The Morality of Infanticide at the Crossroads Between Moral

BIOETHICS, CULTURE AND INFANTICIDE IN BRAZILIAN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES 871

Importantly, modern non-indigenous society views autonomy as a good to be preserved. A fair and just society morally preserves and sustains each person’s right to live as an autonomous individual. We would add that autonomy is a concept related to freedom. Thus, if we accept that the indigenous mother’s values emanate from her culture/belief, the question arises: is she free to decide on her children’s fate, i.e., that one twin should be elimi- nated? Cultural traditions rooted in given cultures are not always easily accepted by others. An example is “clitoridectomy”, a tradition in some Af- rican tribes. Based on values emanating from the culture/ belief of these tribes, this tradition allowed (and in some societies still allows) the excision of the clitoris in young girls in early puberty, by means of mutilating practices and with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. This extirpation was (or is) performed by women that traditionally detain the necessary practical knowledge. De- spite respect for cultural traditions, the custom became the target of an international campaign of condemnation and disapproval when it came to the knowledge of people from elsewhere in the world. Fermin Roland The morality of infanticide at the In the case discussed here, if ones chooses Schramm crossroads between moral pluralism physician’s autonomy as the priority (with the and human rights culture understanding that this helps define the full Escola Nacional de Saúde exercise of the human condition, without any Pública Sergio Arouca, The article Bioethics, Culture and Infanticide in tutelage), the conflict is resolved by hiding the Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Brazilian Indigenous Communities: The Zuruahá Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. unborn child and subsequently isolating it from [email protected] Case defends the idea that the morality of infan- the village. ticide must be viewed in its specific cultural and Crucially, if the physician chose to perform social context, since in the case in question the the delivery and hide the infant, he would face newborn only begins to exist socially if the moth- ethical risks, doubts, and dilemmas. There would er accepts it, and if it has not only a biological life, definitely be a need for sedation (analgesia) of but a cultural identity, without which the new be- the mother, since transvaginal or caesarian deliv- ing would be no more than “a socially dead being” ery without her active participation could result (p. 856). Thus, based on this symbolic-imaginary in birthing complications. inscription, the actual practice of infanticide There would also be doubt about recording would be morally justified, considering that for information on the patient chart, and especial- the Zuruahá community, “If a child is born with ly about preserving secrecy, since information physical defects or without a father to protect it, would be shared by all the persons participating there is no reason to live because life would be ex- in the act of hiding one of the twins. cessively heavy for this child, for its family, and for Finally, the case highlights the possibility of its people” (p. 856). In short, infanticide among the debate on autonomy as a fundamental idea, the Zuruahá must be inscribed in the people’s as follows: “In deliberation pertaining to action, Weltanschauung, which includes moral norms we should not only examine the prudence of such that are distinct and different from others around action in order to know whether it is an appro- it. But, accepting the arguments that lend legiti- priate means for obtaining a desired end, but we macy to Zuruahá infanticide logically questions should determine whether it is intrinsically fair the “universal nature” of human rights, accord- and morally correct”. ing to which “infanticide is considered to be a crime against human rights” (p. 862), and one can assume “at first sight that it is imperative to be against it” (p. 862), but thereby running the

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010 872 Feitosa SF et al.

