In Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology, Bhattacharya seems to be very well versed on the topic at hand, as she worked in a clinical setting in New York as well has also earned a doctorate in Hindu Bioethics. Typically, when creating a stance on bioethics based on a religion, the first source a person turns to is a Holy text, such as The Bible, The Torah, or the Quran. In the Hindu faith, there is no one true holy text, so Bhattacharya turns to the Mahabharata and relates her ethics to the story of how three queens overcame infertility to provide heirs to the kingdom. In 4 she boils Hindu down to six main factors that provide a basis for Hindu Bioethics. This book has a more of a virtue ethics approach that is based on character formation instead of a decision making approach.
While Bhattacharya speaks to traditional reproduction. Broyde writes upon the stance of Judaism on cloning. In Judaism, the code of law is called Halakah, and on page 296 Broyde breaks down three of the main subcategories of acceptable actions / goods: mutar, asur, and mitzvah. These mean permissible, prohibited and good deed, respectively. Broyde rarely if at all interjects opinion and sticks to the objective Jewish law. He constantly brings up questions of legal guardianship such as who is the mother of a clone? Can there be two? In his conclusion he has 2 different stances depending on if the clone is of a male or a female. For a male, it is a Jewish mandate to be fruitful and multiply, so as a sort of last resort cloning of a male is mitzvah, a good thing. For a female, on the other hand, it is considered neutral. It would be interesting to see other religions opinions on cloning as we have leaned not ever religion interprets “be fruitful and multiply” as a command rather as a guiding principle (Genesis 1:28)
When it comes to comparing methodologies, it’s hard to say with complete confidence that the differences in methodologies are the only contributing factors. Like Emerynn said in her post, even with in the same religion, there are many different sects and sub-sections of a religion with different interpretations of the same words. The methodologies differ between Bhattacharya and Broyde, I think the largest differences are cultural, which is often a direct or indirect reflection of religion. When comparing western Abrahamic religions such as Christianity or Judaism to Hindu bioethics, we see it to be quite difficult. Hindu is a conglomerate of different beliefs and then centered on a geographical location, modern day India. In modern western civilization there are usually codes or laws that people obey, whether they be ethical or legal, these codes usually come from a religious background of a holy text. In Hindu, as mentioned earlier, there is no one holy text that sprouted the religion. What Bhattacharya did was essentially put Hinduism in a frame or template that was cut from western religious stances on bioethics.
One thing that many people have already touched on is the importance of looking at cases on an individual basis and not making generalizations. I believe both Bhattacharya and Broyde would agree. Broyde would most likely base his decisions on the impact of the kin, or the closest family members, such as how much of a burden would this place on those who are around the child with possible disabilities. On the other hand, Bhattacharya would run the idea of amniocentesis through her sixpoint checklist. Some of these main ideas are centered around the idea of Karma, Ahimsa, and Cosmic order. Which begs another ethical question is it better, in a cosmic sense, to terminate a pregnancy or being a child with possible sever disabilities into this world?
Sources:
Book of Genesis, chapters 1.
Swasti Bhattacharya, Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology(Suny University Press, 2006).
Michael J. Broyde, “Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law,” In Michael J. Broyde and Michael Ausubel editors, Marriage, Sex and the Family in Judaism. (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp. 295-328. (e-reserve)
James – I love the point you made in the last paragraph. Strong argument for each instances to be judged on a case by case basis, rather than having a generic set of rules that do not help each instance singularly. I like how you tie in Broyde and Bhattacharya’s interpretations, and further them to examine an issue they didn’t necessarily touch upon. I would have liked for you to compare and contrast the reasoning behind the two authors differential views a little further, as I would better like to understand the stemming differences between Hinduism and Judaism beyond geographical location and variety of scripture.
Hi James, I really enjoyed the last paragraph of this blog. You did a good job in specifying the differences between Broyde and Bhattacharyas methodologies while writing their respective books. Like Ira said above, I am curious to see what you think the cause of their differences are in terms of religion. The last line of your second to last paragraph is one that I strongly believe myself and am glad to see that there are others that think the way I do. But continuing the idea that Bhattacharya used Western religions as a template for Hindu bioethics, do you think that she was successful in doing so? Do you think that is the right method to creating a field of bioethics, or does it reduce Hinduism to a set of rules that did not previously exist?
Hey James –
Thanks for your post! It was well organized and clearly summarized the important points and techniques that the writers utilized. I really liked the line where you said “Hinduism [was] put in a frame or template that was cut from western religious stances on bioethics. This is a really good way to put the techniques of Bhattacharyya in a more comprehensible description because of relatively more familiarity with studies in bioethics from western religious perspectives in general. She employed similar techniques and approaches as others who have done research observations for different religions, and her familiarity with these studies are evident through her multiple references to such religions like Catholicism and the Donum Vitae. In regards to your last paragraph, I think it is also important to mention the emphasis that Bhattacharyya claims Hinduism places on the betterment of the society in addition to the individual. Though this elevated significance stems from the six key elements of Hinduism, I think the fact that Hinduism emphasizes the good of society almost equivalently to the decision of the individual is an important differentiation for the ultimate decision-making process between the two authors.
Hi James,
Thank you for your blog! You have some interesting ideas in here. At the same time, I wish you would have answered the questions from the prompt more directly. I feel that you sidestep around them, writing that instead there are more interesting things to consider. However, for our blog it is important to also, and probably before you write these ideas, to address the questions from the prompt.
Keep up the good work for your final blog!