’ opinions into embracing such variable opinions and religious perspectives as a collective group’s source of strength.
Simpson’s article observes Buddhist practice of tissue donating as granting a “gift of life”, and further embellishes this topic through discussion of gamete donation specific to Sri Lanki. In the spirit of Buddhist tradition, “the act of giving parts of the oneself keys into deep rooted ideas of merit, rebirth, and public virtue” (Simpson 852). However, in contrast to giving the somatic elements of life, the donation of gametes used for developing life proves to be much more complicated. On the one hand, ova donation from females is generally accepted, as the actual development of the child will still take place in the female. On the other hand, male sperm donation is usually rejected because it must be obtained through masturbation, which is an act generally frowned upon by the public, and the fact that no other genetic material would be available to make the mother’s husband the father, which is an unwanted because that man would raise a child that is not his. Buddhist tradition in Sri Lanki has therefore proven to have longstanding influence on the public’s ethical approach to complex reproductive issues, and the language and symbolism surrounding these approaches have aided the society in dealing with such issues.
Bhattacharyya’s work stresses the importance of narratives in centering discussion on ethical debates. According to Bhattacharrya, “Stories capture the essence of what it means to be human; as we engage the narratives of the past, we engage the experience and wisdom of those who came before us. Through studying these myths, we gain insights that contribute to our understanding of ourselves, of those around us, and of life” (Bhattacharyya 100). Narratives serve as a guiding force for developing ethical actions in what could possibly be a scenario containing many different perspectives. Therefore, Bhattacharrya emphasizes that there does not exist a single Hindu perspective, but a guided approach that can be applied to many contexts and must be met with personal responsibility to act in favor of the good of society.
The narrative of the Mahabharata (summarized on page 30) highlights the kinship and reproductive challenges faced by peoples thousands of years prior to modern reproductive technology. Filled with ancient histories and sometimes magical occurrences, the texts raises outstanding questions still present in today’s debate on reproductive technologies, such as, What is the moral status of an embryo or fetus? What measures are ethical to take in cases of infertility? Who are the biological and legal parents in cases of surrogacy? Although these types of questions still largely remained unanswered, the Mahabharata contributes to the debates by first raising the contextual narrative and allowing its readers and listeners to consent to traditions and values present within the story. After, the reader is able to adopt perspective when evaluating the issues put forth, and responsibly act under the influence of and through their own interpretations of the six elements of Hindu thought (summarized on page 63). Ultimately, Bhattacharyya concludes that in regards to reproductive technology, the Mahabharata encourages creativity and supports the utilization of reproductive technologies, while also strongly advocating restraint and limiting the extent to which one utilizes the technology (Bhattacharyya 53).
Although Judaism and Christianity also derive ethical values from foundational narratives of the patriarchs and Jesus, respectively, these narratives do not embrace differing perspectives nor function as a dynamic and multifaceted tradition like that of Hinduism. Instead, these religions structure ethics as a list of laws to be adopted by every descending generation. Although this type of method may provide a platform of consistency that maintains an articulated understanding of right and wrong throughout generations, one could make the argument that this method fails to channel that understanding into appropriate behaviors within the modern context. Through use of narratives and openness to opinions of such narratives, Hinduism adapts to changing cultural of each generation and recognizes the importance of maintaining dynamic values that can be effectively transmitted to each generation. Rather than marking into stone ethical laws that will shape human behavior, Hinduism values the ability for the humans to shape how they understand and implement the ethics. By keeping grounded on laws that emphasize acting responsibly and for the good of the collective whole, the Hindu tradition can be open to diverse opinions and accept the influence these differences have on answering moral questions.
Overall, I found both works to be insightful, and thought that both provided excellent support for integrating more diverse religious perspective into bioethical debates. Embracing this diversity would be helpful in the clinical setting for doctors and nurses when interacting with and attempting to clarify medical options. Additionally, embracing diversity would be especially helpful for academic settings that already attempt to integrate complex ideas into a clearer and more unified understanding. However, one question that left lingering for me after reading Bhattacharyya’s work was how exactly Hindu principals could transfer to the legal and public policy setting. My understanding of the reading was that these diverse approaches can exist on the basis that everyone in the society understands and acts in the best interest of the whole society. Though we are a society that embraces diversity, I would think that when writing laws or policy, one cannot assume we always act responsibly or in the best interest of others. So I am left wondering how someone in public policy would transpose these values without necessarily promoting the religion?