risk “of imposing imperialistic and centralist logic of real attempts to find (on the symbolic level) under the pretext of ethics and law” (p. 862). agreements between conflicting actors and val- Obviously, the practice of infanticide is mor- ue systems, but presupposing that the conflict- ally controversial if one compares: (1) the set ing parties admit a priori that they wish to reach of values from the tradition that abolished it – an agreement (also known as a transcendental represented here by the National Campaign for condition in any dialogical confrontation); the Life and against Infanticide and the case of the principle of informed consent by all conflicted two Zuruahá infants removed from the village to parties, whom are morally and cognitively com- avoid their deaths and (2) the view of what we petent, and, I would add, the principles of char- could call contemporary morality, which is es- ity, which pressuposes that all the parties “are sentially secular, pluralist, and without canonic playing fair”. As the authors write, in this case “it morals accepted by all, represented here by the is essential to have the deepest possible knowledge defenders of Zuruahá identity and its practice of regarding the culture of the people with whom the infanticide in the name of respect for differences. dialogue will be established” and “prior manifes- At first glance, the two views appear antitheti- tation of interest in establishing this dialogue,” cal, since the former does not allow infanticide otherwise “the ethical debate will give way to the in any case, while the latter allows it in specific violence of the law of the strongest” (p. 863). The cases. However, taking a closer look, the latter Texan bioethicist Engelhardt Jr. summarized this is more subtle, since it appears to allow at least condition of moral agent in the contemporary, two types of stances towards the complexity of a secular, and pluralist world quite well, stating morally plural world. The first of these is respect that “there are no decisive secular arguments to for the prevailing value systems in the various establish that one concrete view of the moral life moral communities existing in society or coun- is better morally than its rivals, and since all have try – as in the case of Brazil, characterized among not converted to a single moral viewpoint, secular other things by a “a very wide diversity of Indian moral authority is the authority of consent (...) the peoples” and “many tribal groups that live with authority of the agreement of those who decide to minimal contact outside the group, or even in collaborate (...) without fundamental recourse to complete isolation, [maintaining] very little or force” 1 (p. 68). no relationship with Brazilian national society” In other words, the authors approach the ar- (p. 853) and in which traditional practices like guments for and against infanticide as it relates infanticide persist. not to societies which, as stated by Agamben, The main potential critique of this stance consider the “sacredness of life, which is invoked (respecting the differences and beliefs of the today as an absolutely fundamental human right various communities constituting a country) is in opposition to sovereign power [over life and that it results in a moral relativism which would death]” 2 (p. 91), but to communities in which, virtually rule out any possibility of shared values, as the authors contend, “[infanticide] has always such as those represented by human rights. As functioned as a means of birth control and even such, these rights are universally applicable and as a mechanism for adapting human life to ad- explicitly include the right to life and implicitly verse conditions of survival in certain hostile en- encompass the prohibition of infanticide. Moral vironments, especially under jungle conditions” relativism also implies the impossibility of even (p. 854). In the latter, there would be “good rea- valuing behaviors and thus leads to amorality. sons” for infanticide, such as “the mother’s in- However, moral pluralism is not necessarily a ability to devote the care and attention required synonym for moral relativism, since the former for yet another child; the newborn’s capacity or implies respect for cultural differences and their incapacity to survive within the physical and existing value systems, which is quite different socio-cultural environment into which he or she from amorality, which does not imply any respect was born; and the preference for one sex over the whatsoever. Indeed, the latter type of stance im- other” (p. 854). These reasons, with perhaps the plies establishing agreements in order to resolve exception of the third, may in fact be sustained by a moral conflict such as that posed by infanticide, the concept (central to evaluating the morality of as long as the moral agent external to the com- human practices) of “quality of life”. According to munity has sufficient understanding of (and re- Mori, this concept is the principal characteristic spect for) the values that allow infanticide, which of the bioethical paradigm, in which “morality can be viewed as a necessary condition for dia- is a social institution, consisting of values and logue to occur. This dialogical stance – defended norms which, in various historical circumstances, by the article’s authors – belongs to the field of guarantee (...) the necessary social coordination procedural ethics of discussion – developed by to ensure an adequate level of ‘quality of life’” 3 Apel and Habermas – and essentially consists (p. 102).

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010 BIOETHICS, CULTURE AND INFANTICIDE IN BRAZILIAN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES 873

