Accommodating religion and belief in healthcare: Political threats,agonistic democracy and established religion

This paper considers what concept of accommodation is necessary to identify and address discrimination, disadvantages and disparities in such a way that the plurality of religious people with their beliefs, values and practices may be justly accommodated in healthcare. It evaluates threats to the possibility of such accommodation pertaining by considering what beliefs and practices might increase the risk of unjust discrimination against and disadvantage for religious people, whether as individuals or as groups; and the risk of disparities between the care provided to religious people. The claim is that there is an important cluster of risks that are political in kind and emergent within philosophical bioethics. While not amounting (yet) to a trend, they are sufficiently threatening to a just civic life for patients and healthcare staff as to warrant scrutiny. After an Introductory Section 1, Section 2 evaluates a criticism of ‘accommodation’ and the apparently additional health-related requirements that those of religious faith demand, when compared with other people. It does so by comparing Lori Beaman's idea of agonism with that of a distinct and somewhat complementary approach in Jonathan Chaplin's political philosophy, before examining the role of established religion in setting the conditions for the accommodation of religion and belief in healthcare. Section 3 examines risks to such accommodation by engaging critically with three health-related instantiations of political philosophy that differ radically from both Beaman and Chaplin. A concluding Section 4 focusses on appropriate modes of communicating about religious and other beliefs in healthcare.     

Death and Kinship in Hinduism: Structural and Functional Interpretations

This paper is, first, a structural analysis demonstrating that in Hindu sacred "law" death rites reflect a conception of kinship wherein intimacy is affected not only by such matters as genealogical distance, but also by differences in spiritual purity among kinsmen. Second, the paper shows that structural analysis of particular civilizations have more than intrinsic value, that they are also a necessary adjunct to highly general functional theories.     

Biology intersects religion and morality

Michael Ruse's writings explore what sociobiology says about morality. Further, he claims that sociobiology undermines the base for Christian morality. After responding to criticisms of Ruse, especially those of Arthur Peacocke, I lay a base for meeting his challenge.     

Interpreting the Bucrania of Çatalhöyük: James Mellaart,Dorothy Cameron,and Beyond

ABSTRACT

The bucranium (bull's head and horns) has been recognized as the most prevalent three-dimensional art form found during the excavations of the Neolithic village of Çatalhöyük in central Turkey. James Mellaart interpreted it as the symbol of the son and lover of the Great Mother Goddess, worshipped at Çatalhöyük. Extending this interpretation, Dorothy Cameron, friend and colleague of Mellaart, saw the bucranium as a symbol of life and regeneration—essentially a female symbol, representing the divine power of the human female reproductive system. Using archaeological evidence, and interpretations arising from the current excavations at Çatalhöyük, parallel examples from comparative religion, and supportive data from veterinary images, this paper explicates and challenges these theories, extending them into an alternative interpretation of the symbolism of the bucranium.     

When (if ever) may doctors discuss religion with their patients?

There is ongoing debate within the bioethics literature regarding to what extent (if any) it is ethically justifiable for doctors to engage in religious discussion with their patients, in cases where patients cite religious considerations as influencing their medical decision-making. In this paper, we concede that certain forms of religious discussion between doctors and patients are morally permissible (though not necessarily morally obligatory), insofar as patients’ religious beliefs may comprise an important part of their overall wellbeing and can influence their medical decisions. However, we argue that it is not morally permissible for doctors to engage in substantive religious discussion with their patients, beyond simply inquiring about the patient's values (which may include their religious values) or referring patients to a chaplain or religious figure for further discussion. In support of this claim, we put forward two key arguments which have remained relatively unaddressed in the current debate. First, we argue that it is not practical for doctors to engage in substantive religious discussion with patients, and hence it cannot be morally obligatory for them to do so. Second, we argue that, while doctors might have a professional duty to ensure that their patient's religious interests (if any) are addressed, this does not entail that doctors themselves are the ones who should directly address these interests. Along the way, we anticipate and respond to some possible objections to these two key arguments.     

Magic: A Problem in Semantics

Anthropologists, from Tylor to the present, have so defined magic that, although it might shade into or overlap with religion, it is a separate phenomenon distinct from religion. Theorists have made different features the chief means of differentiation, but no matter how defined the distinction cannot be easily or consistently maintained. This paper suggests that the concept of magic as a distinct entity is the factitious result of ethnocentric classification, and that magic should be included within religion as one type of the practices of which religious ritual is composed.     

Feeding habits of the rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) of Jaipur and Galta,India

Between September 1987 and May 1988, the time budgets of two groups of rhesus monkeys were investigated. One group inhabited an old Observatory which is now a tourist attraction in the center of Jaipur, India. The other group lived in a hilly forest/temple complex on the outskirts of Jaipur known as Galta. Because it was believed that the monkeys of these two different areas ate different proportions of natural and provisioned food, it was expected that they would have different time budgets. To determine differences in time budgets, a combination of census taking and 10-minute interval scan samples were used to collect comparative data. The analysis of the data revealed that there were differences in the time budgets of the two groups — the Observatory monkeys foraged more, moved less, engaged in fewer aggressive acts, and slept less during the day than the Galta group. These differences are mainly attributed to the 1984–1987 drought, site differences in the variety of natural food resources, and the manner in which the monkeys are provisioned.     

Relational autonomy,care, and Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany

Drawing from an ethics of care, relational approaches to autonomy have recently emerged in bioethics. Unlike individual autonomy with its emphasis on patients’ rights, choice, and self‐determination which has been the hallmark of bioethics consistent with the ideology of individualism in neoliberal democracies in Western countries, relational autonomy highlights the relatedness, interdependency, and social embeddedness of patients. By examining the mediating role that male Hospital Liaison Committee members in Germany play in facilitating care that supports Jehovah's Witnesses’ refusal of blood transfusions, this article moves beyond ‘dyadic relations’ and contexts of caregiving. It also contributes to a deeper understanding of care and relational conceptualizations of Witness patients’ autonomy globally.     

Symbolic ethnicity and Herbert Gans: race,religion, and politics in the twenty-first century

This article attempts to assess some of Herb Gans’s influential contributions, not only in his important paper on symbolic ethnicity, but also his wider discussion of the changing role of race, ethnicity, and religion in American society. In a period spanning more than half a century, he has helped to raise key questions and to suggest avenues of research that have stimulated debates and the re-evaluation of a complex, controversial, and highly dynamic field of social science research and policy.