10th International Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Workshop – Jerusalem

An Interreligious and Multicultural Perspective on

The Nature of Medicine and the Role of Physicians

DECEMEBR 17-19, 2024

 

During the three days of our UNESCO Chair workshop, we will analyze and discuss “The Nature of Medicine and the Role of Physicians”. The study and conversations will focus on how different traditions understand the discipline of medicine and perceive the practitioners of the discipline. Previous workshops have successfully taken place in Rome, Hong Kong, Mexico, Houston, Casablanca, and Bangkok with the participation of more than 80 prestigious interdisciplinary scholars from around the world.

With the rapid advancement of medical science and technology, the discipline of medicine has been radically changed in recent years and the role of physicians have also been transformed accordingly. And so, it is important to discuss and to understand the redefinition of the medical field through the lens of different cultural and religious traditions.

We plan to gather bioethics experts from Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Daoist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and the secular backgrounds to discuss different papers on “The Nature of Medicine and the Role of Physicians” submitted for this occasion. Like previous workshops, the papers submitted for this workshop will be collected and published as a book.

The general theme was suggested by the experts participating in our previous workshop (Bangkok 2022). To find convergence and cooperation in the field of these crucial issues related to the nature of the medical profession and duty of medical practitioners will be the core subject matter of the papers and workshop discussions and lectures.

Hosted by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights, established in two Roman universities, the Università Europea di Roma and Ateneo Pontificio Regina Apostolorum, the conferences are a first step in creating a permanent academic forum to promote dialogue and bioethical reflection in the light of human rights and duties addressed from different religious and cultural perspectives in the worlds actively advancing medical, legal and technological environment.

By gathering experts from these religions, a rare space for dialogue has been created where an atmosphere of friendship and respect reigns. Such dialogue and encounters allow us to see the other as our brothers and sisters in our common humanity. This is most urgent in our globalized reality and can eliminate suspicions that are sometimes the causes of distrust and even violence.

Our experiences enable us to share values and attitudes that facilitate dialogue and the accomplishment of UNESCO Chair goal of “Fostering the Art of Convergence and Cooperation in Global Ethics”. The Chair seeks to create a forum for diverse bioethics thought leaders. Collaborating in a spirit of respect and friendship we hope to deliver a common framework to guide the application of bioethical principles in the light of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. In this manner we can inform and enlighten ethical, legal and public opinions, decisions, and actions relative to medicine, life sciences and human rights and responsibilities.

OPTIONAL – PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM

As means of dissemination, publicity and involvement of multiple and diverse scientific, medical and university communities and the public we suggest organizing during the week an event open to the public on topics related to bioethics issues in the light of human rights in a multicultural and interreligious environment.

In this event, experts in the workshop and other suggested by the hosting university will provide academic lectures or presentations for educational purposes and dissemination of knowledge on bioethics and human rights.  We will encourage participation of the outside community including public authorities, doctors and other healthcare personnel, patients, teachers, university scholars and students, and anyone interested in these relevant topics. The workshop and conference are primarily academic and apolitical, even though we encourage participation of all.

The language for this event can be decided locally by the hosting university, providing simultaneous translation into English (for foreigner participants) if needed.

9th International Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Workshop

by Allister Lee, licentiate student in bioethics.

In his 2020 encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis points out the many social issues of the contemporary age which could be characterised by the absence of communal and social purpose and selfish indifference towards the common good. However, the Holy Father also offers a hopeful message and suggests that the world should encounter itself through renewed dialogue and friendship. The last chapter of the encyclical examined the role of religions in fostering fraternity instead of polarization. As a response to the Pope’s call to dialogue, the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights, established at Faculty of Bioethics of the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum and Faculty of Law of Università Europea di Roma, organised a two-day workshop to study the document in light of other different traditions, including Islam, Judaism, Greek Orthodoxy, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Hinduism.