In conclusion, in taking a stance between mo- better understood than the authors allow us to rality and moral pluralism, the authors contend think, but also – and this is my main point – that that “an alliance with the more fragile elements of they are understood in a significantly different society is an essential precondition for establishing way than that underpinned by the perspective in the basis for developing the process of dialogue” which the article situates them. Quite explicity in (p. 862). Thereby, “respect for otherness needs the typological grouping of motivations for infan- to be ensured and the sole purpose of the whole ticide with which the authors begin their argu- dialogue has to be the community’s welfare” (p. ment (a quite generalist typological construction 862-3). The argument is polemical, but pertinent. lacking explicitly cited ethnographic sources for its argumentation), but, in fact, throughout the 1. Engelhardt Jr. HT. The foundations of bioethics entire article, there is a repeated reduction of the 2nd Ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press; indigenous infanticide to a kind of birth control 1996. method and adaptation to adverse conditions for 2. Agamben G. Homo sacer. I. O poder soberano e a survival. The more general and evident implica- vida nua. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG; 2002. 3. Mori M. Il caso Eluana Englaro. La “Porta Pia” del tion of the reiteration of this type of procedure vitalismo ippocratico, ovvero perché è moralmen- is the establishment of a functionalist image of te giusto sospendere ogni intervento. Bologna: indigenous societies, based on which exotic or Edizioni Pendragon; 2008. horrific customs (according to the criteria of our own cultural sensitivity), like infanticide itself, are interpreted in terms of their practical usefulness for the given community. The reader may perceive the ramifications of this image in various parts of the article. Taken together, they appear to manifest a view of indigenous infanticide practices as functionally performing a kind of “social selection” of the “fittest” César Soares Jardim I suspect that, among other effects, the article will members, with the social group actively assign- produce a feeling of anachronism among readers ing to misfortune and death those infants and

Programa de Pós-graduação that have accompanied the recent developments children whose existence proves problematic for em Antropologia Social, in the ethnology of South American indigenous the community. It would be unfair to claim that Museu Nacional, Rio de cultures. It seems to me that this failure, certainly the authors take this procedure to the extreme, Janeiro, Brasil. [email protected] attributable in part to the limitations of perspec- performing an absolute reduction of the rationale tive that constitute one of the prices and risks for the practices of infanticide to a calculation of of disciplinary specialization, does not funda- social utility, so to speak. Still, even when they ap- mentally jeopardize the position defended by the pear willing to grant space in their argumentation authors towards the public debates concerning to the terms in which the native thought systems infanticide practice among indigenous peoples. themselves understand infanticide practices, the On the contrary, I even think that the type of in- authors end up conceiving such practices as a tervention they defend gains relevance by offer- mixture of “utilitarian calculation” and “cultural ing a counterpoint to the antinomies entailed by reason” – as exemplified by their explanation for the contraposition of culturalist and universalist the infanticide of albinos, which they base on the partis pris which had informed the discussion feelings of supernatural horror they raise and on on the matter. However, given the limitations of the allegation of “difficulties for survival”. The rep- space provided for this commentary, I choose to etition of this reductionist procedure throughout offer here only an ethnological critique of the in- the article appears to be due less to a theoreti- terpretations given by the authors, from the point cal propensity of the authors towards utilitarian, of view of the ethnographic data presented in the functionalist, or adaptive explanations for infan- article – a critique which I hope will be received ticide practices, and more to an inability, in both as an incentive for future reevaluations of their the argument’s general economy and their spe- arguments. cific interpretations of given ethnographic data, When I refer to the feeling of “anachronism” to draw out the cultural reasons per se that shape that a possible reader may experience when re- these practices (reasons that are irreducible to a flecting on this article, I have in mind the pos- mere calculation of adaptability to the environ- tulate, openly recognized by the authors them- ment or social utility). selves, that an understanding of the cultural rea- In only one of the three types of infanticide sons for indigenous infanticide practices must be distinguished, the authors explicitly recognize a the point of departure for any debate focusing on situation which in their words “takes into consid- indigenous infanticide. However, it seems to me eration limitations of a physical, mental, and/or that indigenous infanticide practices are not only religious nature” (p. 854; my emphasis). However,

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010 874 Feitosa SF et al.