Jackie,
Overall I thought you summarized both readings very well. It was easy to follow your thought process and I also liked how you brought in other religions for comparison instead of only talking about the religions presented in these two articles. While you compared Hinduism to Judaism and Christianity, I would have liked to see a stronger comparison between the buddhist and hindu thought, since those were the religions of focus for this week.
I also, while respecting your opinion, disagree with your comment about the lack of dynamic properties of Judaism when comparing it to hinduism. I found that, according to my interpretation of Bhattacharyya’s reading, Hinduism and Judaism are actually fairly similar when it comes to permissibility of ART and religious text interpretation. Hindu practices differ depending on beliefs/tradition, which is similar to Judaism in respect to the differing rabbi practices. Basically, both religious allow their scriptures to be “secondary” forms of authority within the religion, and only serve as a template and can be interpreted upon. I also found that Buddhism and Hinduism overlap as well in terms of buddhism’s nibbana and hinduism’s karma. Overall, I thought that these religions are actually more similar than we believe them to be.
My last point would be that I thought you could have highlighted an overarching idea that could be drawn from this week’s readings. I liked how you addressed the permissibility of ART and talked about how different religions may or may not support it. However, in addition to that conclusion, I also concluded that there needs to be a focus around cultural competency, as touched on by Bhattacharyya. If doctors and healthcare professionals do a better job at identifying and integrating cultural backgrounds of patients into their care, perhaps healthcare in general will be better and eliminate issues involving misinterpretation or incorrect translation of people’s choices and beliefs. The divide between religion and medicine may dissolve, and the role of religion may become accepted, maybe even encouraged, in healthcare as a way for people to deal with hopelessness during their suffering and enhance the experience of a patient.
-NB
Jackie,
All together I enjoyed your summaries of both readings. Your writing was easy to follow, and well thought out. In addition, I liked how you incorporated other religions into your post to compare. This was great to get a different point of view of the readings at hand. However, I would have liked to see a stronger comparison between the two readings for this week.
Bhattacharyya’s work reminds me of an article by Arthur Frank, “Being a Good Story,” in Frank’s article he also outlines the importance of narratives when it comes to illness specifically. Both authors discuss the importance of narratives and how their interaction can influence perception. However, Bhattacharyya comes from a Hindu perspective, while Frank’s does not. The two works have similar features, and Frank’s article would be an excellent outside source to gain additional understanding of Bhattacharyya’s reading.
Finally, I agree with earlier statements that you could have picked a main idea to focus on for your writing. The whole blog post is a great summary of the readings. However, I would have liked to see you take an idea and really analyze it and make a claim regarding that idea.
Jackie,
In addition to an adequate analysis of this weeks readings, I feel that you posed thoughtful questions. The cultural neutrality you implied in your thought process on the relationship between public policy and religion seems like a simplification of the structure of society. In your analysis, you referenced Hinduism and Bhattacharyya’s work but did not relate it well to our other reading, “Impossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Ethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka” by Bob Simpson. I would have liked to have seen greater use of this reading as I felt that the Simpson piece was very insightful.
I think that it is important to note that the religion and culture of the dominant society is a large reactor and can frequently take precedence over public policy. This was seen in the Simpson reading as the specific beliefs of the Sri Lankan people dictated public action. For example, regardless of the legality of male sperm donation, societal beliefs were largely against it. Another example is the “Burke and Hare-type situation” described by Bob Simpson where Dr. Hudson Silva smuggled donors’ bodies out of hospitals so that he could remove their eyes in his garage. (Simpson, 846) Donor process motivations and the collection of donations seem to be closely linked with the beliefs of the society.
Your statement that “embracing diversity would be especially helpful for academic settings that already attempt to integrate complex ideas into a clearer and more unified understanding” confuses me. Although I agree with your statement supporting the inclusion of different religious perspectives in bioethical debates, I feel that doing so in an attempt to simplify these ideas is an oversight. Wouldn’t and shouldn’t the acceptance and integration of additional beliefs complicate the debates? Due to the serious and controversial nature of the issues on hand, I feel that bioethics debates should be complex.
