Cuadernos de Bioetica最新文献

In the present work, the possible influence of biology textbooks on the bioethics training of high school students in Spain has been investigated. The bioethical content of the third and fourth year of high school books of the Anaya, Santillana, Oxford and SM publishers has been reviewed, concluding that they do not guarantee the essential training in bioethics of students, nor do they allow the development of a critical spirit in the face of the enormous possibilities opened up by the advances in science. None of the books explain that biology provides objective knowledge about the beginning of life of each human being. No publisher clarifies the biological status of the embryo, thus closing the door to its recognition as a person and to reflection on the treatment it deserves, and all of them evade the concept of dignity. Only in the fourth year of high school is something about bioethics explained in two publishing houses: in the SM publishing house from a Bioethics of Principles that is not reasoned and in Anaya from a positivist and utilitarian perspective. It would be desirable to incorporate aspects of Bioethics in successive editions of Biology books in high school that would allow biology to be connected with other branches of knowledge, which favor a comprehensive development of students and prepare them for the great challenges presented by advances in biotechnology. The four editorials analysed address biotechnological issues of great bioethical significance such as the use of stem cells, cloning, artificial human reproduction and genetic editing. However, we conclude that the analysis is carried out at an aseptic level without resorting to ethical foundations and referring only to the legal limitations of these practices. Although the different texts offer topics for bioethical debate within the classroom, we highlight the absence of ethical training to be able to determine when the dignity of human life is violated.

From 12 to 18 years of age, students in Spain go from a compulsory stage (ESO) to an optional stage (hight school), where issues related to bioethics are addressed in different subjects. Our work analyzes current textbooks from prestigious Spanish publishers in the humanities subjects of "Education in Civic and Ethical Values", "Philosophy", and "Catholic Religion". The objective has been to analyze, following a rubric, the quality and quantity of ethical and bioethical content related to human dignity. Our research provides, as conclusions, first of all, the widespread absence of an anthropological foundation of human dignity, equated with legalized "human rights" and often with the value of other living beings; the uncritical acceptance of the 2030 agenda; the omission of moral judgments in bioethical dilemmas that arise at the beginning and end of human life. Finally, we also detect the dissemination of the an absolute biocentrism, as a way of overcoming anthropocentrism, without considering the option of a relative biocentrism that does not reduce the human being to simple biology.

Values, a topic of permanent relevance, especially in the field of Education, permeate and guide it so that their study makes it possible to describe and evaluate its quality. The main objective of this article is to study and analyse the axiological reality in terms of Ethics in the Organic Law 3/2020, of 29 December (LOMLOE). This has been done in order to treat the results descriptively, as well as to draw conclusions from a critical reflection, and to show the way LOMLOE addresses ethical values, referring to human dignity in particular. Our research shows to what extent and in what way the LOMLOE addresses ethical values, and in particular human dignity. The results obtained have profound educational implications and, as a general conclusion, we draw attention to the virtual absence of the word dignity in the sections analysed. Our study shows that the law focuses more on the social consequences of dignity than on its foundation. The values of equality, rights and duties, peace and non-violence, non-discrimination, respect, justice and solidarity stand out above all. But if there is one value that the law is frankly concerned about, it is the one related to gender issues. However, it is surprising that other values, such as the promotion or respect for freedom, are barely mentioned.

Post-trial access (PTA) for participants in clinical trials subsequent to research emerged as an important consideration during the work for the first antiretroviral drugs for AIDS. It evolved into a stringent ethical mandate in the 2000 iteration of the Declaration of Helsinki. The recent version of this Declaration (October 2024) places greater demands on this aspect of research, in part because over the past two decades tangible progress in actualizing PTA, particularly in developing nations, has been scant, notwithstanding the presence of PTA-related information on numerous pharmaceutical company websites. This article presents recent empirical data underscoring the limited availability of PTA in practice. It scrutinizes the guidelines put forth by prominent international benchmarks in clinical research. We highlight the intricacies associated with mandating universal compliance and advocate for an approach transcending mere normative ethics toward a virtuous ethics paradigm, one that fosters more equitable and supportive research endeavors.

The present study addresses the importance of human dignity in bioethics, highlighting its intrinsic value and relevance to health professionals. It focuses on designing and validating a questionnaire to evaluate the perception of human dignity among first-year students in Health Sciences degrees. The methodlogical process is described, including a literature review, expert consultation, questionnaire development and validation, and piloting for the final version. The ultimate goal is for the questionnaire to provide valid information to identify modes of argumentation and educational gaps in order to improve the teaching of bioethics in Health Sciences programs. The value of this work lies in the creation of a unique and validated instrument to measure perceptions of human dignity, thus filling a gap in educational evaluation in Bioethics and providing a crucial resource to strengthen ethical education in the Health Sciences.

In this second article of the Bioethics and Education Project we carry out the bioethical analysis of the results of the questionnaire answered by university students in the first years of Health Sciences. The great majority of the participants recognize the existence of equal dignity for all people, valuing their intrinsic character and, therefore, opposing discrimination of any kind. They also value positively the feeling of being cared for and well attended to in the case that they personally find themselves in situations of disability and dependency. However, a posteriori, we find that this ontological value of dignity varies to the point of ending up attributing a functional, subjective, and relative meaning to it in those cases in which a third party is the one who must make a decision about their life and health. When faced with a bioethical conflict, they link human dignity, and therefore the ethical value of an action, with the ability to choose freely and autonomously. In this sense, they would support decisions in favor of euthanasia for terminally ill patients, and abortion due to rape if that were the wish of those affected. In relation to the beginning of life, more than half of those surveyed recognize the existence of human life in both the embryonic and fetal phases. The conclusions provided by our research is that for ethical judgement, a majority of young people do not necessarily pay attention to the nature of what they choose. They suspend judgment on the choice so that the legality or illegality of the choice depends on the "consent" of those involved in it. They would reduce the dignity of the person to the freedom to choose.

This essay analyzes from a personalistic bioethics the model of technological progress supported by an autonomy without controls and an imperative that is governed by the maxim: if it can be done, let's do it!, as a necessary and sufficient condition of progress. This puts us on the slippery slope between the technically feasible and the morally lawful. The pioneering work of the philosopher, José Sanmartin Esplugues 2 , urges reflection in the face of a technological profusion that sees the human being as a useful embodied object and offers powers of intervention on human life that were previously unimaginable. The reduction of the person to mere biological-material data opens the door to increasing deshumanization by subordination to the calculations of an instrumental rationalism. Underlying the desire to see ourselves at the top of the world and genetic techniques are the ultimate expression of a longing for human emancipation that aspires to take the reins of evolution through an abstract postbiological imaginary. Sanmartin proposes a model of ethical evaluation and social insertion of technoscientific activity that goes beyond the conventional categories of impact, use and effectiveness to distinguish social, cultural, economic, political and values correlates, in order to embroider a pattern that decides on the means and ends of human life through technologies that are neither innocuous nor neutral. A society without antidotes to manipulation that also teaches us to cultivate utopian dreams about human nature is easily malleable by elites who promise happy worlds and redeem us from our vulnerability.