as mentioned, even in these cases, the infanticide infants and children, implied by the ascribing of a is conceived as a mixture of utility or adaptability statute of otherness and animality to newborns 2. and “cultural reason” (“limitations of a religious An exemination of this association between new- nature”). I suggest that, taking the opposite path borns and animality, as well as the need it implies from that of the authors, one should extend and for a “hominization” of bodies through the con- emphasize precisely those motivations for infan- struction of kinship, two motifs that are widely ticide practices that were subsumed under the publicized and reported by contemporary ethno- category of “limitations of a religious nature” – graphic literature, opens another level of intelli- and that involve what appears to me to be bet- gibility for cases of infanticide in which the new- ter worded as ontological presuppositions on the borns or children that present apparent physical nature of the world and ontogenetic propositions malformations are targeted, making these cases on the nature of persons – to the other kinds of refractory to explanations in terms of utility, infanticide classes, as well as (insofar as possible) function, or adaptation (“survival difficulties”, to the interpretations offered for the particular “limitations of a physical nature”, “usefulness to situations presented by the ethnographic data society”, a “weight” for the family or group, etc.). that were cited. The authors themselves appear This lack of a more in-depth consideration of the to be aware of this point’s importance, judging problems that contemporary South American by a generic commentary on indigenous con- ethnology recognizes as underlying or associated ceptions associated with birth and the processes with infanticide practices jeopardizes not only of bodily construction (conceptions which are the way the authors grasp indigenous infanticide, in fact among the most important associations but also the overall image of society and the ratio- to consider in understanding infanticide prac- nality projected on indigenous peoples. tices). However, they definitely appear to have In short, we are left with the impression that overemphasized the merely utilitarian aspect of infanticide was grasped by the authors mainly infanticide, overlooking a deeper explanation of by means of an analogical extension of our as- the association between indigenous infanticide sociations around the idea of abortion – that is, practices, native theories of ontogenesis, and the as a kind of rejection of an undesired child, yet negative values that many indigenous peoples perpetrated not exclusively by the mother but by ascribe to specific kinds of birth – especially the community as a whole. For me, it appears those involving twins, newborns with apparent symptomatic of this perspective’s ethnocentric physical malformations, children of undeter- bias that the authors seek to establish some re- mined fathers, or those whose origin is attributed lationship of continuity between indigenous to adultery etc. infanticide practices and the modern practices The reduction of infanticide practices to a of abortion and neonatal euthanasia practices functionalist or utilitarian logic could have been which make explicit all the ambiguities of our prevented by a more substantive incorporation own conception of the person. I hope that this of the recent theoretical developments in South critique will offer a stimulus for the authors to a American ethnographic studies. Some types of more substantive incorporation of recent ethno- infanticide discussed in the article, like that af- logical studies in their future meditations, allow- fecting twin births, for example, and which the ing a more complex appreciation of indigenous authors explain by the difficulties that they would infanticide to the extent that it is closer to the imply for the mother in performing her daily native point of view. For a more recent biblio- tasks, received one already classic interpretation graphic review of some of the themes discussed from the French anthropologist Lévi-Strauss. The in this commentary and their connections to dualism in perpetual disequilibrium that this au- indigenous infanticide practices, see Holanda 3. thor identified as one of the distinctive traits of The latter author does not limit her analysis to the Amerindians bipartite ideology, and which examining the position of these practices in in- can be summarized, broadly speaking, as the im- digenous thought systems, but also includes as possibility of indigenous thinking to establish a the object of her investigation the legal and onto- relationship of equality between two halves of logical controversies surrounding this matter. a virtual duality that is actualized, is strictly associated with both the sinister and malefic value 1. Lévi-Strauss C. História de Lince. São Paulo: Com- ascribed by many peoples to twin births, and the panhia das Letras; 1993. 2. Vilaça A. Making kin out of others in Amazonia. J R cases in which infanticide is determined by the Anthropol Inst 2002; 8:347-65. 1 preference for children of a specific sex . On an- 3. Holanda MAF. Quem são os humanos dos direitos? other note, various ethnographic studies on the Sobre a criminalização do infanticídio indígena construction of kinship have revealed the am- [Dissertação de Mestrado]. Brasília: Programa de bivalent nature of the identity of the bodies of Pós-graduação em Antropologia Social, Universi- dade de Brasília; 2008.