The workshop began with the keynote speaker, Prof. Edmund Kwok and Dr. Christine Lai, who focused on the encyclical’s discussion of contemporary global politics concerning integral human development and addressed the Holy Father’s vision of a “better kind of politics” through a universal fraternity that is rooted in the common good, love, mercy, and hope. This was followed by Fr. Sameer Advani, LC, who contextualised Fratelli Tutti and the Catholic Church’s commitment to interreligious dialogue as a product of the Second Vatican Council, and pointed out that such dialogue is “primarily anthropological, and only secondarily theo-logical, in nature.” He highlights that because religion is an essential part of human existence and experience, the fundamental questions that interreligious dialogue seeks to answer are consequently also deeply human, such as the nature and purpose of man, and morality. In his presentation, Fr. Adavani, LC, argues that even though the Catholic faith conceives truth as singular and absolute, it is within the human condition that our knowledge and understanding of the truth is limited; henceforth, it is only by the breaking down of one’s preconceived notions of truth through dialogue with the “other” can one attain a deeper, and often hidden truth.

The Holy Father’s concept of what could be called a universal fraternity was examined by some scholars in this workshop and brought forward the tension between particularism and universalism. In his presentation, Dr. David Heyd from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem points out that this philosophical tension is reflected socio-politically in the divide between cosmopolitanism and statism, and religiously in the way that Judaism differs from Christianity where it approaches issues from the particular to the universal, while the latter does so in a reversed manner. The idea of cosmopolitanism was also mentioned by Dr. Ellen Zhang from the University of Macau about the “ethics of hospitality” and Buddhism. The speaker presented the Buddhist idea of the interconnectedness of the world by recognizing the universality of suffering and vulnerability, which in turn creates a demand for the virtues of loving-kindness and compassion. However, as both Dr. Heyd and Dr. Zhang questioned in their presentations, “Are feelings of love and compassion sufficient enough to develop rational moral propositions in favour of global solidarity and social friendship?” Undoubtedly, these affective notions can be slightly precarious for long-lasting social cohesion and unity, but they can often be a powerful impetus for open dialogue between people to (re)discover fundamental truths that forge social friendships and fosters a sense of universal fraternity.

Dialogue – as Dr. Chris Durante from St Peter’s University in New York reminded the participants through the words of the Greek Orthodox leaders, “takes place in all our encounters, personal, social, or political, and must always be extended to those who adhere to religions different from ours” where “truth is not afraid of dialogue.” As such, Dr. Durante in his presentation stressed the importance of relationality with others in the world and avoiding bigoted forms of tribalism and exclusivism. On the other hand, Luzita Ball from the Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Science (IFEES) presented the Islamic tradition which approaches the topic of interreligious dialogue in a more legalistic manner in comparison to its Orthodox counterparts, while remaining committed to the ideals of unity and solidarity for the downtrodden. In this contemporary world, even though the East and West have been ever brought closer to each through technological means, international conflicts have created a vast space for dialogue and mutual understanding. However, in his presentation, Dr. John Lunstroth from the University of Houston brought to attention the historical relationship between the two hemispheres that were characterized by admiration and a call to “rectify each other’s errors and supplement mutual deficiencies” by learning from each other. And concerning the dialogue between East and West, Dr. Ruiping Fan from the City University of Hong Kong added that to conduct authentic social dialogue and foster fraternity, there is an imperative to first acknowledge the differences of “people’s particular cultural rituals and practices”.

On a final note, the “fruitful exchange” that occurred throughout this workshop inevitably involved contentions of an intellectual nature at times. However, they were always denoted by the underlying friendship that was built through shared moments such as the day trip to Assisi on the last day of the workshop, and a deep desire to seek the truth that unites rather than divides. And as such, I firmly believe that the Pope’s encyclical is a reaffirmation and encouragement to the continuous efforts of the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights to foster constructive interreligious dialogue which would bring the universal fraternity closer to each other. 

UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights invited to Brescia for two days of study on migration.

Brescia Port of Worlds. Culture Narrates Migrations.

On Feb. 23, 24 and 25, the UNESCO Chair of the University of Brescia’s “Training and Strengthening Human Resources for Health Development in Resource-limited Countries,” in collaboration with the Italian Network of Italian UNESCO Chairs and the CARME Cultural Association, on the occasion of Brescia Bergamo Italian Capital of Culture 2023, organized an event titled “Brescia Port of Worlds. Culture Narrates Migrations.”

