Duke professor explores Muslim bioethics

By Sal Umberto Bonaccorso

Staff Writer

May 25, 2005

"When is a person dead?" Duke Religion Professor Ebrahim Moosa asked the audience at his talk yesterday on globalization and modern Muslim ethics.

Muslim scholars confront challenging questions about the role of technology in life or death situations, Moosa said. These issues include organ transplantations and life support, which have both sparked debate in the Middle East.

"Biotechnology subverts our intelligent notions of life and deaths because of the availability of machines to keep the body nourished intravenously and provide it with some of the external signs of life," Moosa said.

But this issue transcends science in many ways, creating paradoxes in the Muslim conceptions of life. In particular, it raises questions regarding the difference between a human being and a corpse, Moosa said.

"We can point to a human body that shows some of the external signs of life, especially breathing, and yet we are unsure if this is a living body," he added. "We might be able to say that a brain-dead body on a respirator is a primitive version of a cyborg. This forces us to ask the question -- "what is a person?"

Moosa contrasted how scholars in Egypt and scholars in India view organ transplantation and the differences in their rationale on the allowance of the procedure.

Those in Egypt work on the principle that the preservation of life takes precedence over other taboos, and that since there is no binding precedence on the permissibility of organ transplantation, it should be allowed.

"What is the relationship between science and the humanities?" Moosa asked. "Some believe there is a seamless continuity between factual science and ethics. God's works, namely science and nature, and God's word are the same."

But even academics at high-profile Indian universities oppose organ transplantation on the grounds that the human body and its dignity are absolute, and that necessity is not a valid reason to violate anything that is absolute.

"In their world they see that science is different from God's words, revelation and the law," Moosa said. "They are not easily translatable. For them, ethics cannot be subject to the reductionism of science."

He broadened the scope of this argument, asserting that religious beliefs not only influence medicine, but also healthcare practices, arts and warfare.

Moosa concluded his discussion with the following analogy.

"We all like to relish our mortality, for in the symphony of life the instrument only in part determines the character of the symphony," he said. "We still need to consider the vital role of the composers, the musicians and the audience."

Copyright © 2004 Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation.

This article posted July 7, 2005.