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010 BIOETHICS, CULTURE AND INFANTICIDE IN BRAZILIAN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES 875

same type of act across various societies, when that is not the case. In fact, there are societies in which the reasons for a newborn’s life not be al- Rita Laura Segato Leaving behind cultural relativism to lowed to thrive, or even to prevent it from doing endorse historical pluralism so, are of a cosmological order, and the decision

Universidade de Brasília, to apply the rule and make sure that it happens Brasília, Brasil. Feitosa et al. discuss one of the most difficult lies with the community. And there are other [email protected] themes in the fields of both ethics and rights, societies in which the reasons are of a practical since the practice of so-called “indigenous infan- order, and in these the mother has the autonomy ticide” constitutes an issue at the limits of legal to make the evaluation and the decision. These reasoning. The article is not only a theoretical are the two main tendencies, and based on them reflection, but also takes place in a national sce- there is a wide variety of modalities. nario in Brazil where the issue is on the agenda Meanwhile, to refer to the practice, the phrase of the National Congress and in the news me- “Among Indians, the decision to kill a child...” is dia, sparking intense controversy between those incorrect. If, as the authors note quite well, “the pushing to pass a bill specifically criminalizing human body is the result of a cultural ‘construc- the practice and those that consider the bill inap- tion’” (p. 855), then no “child”, that is, no human propriate and even irrelevant. life, can be killed before it is “constructed”. Since Despite the enormous difficulties in build- the definitions of human life, including the no- ing the argument defending the difference be- tion of “infant life”, are different, one cannot kill tween peoples, even when involves the practice what has still not acquired existential status 1. of infanticide, but without defending the practice The missionary discourse makes this mistake in itself, the authors do so efficiently and appropri- its representation of the phenomenon, but the ately. They employ an argumentative strategy that authors cannot allow themselves to commit the can be described as “repatriation of the critique”, same error, and thus a better grasp into the an- i.e., showing how in various historical situations thropological reflection on the depth of the dif- the accusation aimed at indigenous peoples can ference in the conception of life and death would be reversed to accuse the West of also having have been indispensable for the argument. been stage to the practice, of having promoted Along this same line, the authors do not suf- or disguised it, even in the founding Biblical ac- ficiently elaborate on the contradiction between count itself. This strategy of showing that we are the positions of the two anthropologists they cite. all infanticidal becomes highly convincing, since Thus, these citations appear to be used to legiti- it exposes our widespread tendency to view other mize the text, i.e., through an obligation that is peoples as cruel and defective, judging them with foreign to the argumentation, since the two au- a rigor that we fail to apply to what we consider thors differ; this difference is not analyzed, nor our own world. I especially appreciate the infor- is a way found to mediate or interpret this dif- mation and analysis in the final sections: Abor- ference. tion, Infanticide and Neonatal Euthanasia and Likewise, I believe that they fail to reflect on Possibilities for Intervention. the missionary critique of indigenous infanti- However, I now offer some observation that cide, insofar as the latter contends that “life has could lead to retouching some aspects of the more value than culture”, immediately asserting essay. that “life and the right to it are above culture” (p. One of the paper’s problems is that it gives the 858). It is not culture that is at stake, but life itself, impression that infanticide is highly frequent, i.e., life as it determines all other forms of human when in fact the practice is rare, increasingly less life: physical life, material life, that of a people, a frequent in the societies in which it occurs, and collectivity. It is life’s capacity to reproduce and practiced in fewer and fewer societies. It is prac- last. There is no individual life outside collective tically in extinction, and where it does occur, it life. In some cases, in transhumant societies and is surrounded by intense controversy among the those that do not accumulate a surplus, a single community’s members. additional individual life jeopardizes the life of In dealing with the reasons that determine the entire collectivity, or at least, that of his or her the practice of infanticide of various indigenous immediate family – that of the siblings already societies, the authors overlook a fundamental is- born and preserved, also small and without au- sue, namely the normative differences concern- tonomy in relation to maternal care 2. ing who makes the decision in relation to the The authors invoke Convention 169 to em- practice. This omission leads to the deepening phasize that it demands respect for customary of an important and quite widespread mistake, rights by applying the national law to indigenous namely to believe that we are dealing with the peoples, but they forget that despite giving access