The event took place in the Carmine neighborhood, the cradle of more than 145 different nationalities, a symbol of the migration and integration phenomenon in the city of Brescia. Specifically, the event occurred within the C.A.R.M.E. Centro Arti Multiculturali ed Etnosociali, a place that fosters dialogue and social and cultural aggregation. On the initiative of citizens to enhance the former church of Saints Philip and James, CARME lends itself as a workshop, discussion forum and gallery for temporary exhibitions. In this multicultural context, the forum for discussion on the multiple aspects of the migration phenomenon and integration models was held with a focus on Brescia bringing the community closer to speeches and testimonies of experts, professionals and representatives through presentations, round tables and cultural, musical and film performances.

Some representatives of Italian UNESCO Chairs, including our Chair of Bioethics and Human Rights represented by Serena Montefusco, shared their experiences and projects in line with the 2030 Agenda and UNESCO principles on migration. In fact, as stated in the Concept Note, UNESCO pays particular interest to the phenomenon of migration and its implications, in order to understand the links between migration and education and the challenges posed by intercultural education, student mobility and international recognition of qualifications. The organization also addresses the social dimensions of climate change and migration, particularly with regard to governance, conflict, human rights and international law, gender equality, economic and human development and public health.

In light of these principles, interesting interventions aimed at developing the education and skills of migrants and refugees welcomed to the European Union emerged. After the video greetings of the CNIU Secretary General, Enrico Vicenti, the proceedings were opened by the President of the University of Brescia, Prof. Francesco Castelli also Chairholder of the Chair “Training and Reinforcement of Human Resources for Health Development in Resource Limited Countries” who spoke in-depth about the various types of migrants and on the theory of pull and push factors. Then Prof. Raimondo Cagiano de Azevedo of the UNESCO Chair Population, Migrations and Development, Sapienza University of Rome, spoke summarizing the development challenges and opportunities for migrants both in the country of origin and destination. Continuing, Professors Domenico Simeone and Diego Mesa of the UNESCO Chair Education for Human Development and Solidarity among Peoples, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, presented a phenomenon, which is constantly growing, concerning the reception of unaccompanied foreign minors. After a short break, the proceedings resumed with speeches by other representatives of UNESCO Chairs including Antonio Guerci, UNESCO Chair Anthropology of Health. Biosphere and Healing Systems, University of Genoa; Massimo Zortea, UNESCO Chair Engineering for Human and Sustainable Development, University of Trento; Paola Raffa and Natalina Carrà, UNESCO Chair Mediterranean Landscapes in Context of Emergency, University of Reggio Calabria; Serena Montefusco, UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights Chair, Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum and European University of Rome; Annateresa Rondinella, UNESCO Sustainable Energy Communities Chair, University of Pisa and UNESCO Chair On Futures of Education for Sustainability, Pontifical Lateran University; Giovanna Marconi and Solomon Elala Seyoum, UNESCO Chair on Social and Spatial Inclusion of International Migrants, Urban Policies and Practices, Iuav University of Venice.

Serena Montefusco shared the activities carried out within the Bioethics and Human Ecology area of interest, specifically the implementation of projects supported by EU funds i.e. EUROSOL and CivicAL, but also an event presenting the Global Compact on migrants and refugees and the Role and Impact of the Church. With the release of the Encyclical Laudato Sì, the Chair has created a research group to explore the topic of the environment, biosphere and biodiversity. Human ecology means that the ecological issue is an ethical issue concerning human actions. In addressing diverse and pressing environmental issues, it is important to safeguard the centrality of the human person and his dignity. Sustainable development implies that the progress of society must be accompanied by the integral development of the whole person, including his or her physical, psychosocial, cultural and spiritual-moral dimensions. The right to the integral development of the whole person entails the duty to accommodate and provide the means to move from a state of social vulnerability to a state of dignified life (see Art. 3 SDGs) through good education (see Art. 4 SDGs) and the continued work of governments and societies for peace and justice (see Art. 16 SDGs). The responsibility, in fact, lies not only with all governments, but all members of society have responsibilities regarding the promotion and realization of this right to migration, including individuals, families, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society organizations.