In summary, I am in agreement with the other comments who stated that some aspects of your argument greatly simplify the complexity of these societies and religions. Your post would have been more cohesive if larger statements were made that connected the readings. I really would have liked to have seen you make greater use of the two readings together. Overall, I feel that you made very interesting points and enjoyed reading your post!
Jackie,
I liked how you emphasized the flexibility of the Hindu beliefs in the context of assisted reproductive technologies and compared this to Judaism and Christianity, which instead try to direct how to use these technologies for all cases. The idea that each course of action is context dependent or on a case-by-case basis is what Bhattacharyya calls “one of Hinduism’s greatest contributions to the contemporary field of bioethics” (97). Bhattacharyya mentions bioethics has to be applied in “complex and difficult” cases. This can include when precedents do not exist, such as the case of Jaycee Buzzanca. In my opinion, the core of why bioethics needs to exist is to function in a case-by-case basis, because the questions at hand are life/death. The ethical issues that circle bioethics are too complicated to have concrete solutions that can be applied in all scenarios.
I agree with you that the Hindu traditions are difficult to put forth in policy and legally. A possible solution, in difficult scenarios, could be court cases with experts from the assisted reproductive field. They could focus on the many possibilities that the Hindu religion accepts for reproductive technologies without labeling it as Hindu beliefs, since a religious argument might not always be welcomed in a court room.
Hey Jackie,
I really enjoyed reading your post and found my interpretations to the readings to be quite similar. I like how you open up with explaining what diversity entails when talking about various religious insights and perspectives. For me personally, I find that when there is a lot of different opinions, it can be incredibly effective for bioethical debates. I specially like the connection you make with integrating this concept into academic centers. I also think that brining in the Hindu ideas can be very powerful, especially when treating patients who follow the Hindu religion. However, what if patients don’t believe in their values and perspectives? I personally see this as potentially creating room for more conflict due to disagreement. I also think that her previous career as a nurse plays a large role in her perspective, what do you think?
I like that you emphasize how Hinduism values the well being of others, but to me it almost feels this implies that other religions don’t, by nature of their laws. I think the dicotomy between religion and laws can be extremely challenging to follow at times, but I still think from each religious standpoint there are valid arguments that prioritize the well being of communities at large. Perhaps, I am a bit confused by the way you talk about it.
Thank you for a very interesting interpretation.
Hello Jacquelyn Thelin,
First, I think you did a good job summarizing both readings. I agree with Nikki Batt’s comments that there could have been “stronger comparison between Buddhist and Hindu”. This could be challenging due to the vast differences in each religion. In Bob Simpson’s reading, he addresses the notions of Theravada Buddhist values, beliefs, and ideas pertaining to giving. These beliefs and ideas are linked to development of strategies are used as a framework for the donation of body parts. These beliefs and values are compares to the American ideas around reproductive technology. This Simpson’s opinion with Bhattacharyy’s reading about Hindu perspectives are compared to the Euro- American perspective of giving body parts. In Bhattacharyy’s article, he compares the Hindu perspective to American court cases over the child reproduction through reproductive technology. This perspective was used to highlight the differences. This allowed one to see ethical issues present in the United States. While both reading are very insightful, I think they could have been expanded the groups from each religion. The Theravada is one of the most dominate strain of Buddhist teaching. I feel that this argument could have been expanded to encompass different dominate Buddhist strains, Mahayana and Vajayana. The view from other dominate groups might have influenced the views of Theravada Buddhist. The same could have been said with Hindu religion.
Hi Jackie,
Thank you so much for well-written summary of both readings.
Your writing was easy to follow, and I agreed that these readings further supported more diverse religious perspectives in bioethical debates.
However, I would like to have had more thoughts about Buddhist practice, since I am from a country where Buddhism is one of the major religions. In your writing about Simpson’s article, I am bit confused about what you mean by ‘ova donation from females is generally accepted, as the actual development of the child will start take place in the female (in contrast to male sperm donation).’
