In this paper, as the research results of a three-layer structural analysis of India's reproductive medical (surrogacy) ethics, I will introduce the present state of surrogacy in India as experienced by the world renowned surrogacy expert Dr. Patel (layer 1), and I will investigate her ethical assessment (layer 2) as well as Hinduism's view of reproductive technology supporting Dr. Patel's ethical assessment (layer 3).
The patient for who Dr. Patel performed surrogacy for the first time in 2003 was a woman born without a uterus (Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome). Since then, and until February 2011, Dr. Patel has achieved more than 250 successful cases of surrogacy and more than 330 children have been born (layer 1).
Dr. Patel relates, "To both patients who have not been blessed with a child and to 'womb suppliers' who are suffering from poverty, surrogacy performed at the Akanksha Infertility Clinic is a win-win situation (layer 2)."
Moreover, as a fortunate fact for Indian women of poor families, in Hinduism, to which 80 percent of the 1.2 billion Indian population adhere, understanding towards assisted reproductive technology is very high. In Hindu mythology we encounter transmissions that remind us of modern assisted reproductive medical technology. For example, there is a story in which a female deity conceives and gives birth by the injection of a male deity's sperm (artificial insemination), or a story where a fetus is born from another woman's womb (surrogacy). In the Hindu nation of India, where rebirth (revolving wheel of life) and karma (cause and retribution, the natural consequences of one's own foolish deeds/behavior/action) form a basic set, common religious ceremonies for the gods Shiva and Mahadevi coexist with assisted reproductive medical technology without colliding over contradictions (layer 3).
The purpose of the research is to shed a light on what kind of education enables autistic children to 'interact with others'. Teachers ought to call on and reach out to autistic children in front of them. At the same time, teachers need to respond to what they say. Everything that enables teachers and autistic children to exist lies in this daily responsive dialogue. For those who are diagnosed with autism, the possibility of the dialogue to respond to the call is their education that makes it possible for them to interact with other people. Even though an autistic child participates in a class as a student, at the moment, when the 'true class' realistically actualizes, the dialogical relationship between the teacher and the autistic child accrues. Between the two facing each other, sincerity toward other people and responsive commitment result as a response to others' call. Responsive commitment means that they come face-to-face with others and that they will not step away at all from the current circumstance that requires verbal communication. Teachers are required to be aware of this sort of responsive commitment. When the responsive commitment is realized, the 'true dialogue' actualized by a person as a human being and the education enabling autistic children to interact with others becomes possible.
Arguing about the criteria for the brain-death diagnosis or the conditions for switching off the life supporting system, bioethics has dealt with the person who is dying or has just died. However, it rarely pays attention to or talks about the dead. Why doesn't bioethics talk about the dead, especially about the dead after the funeral? It is a kind of talking about the dead to say, e.g. "According to the deeds of living people, the significance of the life of the dead increases or decreases." This talk may seem to enter into the bioethical arguments when, e.g. we assert the utility of embryo-stem cells to justify the research of embryo-stem cells. However, on reflection, it turns out that it cannot enter into the context of justification of killing living things. The context where it can occur is that of recovering from the traumas of having been obliged to kill an embryo, fetus or dying person. Finally, some philosophical difficulties concerning talking about the dead are brought under review.
The purpose of this study is to consider the significance of reading "literatures written by patients" in the medical faculty. This study is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the philosophical question: "How can we understand patients as other minds?" The second part deals with the concrete methods and the results of understanding patients by reading literatures written by patients. In this paper I deal with the second part.
In the first, we think the motives to write and read 'literatures written by patients'. Patients want to rearrange and recover themselves through writing their sufferings. And they also seek for the solidarity of healthy people. At the same time, healthy people learn deeper meanings of lives from patients through reading these literatures. A relationship of solidarity can consist between patients and healthy people.
Next we consider the concrete methods to understand patients by reading their works. We learn methods from W. Dilthey's study. According to him, spiritual science describes consciousness as a whole, and analyzes it. Particular expressions of author must be understood in relation to author's whole life (Lebenszusammenhang). This process is performed in three steps: 1) to put myself into another person's place (Hineinversetzen), 2) to experience for oneself what another person has gone through (Nacherleben), 3) to interpret him internally (Auslegen).
Then I want to reproduce my lecture. We treat Shiki Masaoka's "An Idle Monologue in Sick Bed" (Gyoga Manroku). I
show how we can understand the author's motives, attitudes, and a world-view, according to methods we considered.
Finally, we ascertain that 'reading literatures written by patients' and doing medical practices have the same meanings in the relation to patients. The spirit of "care" is also included in this matter.
In this article, I have deliberated on medical sociology specialist Shinya Tateiwa's proposal about "nursing specialties."
When a new nursing qualification system was implemented in 1993, Tateiwa criticized the idea that emphasis on nursing specialties could cause the expansion and monopoly of work fields. He redefined nursing specialties by pointing out that there were already established specialties that needn't be emphasized.
Tateiwa defined the principal body of nursing as 'a work to support patients living with their diseases through direct relations with their lives,' and said that nursing is a very important element for human relation support.
He sees nursing specialties in 'daily routines,' each of which can not be separated and can be (and often are) performed by any nurse, as the core of their work getting comprehensively involved with those who face sickness.
Tateiwa pointed out that separating specialties would not help raise the nursing quality because it would leave the major portion of nurses, generalists, behind. This point is worth listening to closely In order to improve the nursing quality, we need to hold on to good nurses and prevent them from leaving work. Even if we work on the development of human resources, treatments and working environments, we must remember that 'specialties' are deeply involved in this development. One might say that they are the key. After my deliberation of Tateiwa's ideas, I can see that If nurses who work in a severe environment intend to raise the overall nursing quality, they can't help but revert to their own specialties.