Annateresa Rondinella, shared with the audience the UNESCO Passport to Qualifications for Vulnerable Refugees and Migrants. UNESCO, in the field of Education, established The UNESCO Passport for the Qualifications of Vulnerable Refugees and Migrants drawing on the experiences and methodology of the European Qualifications Passport (EQPR) initiative in an initiative sponsored by the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) in collaboration with the Council of Europe. Based on the Lisbon Convention adopted on November 14, 2017 in Strasbourg, the UNESCO Qualifications Passport for Refugees is a standardized statement that contains three parts: the assessment part, the explanatory part, and the third part about the way forward. It differs from the European Qualifications Passport for Refugees, which consists of two parts: the assessment part and the explanatory part. Although this document does not constitute formal recognition or authorization or entitlement to practice a particular profession, it summarizes and presents the information available based on the applicant’s level of education, work experience and language skills. The assessment methodology is defined by the combination of an evaluation of available documentation, and the use of structured interview. Thus, the document provides credible information that may be relevant to applications for jobs, internships, qualifying courses, admission to studies. An early example of UQP recognition is right at the University of Brescia.

Another example of mobility, thanks to UNHCR-promoted university corridors, was shared directly by Solomon Seyoum Elala of the Iuav University of Venice. Introduced by Giovanna Marconi, Solomon told the students and participants in the room about his experience starting in Ethiopia and ending in Venice. Despite initial difficulties in adapting due to the cultural context and language limitations, Solomon continues his studies in engineering with the goal of bringing all the practical knowledge he has acquired back to his home country.

The first day ended with a concert by Coleur d’Afrique and a multi-ethnic aperitif organized by the CiboxTutti association. The second day’s work included two panel discussions: the first, “Integration and Equity: Common Good,” Franco Valenti, IDOS Lombardy Referent, Roberto Cammarata, Brescia City Council, Camilla Bianchi, Provincial Coordination of Local Authorities for Peace and International Cooperation, Roberto Memme, LDA Association in Zavidovici, and Roberto Zini, Industrial Association of Brescia. The second: “Places of encounter and dialogue” Alessandro Sipolo, Independent Researcher, Don Roberto Ferranti, Office for Migrants and Interreligious Dialogue of the Diocese of Brescia Omar Ajam, Islamic Cultural Center and Giulio Vita, La Guarimba.

The comparison is inevitable between the Carmine neighborhood of Brescia and the Torpignattara neighborhood of Rome, where the Agenzia Scalabriniana per la Cooperazione allo Sviluppo operates within the project Casa Scalabrini 634, with which we have collaborated on various projects in the field of migration and human rights.  The UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights, for more than a decade, has aimed to create forums of diverse bioethical thought leaders to promote interfaith dialogue and human rights by collaborating in a spirit of respect and friendship, providing a common framework to guide the application of bioethical principles in light of the UNESCO Declaration (2005). In this way, we can inform and illuminate ethical, legal, and public opinions, decisions, and actions related to medicine, life sciences, and human rights and responsibilities.

Read the Italian version.

International Conference. Responses to Fratelli Tutti from different religious traditions.

From May 23-25, 2023, the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights will hold its 9th international workshop to discuss the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti of Pope Francis from the perspectives of different major world religious traditions.

Fratelli tutti makes a critical analysis on the actual condition of the world today, prone to conflict, miscommunication, and closeness.  Speakers from 6 traditions—Christian orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism—will offer a commentary to chapters 5-8 of this encyclical.  These chapters make a more practical proposal as to how political, societal, and religious groups can encourage a greater sense of fraternity and solidarity in our globalized reality.

For further information follow the main page. 

7th International Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Workshop

By Camila Salcedo

On November 11-13, the 7th International Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Workshop was held in Casablanca, Morocco. It was organized by the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights, in partnership with Foundation Cultures du Monde and the Fondation de la Mosquée Hassan II.

This year, the conference was centered on Article 16 of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, “The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution should be given due regard.” Under this framework, it focused on the ethics of human reproduction, more specifically on pre-natal Testing, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and maternal surrogacy. The conference was divided into ten sessions, out of which seven were panels focusing on specific religious or secular traditions. Each of these panels included one main talk by an expert, commentary from an expert from the same tradition, and commentary from an expert from another tradition. These interventions were then followed by hour-long discussions open to all attendees.