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010 876 Feitosa SF et al.

to the principles of legal pluralism, it safeguards safeguarding each people’s autonomy to build its the principles laid out under international hu- own history. Through its own history, woven from man rights legislation and affirms respect for the the internal debate, and not the preservation of internal law of peoples whenever human rights customs from an essentialist perspective of cul- (as well as each national state’s legislation) are not ture, each people will build its own particular dia- violated. Thus, the argumentation relying on this logue with the common sphere of human rights. safeguard is only relatively effective. It would be This has been my stance, and I believe that it al- more effective to draw on Brazil’s commitment, lows us to efficiently transcend the paralyzing di- assumed by ratifying this Convention, but also chotomy between relativism and universalism 3. more recently by signing the Declaration of the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to not leg- 1. Holanda MAF. Quem são os Humanos dos Direi- islate for indigenous peoples without their own tos? Sobre a criminalização do infanticídio indíge- na [Dissertação de Mestrado]. Brasília: Programa participation in the decision-making process on de Pós-graduação em Antropologia Social, Univer- norms that will affect their lives. sidade de Brasília; 2008. Further considering respect for each people’s 2. Sánchez-Botero E. Entre el Juez Salomón y el Dios own law, I have argued at length that the discus- Sira. Decisiones interculturales e interés supe- sion of infanticide does not involve this issue, but rior del niño. Bogotá: University of Amsterdam/ another area which I find central for dealing with UNICEF; 2006. 3. Segato RL. Que cada pueblo teja los hilos de su his- such extreme dilemmas as infanticide: the state’s toria: el pluralismo jurídico en diálogo didáctico responsibility to protect each people’s internal de- con legisladores. http://www.cimi.org.br/?system cision-making capacity, and in keeping with this, =news&action=read&id=3594&eid=259.

The authors reply obstacles to overcome: “the differences between Os autores respondem the lifeworlds of indigenous leaders and common indigenous individuals and the peculiarities of genres of indigenous discourse”. We totally agree. When we referred to the Habermasian perspective, we did so based on a deliberate bioethical discourse 1 – proper to the argumentative community – like that of intervention bioethics. But we are fully aware of the difficulties, even because, as Lorenzo warns, the perception of infanticide as a problem “derives from a Western Saulo Ferreira Moral pluralism: multiple views in worldview”. Feitosa, Volnei a single search Garnelo highlighted the uncertainty of con- Garrafa, Gabriele ditions for philosophical production which, by Cornelli, Carla Seeking greater clarity and possible understand- imposing the “Western cogito”, undermine the Tardivo, Samuel José ing, the replies to the critiques formulated in the basis for philosophically sustaining bioethics, de Carvalho six commentaries on our article are addressed to thus undermining as well the very argumenta- each author individually, in the same order that tion we have proposed. We see no reason for this we received them. disagreement, since we assume such a challenge, Lorenzo quite properly identified how chal- even recognizing the epistemological confronta- lenging the postulate is to construct an Intereth- tion, now approaching the model of hypercritical nic Ethic that can help establish possible dia- bioethical discourse 1 which puts us in a position logues between moral communities with appar- of vigilance towards the possible misconstruc- ently insurmountable cultural barriers. Begin- tions and asymmetries that discursive practices ning with this understanding, he highlights some can contain. We place ourselves in the condition difficulties (beyond those we demonstrated) in of moral strangers, alongside those that do not the possible construction of interethnic commu- share the moral premises or rules of evidence and nication communities that could be conceived on inference 2 (p. 32), but who need to build agree- the basis of Habermas’ Theory of Communicative ments, given that moral strangeness does not Action, as we ourselves indicated. Although he necessarily mean the impossibility of establish- agrees with such a possibility, he identifies two ing friendly relations.

