Blog 2 – Neha Vaddepally

In order to characterize the differences between Bhattacharya and Broyde’s approaches to reproductive technology, we must first understand the authors’ purpose in writing about the topic. Michael Broyde in his book Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law aims to create an analysis of the technology of cloning from a Jewish law perspective, since “every legal, religious, or ethical system has to insist that advances in technologies be evaluated against the touchstones of its moral systems” (Broyde 295). He explains in the first chapter of this book that he does not claim to have authority of any religious institution, but rather he means to discuss the topic of cloning through his experience of Jewish law and ethics. Since cloning is a new technology that could not have existed when the Judaism came to be, Broyde is forced to reference both the Torah and other secondary interpretations of the text. After a thorough reading of religious texts, he was able to pinpoint rules that either allowed for cloning and clones to be accepted into society and the Jewish faith, or did not. Through this research, Broyde was able to provide, with a sufficient degree of certainty, that cloning is conditionally an acceptable method of reproduction.

Swasti Bhattacharya writes Magical Progeny, Modern Technology for much different reasons than Broyde. Her piece is not focused on one aspect of bioethics, but rather attempts to tackle bioethics from a Hindu perspective as a whole. Through her book, Bhattacharya strives for a much larger goal than simply understanding how modern reproductive technology would be interpreted by the Hindu eye. She means to establish the field of Hindu bioethics, as it does not exist to the extent that Christian and Jewish perspectives do. After discussing the critical role that religion plays in the field of bioethics, Bhattacharya calls attention to the lack of religious diversity in medicine and the importance of cultural competency in the practice of medicine rather than the theory. Culture, religion, and tradition allow for individuality within society, resulting in a varied experience of reality for each person. It is of utmost importance that medical practitioners are aware of these differences between people and their experiences of life in order to help them when necessary. A detailed analysis of the Hindu myth called the Mahabarata is the core of Bhattacharya’s attempt to construct a bioethical framework of assisted reproductive technology that did not previously exist. Despite taking up this enormous job on her own, Bhattacharya does not take an authoritative stance on the material she discusses. Early on in the text, she clarifies that the contents of the book are only based on her interpretations of Hinduism, and do not represent the views of others.

When comparing these two texts, it is clear that a key difference lies in the religions that they explore. Of course, I cannot say for certain that this is the only difference. An argument could be made that each author’s methodology could play a role in their differences. In this case it would be that Bhattacharya reads Hindu text and derives bioethical ideals from her understanding of it, while Broyde starts with an ethical problem and searches Jewish texts to find a solution for it. Inevitably there will be differences due to these methods of research, but when one inquires as to why the research was done this way, the answer ultimately falls back to religion. By this, I mean the structure of Hinduism and Judaism, not the religious ideals or practices. As far as I understand, the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) tend to follow a well established set of rules dictated by the bible. While there may be variation in the way in which these religions are practiced, there do exist fairly specific guidelines on how one should live their life. This allows for more pointed discussion on matters in question, in this case, cloning.

While Judaism is quite structured, Hinduism is the opposite. The term “Hinduism” itself is misleading, as it is an umbrella term for a multitude of different religious ideals and practices that are close enough in relation to be mistaken as one religion. There is no “formal discipline that presents and internally consistent rational system in which patterns of human conduct are justified with reference to ultimate norms and values” (Bhattacharya 27). Thus, there is no one voice that can speak for Hinduism. This makes it quite difficult to pinpoint one perspective of a bioethical issue.

Jewish and Christian bioethics rely on the regimented nature of their religions to engage in discussion about various topics. To establish a comparable field of bioethics using a pluralistic religion such as Hinduism is not practical. The nature of Hinduism itself, disregarding culture and tradition, prevents us from being able to create a “field” of bioethics as we understood it through the Abrahamic religions. Christianity and Judaism have shaped Western thought such that we feel it is necessary to have a specific set of rules that we live by. Since this does not exist in Hinduism, it is not possible to have a “Hindu bioethics”. Regardless of this, Bhattacharya made a commendable effort to bring Hindu ideas and traditions into medicine, introducing diversity into a previously homogeneous field.