The first two sessions set the framework for the workshop. The first session included welcoming remarks by the directors of the three organizing institutions; the director of the Médiathèque de la Fondation de la Mosquée Hassan II, Driss Alaui of the Foundation Cultures du Monde and Come to My Home, and Alberto García and Fr. Joseph Tham, LC, of the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights. The second session held the keynote talks, including an introduction on the latest radical innovations on assisted reproductive technologies (ART) by Prof. John Appleby, an introduction to the use of ART in Israel and Jewish views on these technologies by Dr. Jonathan Halevy, and gynecologist Dr. Paul Lee’s introduction to NaProTechnology, a possible treatment that addresses the underlying causes of infertility.

The third session–and first religious panel–was on Islamic views on ART. The main talk was given by Dr. Aasim Padela, who explained a Sunni Islam position, which rejects most forms of ART. Prof. Padela described several theological arguments and shared polls on the views of American Muslim women on these technologies. Katherine Klima, DNP, co-author of the paper presented by Padela, also joined the panel and later–in the discussion–called for a greater emphasis on the perspectives of ordinary Muslims and on the concept of human flourishing. This paper was commented upon by Prof. Mohammed Ghaly who explained the most prevalent Muslim views of ART by focusing on their understanding of parenthood. Finally, Prof. Mirko Garasic, in his comments, shared a few reflections on ectogenesis (artificial womb) from a secular Jewish perspective. The subsequent discussion centered on the topics of sterility, ectogenesis, parenthood, and the concept of the family.

The fourth session was on Christian views on ART. The main talk was given by Prof. Laura Palazzani, who explained the Catholic views on ART by explaining its emphasis on human dignity and the sanctity of human life, and the Catholic understanding of sex and procreation. Her talk was commented upon by Prof. Chris Durante, who, after an introduction to virtue ethics framework, explained the central role of individual discernment in Orthodoxy for these issues, and shared that the Greek Orthodox Church strongly discourages these practices but does not officially prohibit them. The second commenter was Prof. Paul MacNeill, who spoke from a secular position, calling the audience to try to approach common conclusions and called for the taking of a less legalistic-normative approach to ethics. The discussion that followed included several interventions from the audience who said that dogmatic and legalistic views were misunderstandings of the Catholic approach to ethics as a whole. Another key idea discussed among the experts was the possibility of a religion to reject any given action in its entirety versus only in certain instances.

The fifth session discussed Jewish positions on the current generation’s responsibilities to future generations. The main talk was given by Prof. David Heyd, who explored a section of the Babylonian Talmud that discussed whether it is better to be born or not. While he argued that this debate is meaningless because of the questions that matter are those related to what to do when existence is assumed. He then argued that unconceived people have no moral standing. This was commented upon by Prof. Jonathan Crane, who explored the Scriptural story of Leah and Rachel, on which there was divine intervention to change the children’s sex–or the children were swapped before birth–to prevent a family problem. From this, Prof. Crane deduced the permissibility of embryonic or fetal selection for gender and therapeutic purposes. The second comment was made by Fr. Joseph Tham, LC, who explored the Catholic understanding of existence and the soul, and then analyzed the story of Abraham impregnating Hagar. Fr. Tham interpreted this action as the result of Sarah and Abraham becoming impatient because God had not yet given him descendants and then trying to take destiny into their own hands. Fr. Tham spoke on the question of control in the use of ART and maternal surrogacy. The discussion that followed covered points raised by all three speakers, and it had a special focus on Heyd’s argument for non-responsibility.

The sixth session explored secular perspectives on ART. The first talk was given by Prof. Peter Mills, who discussed the intentions of couples, socio-technical contexts, and current international conventions. Prof. Mills then delved on questions of prenatal testing and human dignity, its possible impact on interpersonal relationships and the freedom of the future person, as well as some discussion on the ethics of the development of new ART techniques. The next intervention was made by Prof. Vardit Ravitsky, who called for a greater focus on the justice principle in bioethics, raising questions about inequity issues with couples who cannot afford ART, the morality of investing in ART given the number of existing children, the complexity of the concept of “healthy” children, and the subject of children who look for their genetic parents. These two interventions were commented upon by Fr. Gonzalo Miranda, LC, who talked from a Christian point of view, focusing on the concepts of human dignity and exploring the importance of metaphysical foundations in bioethics. The discussion covered topics on transhumanism, the concept of ethical boundaries, Catholic views on IVF and assistance versus substitution, interpretations of human rights and dignity, and the concept of the family.