From what I have understood, the reason why ova donation is generally accepted in contrast to male sperm donation is due to far less opposition from donors, less public debates and anxiety about the identity of a child based on who the father is. Because in Sri Lanka, it is commonly assumed that it is women rather than men who are the source of infertility problems, strategies aimed at eliciting the donation of ova from others are unlikely to arouse the same levels of sensitivity as strategies aimed to help infertile males. Even though women’s contribution to physical reproduction is widely recognized, when it comes to social reproduction, there remains a strong patrilineal orientation in this country.
Hey, Jackie
Thank you for your blog. It is very well done. I like how you summarized these two articles and made connections between them. I agree that both of the articles provide more diverse religious perspective into bioethical debates. By looking at the same issue in different perspectives will help us to gain more insights. For example, I was fascinated when I read Simpson’s article because I have never thought that Buddhists perceive gamete donating is a virtue. However, in their view, sperm donating is rejected. I do not see the difference from the biological point of view because both egg and sperm carry half of the genetic information for the next generation. Interestingly, society views sperm that is produced through masturbation is not as virtuous as gametes.
Between these two articles, I like Mahabharata’s more because it encourages the utilization of reproductive technologies, while also strongly advocating restraint and limiting the extent to which one utilizes the technology. I believe this is a very rational stand because the utilization of reproductive technologies will be very beneficial to the society if they are used properly to prevent illness and diseases.
Hey Jackie,
Thank you so much for your post! I really enjoyed reading it and felt that you brought up great points.
I enjoyed reading Bhattacharyya during my Spring Break, but feel that she glosses over a lot of things. Similar to your point about how Hindu principles could be transferred to a legal setting, I appreciated when Bhattacharyya brought up the Jaycee Buzzanca case while writing about Hindu ethics in regards to ART. The Buzzanca case definitely brought the light the ethics and legal issues regarding ART, which Bhattacharyya mentions. However, because the couple was not Hindu, Bhattarcharyya’s analysis and application of Hindu ethics and principles are theoretical–which weakens her overall analysis. However, Bhattarcharyya brings a different perspective to the ever expanding conversation regarding ART.
Another small criticism that I have is I feel that Bhattarcharyya limits herself when writing about Christianity. Bhattacharyya emphasizes the diversity of Hinduism, while ignoring the diversity of Christianity. By limiting the Christian narrative to one of Roman Catholicism–one of the least flexible forms of Christianity, Bhattarcharyya sells her analysis short. It could have been interesting to see Bhattarcharyya acknowledge the diversity of Christian beliefs and how that diversity compares to the diversity in Hindu traditions.
Hello Jackie,
You’ve done a great job at including overall broad pictures presented in both Swasti Bhattacharyya’s Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Assisted Reproductive Technology and Bob Simpson’s “Impossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka.” I appreciate how you began with mentioning that typical discourse surrounding ART is often framed within in very “western” lens, dominated by the views held by Christian, Catholic, or Jewish religious groups. These readings aid in expanding how we (as western-minded students at a Christian faith based school) view and interpret decisions to use or not use Assisted Reproductive Technology. As seen in the texts, the those who follow the teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism add a certain dimension of spirituality to the acts of conception, specifically regarding how they view the sperm and ovum in the context of reproduction. Bhattacharyya’s book highlights the very essential need for us to consider more than just the Judeo-Christian perspective in the context of everyday life as well as circumstances that possess more influence and weight: such as the proceedings of a court case. In essence, we must “recognize the increasing diversity of the patient populations and the necessities of addressing the resulting cultural, religious [and] social issues” (20). As others already mentioned, I feel that you touched upon important topics and arguments presented in either text, but your response can be improved by implementing a central claim of sorts. This would keep your writing more focused and succinct while presenting your arguments.
Thank you for such a good summary of the week’s readings. I’m glad we were assigned these readings because in all the discussions I’ve had about reproductive technologies, the Buddhist and Hindu perspectives had been neglected. In the Simpson article, I like how he describes the Buddhist idioms surrounding body part transactions and argues that consideration of these idioms is the responsibility of everyone– not just Sri Lankan and South Asian specialists.