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010 BIOETHICS, CULTURE AND INFANTICIDE IN BRAZILIAN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES 877

The case report by Ayer-de-Oliveira & Oselka the broadest possible scope. Such procedures on the twin pregnancy made a major contribu- contribute to the search for more adequate solu- tion to our debate. The dilemma experienced by tions to the various moral conflicts. the attending physician in the case gives us an Schramm, in disagreeing with the theoreti- idea of the huge daily challenges faced by health cal perspective we postulated, took the care to professionals serving indigenous communities. explain the differences between moral relativism This further reveals the need for greater and and moral pluralism, making clear our option better professional qualifications, adding new for the latter, justified by its defense of “respect knowledge to their technical training. The infor- for cultural differences and their existing value mation on the “prior history” of an unsuccessful systems”. Corroborating the dialogical stance intervention in a similar case reveals all the care he defends, he referred to the “authority of con- required for any intended intervention. Impor- sent” defined by Engelhardt 2 as the “secular tantly, the physician in question proved to orient moral authority”, added the bioethical focus of his approach according to ethical references; if quality of life, and concluded on the argument’s another professional had not proceeded likewise, pertinence, despite the controversy it raises. As he certainly would have caused unimaginable Schramm himself warned 4, when we face the damage with his undue intervention. dual challenge of respecting the specificity of the To contextualize the case, various approaches particular conflict and at the same time consider were taken, even to the point of consulting Brazil- “the universalist tradition of moral discourse”, ian Penal Law. Here, we take the liberty of mak- we should remain constantly alert in order not ing a slight correction. It is not true that Indians to promote “cynical discrimination against vul- are not liable for their acts. On the contrary, the nerable individuals and populations”. This is the indigenous prison population in Brazil is rela- complexity that makes the argument controver- tively high. Thus, indigenous women can also be sial. Although in the case of indigenous peoples charged with the crime of infanticide. Article 26 the concept of vulnerability is controversial, we of Brazil’s Penal Code, quoted in the commentary, use it here considering the historical process of does not apply to Indians, but to individuals with territorial invasion and massacres to which they “mental illness or incomplete or delayed mental have been systematically submitted by the domi- development”, considered “entirely incapable”. nant society. The confusion probably stems from the case The critique by Jardim, with the peculiar acu- law that was consulted, since nothing in the cur- ity of an anthropologist, highlights the article’s rent or previous penal code refers to immunity limitations in its reflections on the ethnograph- from criminal liability for indigenous persons, ic data presented, making suggestions that we and many judges, moved by their high levels of will certainly incorporate in future work. While prejudice and racism, and unable to perceive the clearly agreeing from the onset on with the limits Other and recognize him or her in his or her dif- identified in the area of ethnography, and recog- ference, have equated indigenous persons with nizing our inability in ethnographic interpreta- the “incapable” (sic). Thus, indigenous persons tions (even because none of the article’s authors are purportedly unable to “understand the illicit has training in the field), we will make some brief nature of their acts”, a position that proves false remarks concerning his critique. given the enormous number of criminal charges We begin with a mea culpa for not having brought against many indigenous peoples, even clarified two reasons which, in our understand- those in more recent contact with Brazilian na- ing, give cause to the motivation of infanticide tional society, as in the case of the Cinta-Larga among indigenous peoples – namely cosmologi- in the State of Rondônia and numerous other cal and practical – as correctly observed by Segato peoples victimized by the strategy of criminaliza- in her commentary. We focused more on practi- tion perpetrated by their executioners. For fur- cal reasons, while we are aware that reasons of a ther clarifications on this point, we suggest the practical nature persist within the cosmological elucidative work by Lacerda 3. reasons, despite the cosmological explanation We emphasize the relevance of the case re- given by the respective indigenous peoples. Still, port, especially since it reveals that the conflicts there was no justification for our reductionism in raised by indigenous infanticide practices are not translating the ontological reasons as being of a limited to the villages, since the Indians establish “religious nature”; our intention was to simplify, various forms of relations with the outside world but we ended up limiting the reflection. We also and use various public services, both in health understand now that the paper was jeopardized and other areas. Finally, we highlight the appro- by not referring to Lévi-Strauss, whose quote is priate discussion and caution adopted by Ayer- familiar to us. We thank Jardim for having done de-Oliveira & Oselka in their analysis, pursuing so. Concerning the indication of Holanda as an