The seventh session explored Buddhist perspectives on ART. The main talk was given by Prof. Ellen Zhang, who explained how hard it is to analyze this topic from Buddhism for lack of applicable content on ancient Buddhist texts. Zhang discussed the use of ARTs and sex selection, which is often condemned by Buddhists, but the gender preference is possibly supported by an ancient text. Prof. Zhang also talked about considerations on the qi energy of wasted sperm and a possible distinction between surrogate motherhood out of compassion and due to commodification. The first commentary was made by Prof. Soraj Hongladarom, who also insisted on the lack of sources and argued on the possible permissibility of surrogacy–even paid surrogacy–out of compassion for both the gestating mother and the couple. These points were responded to by Prof. Nouzha Gessous, who spoke from a Muslim women’s rights perspective, and expressed concerns for how ART could impact women by increasing pressures on child-rearing and through objectification and exploitation in surrogacy. Prof. Gessous also invited the panel to focus more on the children themselves and expressed concern for the idea of the right to have a child, especially a child that fits a set of desired characteristics. The subsequent discussion focused on topics related to the meaning of karma, self-cultivation and ART, international regulations on ART, and how ART impacts cultural expectations for women.

The eighth session–and last panel–was on Hinduism and ART . The first talk was given by Dr. RR Kishore, who explained some basic concepts of Hindu thought, and, using deduction from stories of Indian gods, expressed support for ART due to the interests of the couple, concerns for the possible exploitation of underprivileged women, and concerns for commodification of the embryo–for whom Kishore recognizes a sanctity of life. The first commentary was made by Prof. John Lunstroth, who questioned Kishore’s conclusions by examining his method; especially his deduction from mythical stories and his use of texts not meant for those who are not in the householder stage of life. The second comment was made by Fr. Saamer Advani, LC, who offered a Christian Catholic perspective, and raised questions about Kishore’s definition of the sanctity of life and of how Kishore argued, from ancient stories of self-sacrifice, that embryos (third parties) can be sacrificed for the interests of the couple. The discussion of this panel focused on Kishore and Lunstroth’s understandings of Indian philosophies, especially on moksha, the four stages of life, the soul, the role of women according to the ancient Vedas, and commodification in ART.

The ninth session–and last panel–was on Confucianism and ART. The main talk was given by Prof. Wenquin Zhao, who started by explaining the importance of reproduction in Confucianism and then reflected on the ethical considerations of ART as a possible way of reproduction. Prof. Zhao insisted that these methods must be taken seriously, offering surrogacy as an option (suggesting rituals like to those of adoption to mitigate alienation from the parents), and reflecting on the ambiguities related to PNT and PGD for therapeutic purposes. The first commentator was Prof. Ruiping Fan, who explained further the concept of the Qi’s–which, in Confucianism, is passed on from ancestors–and talked about Confucian hexagrams as a primary source of guidance. The second commentator was Prof. Martha Tarasco, who offered a Catholic perspective, expressing concerns for exploitation in surrogacy and the prioritization of the parental desire to have a biological child over the embryo’s right to life. The session’s discussion centered on the moral status of the unborn–with Fan disagreeing with Zhao–on the value of hexagrams in Confucianism, the value of sperm in Confucianism and Chinese society and discussion on whether loyalty to parents or children should come first.

The last session included final remarks by the organizers and speakers, as well as space for all participants to share thoughts, recommendations, and comments. Several experts said that the event surpassed their expectations–even those who said they were really looking forward to it. An expert also expressed gratitude to the partners for the venue and the cultural events. Many discussed the possible inclusion of speakers from Africa and more speakers from Latin America and suggested a greater diversity in the religious perspectives of discussants. Several also insisted on greater engagement with the local community and with younger scholars and students. Finally, the topics and locations for the next conference were discussed, but no definite topic or location was settled.

Follow this link to see more pictures of the event.