Seeing the wide range of beliefs on reproductive technologies and how they’re based on different religions and cultures makes it much more difficult to take a particular stance. I like how in your last paragraph you mention how knowledge of different views on reproductive technologies can be incorporated in clinical settings. I hope we will get to discuss this further in class because I wonder what is actually being done and if physicians are informed of these different views.
Your post provides a really solid summary of the week’s readings, good job! I want to draw some attention to a specific part of your post:
You say, “Through use of narratives and openness to opinions of such narratives, Hinduism adapts to changing cultural of each generation and recognizes the importance of maintaining dynamic values that can be effectively transmitted to each generation.”
Based on the readings, I agree with the conclusion you have drawn here and also agree that other religions, like Judaism and Christianity, are much more rigid in their presentation of ethics. Your comparative religious perspective has made me think about culture as a whole and its ability to be dynamic over time. I would argue that Western society models its social culture similarly to Hinduism. By this I mean that modern American culture, for example, is very fluid and adaptable. This can be seen through social change that has continuously occurred over the past few decades – more specifically within the last seven to ten years. As the values of upcoming generations change, the social climate and legal system dynamically (sometimes very slowly) adjusts. In contrast, east Asian cultures are frequently modeled after tradition and following the ways of ancestors. Younger generations are taught from an early age to preserve the values and customs of their elders.
Ultimately, I believe that the ability to adapt is a crucial characteristic to society and human beings. When it comes to Hinduism and its relationship with ART, I respect its use of narrative, which now guides modern decision making. By allowing there to be opened ended questions without definitive answers, people can freely interpret Hindu principals and create their own life paths. I can see how this could be problematic in a legal setting, but religiously (and therefore, culturally) I think it is fascinating and quite liberating.
Hi Jackie,
I thoroughly enjoyed your opening paragraph that ties both the readings together in a seamless manner. I wished you talked more about Bob Simpson’s article; however, I thought your summary of Swasti Bhattacharyya’s book was easy to follow and gave great insight on Hinduism versus Judaism and Christianity. I agree with you that “the Hindu tradition can be open to diverse opinions and accept the influence these differences have on answering moral questions.” I feel that you could have referenced examples of the magical occurrences so that we are able to understand what kind of stories people thousands of years prior to modern reproductive technology where exposed to.
Jackie,
I really enjoyed your blog post, I thought it was very insightful and posed some really great questions about ethics and moral responsibilities. One thing I wish you would have integrated more was our past class discussions on these issues. We have previously talked about Jewish culture and how they view these questions, as well as other cultures. I think it would have been really interesting to tie all of these things together.
Largely, though, I thought your blog post was a great summary of the reading. It was well written and organized very clearly. It was very easy to follow your thoughts and your summary of both Bhattacharyya’s book and Simpson’s article. I really enjoyed the quote you integrated from Bhattacharyya about how stories are a part of what makes us uniquely human. All of us come from different experiences and carry different perspectives but it is our personal narratives that contribute to the whole. It would be ignorant to think that a culture has one outlook on a certain topic. This is seen in all cultures and is even brought up in Contested Lives (the book for the abortion unit); our personal narratives are the building blocks that make a culture what it is, it is what defines our societies and what defines us humans as a race.
Hi Jackie,
I think you did you great summary of the two reading and raising the questions unanswered in the Mahabharata text. I do however, think that adding a comparison between Judaism / Christianity and Buddhism or a comparison between the Hinduism and Buddhism would provide the readers with a further insight into the ethical issues. You have stated that you think the perspective on reproductive technology in Hinduism is more dynamic than those of Judaism and Christianity, which leads to the question of whether your argument is based on what the author’s interpretation or what the religion really holds on to. Bhattacharyya tends to use narratives to illustrate his opinions, just as Catholics have derived their stand on the issue using biblical narratives. In some way, Judaism is distinctive in a way that it focuses more on the legal portions of the text. Also, although you mentioned that both of these works use thoughts of Hinduism and Buddhism to challenge the conventional approaches of ethical discussion, I did not find the following discussion supporting this argument. Perhaps, going back to the first suggestion of adding a comparison between Judaism / Christianity and Buddhism may be a strong illustration.