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010 878 Feitosa SF et al.

updated bibliography, we agree and consider it birth has occurred. The observation serves as a a relevant study, with a beautiful ethnographic warning for us to avoid this dualism. approach and enviable philosophic detail that As for the divergence between the two an- require a close reading. We know the work, the thropologists, we really had no intention to go author, and her thesis supervisor, Professor Rita into depth on their positions, since our stance al- Segato, an outstanding reference on the subject ready indicated the path to follow. The same oc- in debates held by the Brazilian Congress as well curred in relation to the missionary critique. But as the author of a widely acknowledged and rel- this does not mean that our choice was correct. evant article on the theme. We maintain a fre- The fact that we invoked Convention 169 of quent dialogue with Segato and Holanda and the International Labor Organization (ILO) re- share common understandings. Unfortunately flects a conscious and politically justified choice. our article was prepared before their work cited First, because of the Convention’s political weight in the critique, which prevented us from taking and legal value (having become law in Brazil since advantage of their valuable contributions. 2004). Second, because it has been used improp- As to the suggestion of an intent “establish erly by those who defend the criminalization of some relationship of continuity between indig- infanticide to justify their positions. Concern- enous infanticide practices and the modern prac- ing the criticism that we failed to cite the United tices of abortion and neonatal euthanasia,” we Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous wish to clarify that it is not a matter of “conti- Peoples, the declaration was only approved by nuity”, but of analogy, since we understand such the 107th Plenary Session on September 13, 2007, practices as persistent moral dilemmas and com- when we had already concluded the paper. mon to a wide variety of cultures, without overlooking “the ambiguities of our own conception 1. Siqueira JE. Comentário ao texto de Guillermo of the person” or the ambiguities of our moral Hoyos Vásquez. In: Garrafa V, Kottow M, Saada A, organizadores. Bases conceituais da bioética: en- strangers. There, we do not see the “ethnocentric foque latino-americano. São Paulo: Gaia/Fundo bias” alluded to by Jardim. Since this was not an das Nações Unidas para a Infância; 2006. p. 181-8. ethnographic study, we cannot agree that it could 2. Engelhardt Jr. HT. Fundamentos da bioética. 2a trigger a “feeling of anachronism” among ethno- Ed. São Paulo: Edições Loyola; 2004. logical scholars of indigenous cultures. They will 3. Lacerda RF. Diferença não é incapacidade: o mito certainly be able to distinguish between this ar- da tutela indígena. São Paulo: Baraúna; 2009. 4. Schramm FR. Bioética sem universalidade? Justi- ticle and a study from their own field. ficação de uma bioética latino-americana e cari- Segato, from a complementary perspective, benha de proteção. In: Garrafa V, Kottow M, Saada makes important suggestions for the text in dem- A, organizadores. Bases conceituais da bioética: onstrating a concern over avoiding misunder- enfoque latino-americano. São Paulo: Gaia/Fundo standings related to what was not said or what das Nações Unidas para a Infância; 2006. p. 143-57. should have been explained better. We share her view that the practice of infanticide is limited to few indigenous peoples, especially those with less time in contact with Brazilian national society, as well as the low and decreasing frequency of infanticide cases. However, we did not intend to give a different impression. We also accept the criticism that prioritizing one type of infanticide – that due to practical reasons – leads to general- ization. We already referred to this in relation to the comments by Jardim. Our use of the expression “to kill a child” reveals the difficulty in identifying an appropriate form of language, but we acknowledge the contradiction and the incorrectness when we admit that “the human body is a cultural construction”. Obviously, since this construction process is not concluded, this body will not have acquired “existential status”, and there is no reason to speak of death or killing. On the other hand, the article also contemplates the idea of a dual birth – biological and cultural – which can lead to a certain ambi- guity: a biological death is possible, since the first

Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(5):853-878, mai, 2010