Fundamentaciones de la bioética / Foundations of bioethics / Fundamentações da bioética

Tras señalar que la bioética no es sino ética aplicada, el artículo describe tres fundamentaciones bioéticas -utilitarismo, de los principios y de los bienes básicos-, examinando sus postulados principales y revelando sus aparentes limitaciones. Concluye que no es posible hacer bioética en forma reflexiva sin un conocimiento crítico de las opciones en filosofía moral y en ontología, y de las cuales derivan los principales desacuerdos actuales en la aplicación de la ética al dominio de la vida humana.

After pointing out that Bioethics is just applied ethics, the article describes three bioethics fundamentals: utilitarianism, of principles and the basic good, examining their main postulates and revealing their apparent limitations. The article concludes that it is not possible to do bioethics in a reflexive form without a critical knowledge of options in moral philosophy and in ontology, and from which the main current disagreement with the application of ethics to the domain of human life are derived.

O presente artigo, além de defender que a bioética é uma ética aplicada, descreve três fundamentações bioéticas possíveis: utilitarismo, principialismo e dos bens básicos, examinando seus postulados principias e revelando suas limitações. Conclui que não é possível fazer bioética de forma reflexiva sem um conhecimento crítico das opções na filosofia moral e na ontologia, das quais derivam os principias desacordos atuais na aplicação da ética no âmbito da vida humana.

Individuality and human beginnings: a reply to David DeGrazia.

The author argues that individuality does not require indivisibility and that twinning can be explained as the reprogramming of blastomeres that already have begun to differentiate in accordance with the needs of the unified organism that originates at conception.

Sixteen days? A reply to B. Smith and B. Brogaard on the beginning of human individuals.

When does a human being begin to exist? Barry Smith and Berit Brogaard have argued that it is possible, through a combination of biological fact and philosophical analysis, to provide a definitive answer to this question. In their view, a human individual begins to exist at gastrulation, i. e. at about sixteen days after fertilization. In this paper we argue that even granting Smith and Brogaard's ontological commitments and biological assumptions, the existence of a human being can be shown to begin much earlier, viz., with fertilization. Their interpretative claim that a zygote divides immediately into two substances and therefore ceases to exist is highly implausible by their own standards, and their factual claim that there is no communication between the blastomeres has to be abandoned in light of recent embryological research.

On potentiality and respect for embryos: a reply to Mary Mahowald.

In order to understand the nature of human embryos I first distinguish between active and passive potentiality, and then argue that the former is found in human gametes and embryos (even in embryos in vitro that may fail to be implanted) because they all have an indwelling power or capacity to initiate certain changes. Implantation provides necessary conditions for the actualization of that prior, active potentiality. This does not imply that embryos are potential persons that do not deserve the same respect as actual persons. To claim that embryos "become persons" is to understand the predicate "person" as a phase sortal, roughly equivalent to "adult person." This entails that we would not be essentially persons. In order to explain the traditional understanding of "person" as a proper sortal rather than a phase sortal, the author distinguishes between proximate and remote potentiality, and shows that, unlike feline embryos, human embryos, by their genetic constitution, possess the remote potentiality to later exercise the typically human activities. It follows that they are already persons essentially.

Does respect for embryos entail respect for gametes?

Respect for human embryos is often defended on the basis of the potentiality argument: embryos deserve respect because they already possess potentially the features that in adults are fully actualized. Opponents of this argument challenge it by claiming that if embryos should be respected because they are potentially adults, then gametes should be respected because they are potentially embryos. This article rejects this reductio ad absurdum argument by showing that there are two different types of potentiality involved so that the transitivity of potentiality does not hold up in this case. Respect for embryos does not logically entail respect for gametes.

On the ethical evaluation of stem cell research: remarks on a paper by N. Knoepffler.

This response to Nikolaus Knoepffler's paper in the same issue of the Journal agrees that if the arguments supporting the first two of the eight human embryonic stem cell research policy options discussed are unsound, as Knoepffler argues, then it seems natural to move to the increasingly permissive options. If the arguments are sound, however, then the more permissive options should be rejected. It is argued that three of the rejected arguments, taken together, constitute very good reasons to hold that a human embryo is endowed with dignity from fertilization onward. Thus, countries that want their public policies to match the moral imperative of respect for human beings should refrain from allowing destructive human embryo research and should devote considerable energy and public funds to research and clinical trials using non-embryonic ("adult") stem cells.