Dear Prof. Ruiz Espejo,

I am not specialist in this field and thus, I can not give a professional answer.

From a brief investigation I found that

'The term Bioethics (Greek bios, life; ethos, behavior) was coined in 1926 by Fritz Jahr, who "anticipated many of the arguments and discussions now current in biological research involving animals" in an article about the "bioethical imperative," as he called it, regarding the scientific use of animals and plants. In 1970, the American biochemist Van Rensselaer Potter also used the term with a broader meaning including solidarity towards the biosphere, thus generating a "global ethics," a discipline representing a link between biology, ecology, medicine and human values in order to attain the survival of both human beings and other animal species.'

Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics. Maybe this attached link is helpful.

Regards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics

Dear Prof. Ruiz Espejo,

I am not specialist in this field and thus, I can not give a professional answer.

From a brief investigation I found that

'The term Bioethics (Greek bios, life; ethos, behavior) was coined in 1926 by Fritz Jahr, who "anticipated many of the arguments and discussions now current in biological research involving animals" in an article about the "bioethical imperative," as he called it, regarding the scientific use of animals and plants. In 1970, the American biochemist Van Rensselaer Potter also used the term with a broader meaning including solidarity towards the biosphere, thus generating a "global ethics," a discipline representing a link between biology, ecology, medicine and human values in order to attain the survival of both human beings and other animal species.'

Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics. Maybe this attached link is helpful.

Regards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Here is a very interesting paper related to the thread:

"The origins and evolution of bioethics: some personal reflections.

Abstract

Bioethics was officially baptized in 1972, but its birth took place a decade or so before that date. Since its birth, what is known today as bioethics has undergone a complex conceptual metamorphosis. This essay loosely divides that metamorphosis into three stages: an educational, an ethical, and a global stage. In the educational era, bioethics focused on a perceived "dehumanization" of medicine by the rising power of science and technology. Remedies were sought by introducing humanities, ethics, and human "values" into the medical curriculum. Ethics was one among the humanistic disciplines, but not the dominant one. In the second era, ethics assumed a dominant role as ever more complex dilemmas emerged from the rapid pace of biological research. As such dilemmas were applied to medical practice, the need for a more rigorous and more formal analysis of their moral status was clear. Philosophically-trained ethicists had an obvious role. They began to teach, write, and profoundly influence medical education and practice. In the third -- and present -- period, the breadth of problems has become so broad that ethicists must, themselves, draw on disciplines well beyond their expertise -- e.g., law, religion, anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and the like. The era of bioethics as a global enterprise is upon us. The original hope for humanizing medicine has not been overtly successful; however, much has been accomplished of value to patients, the profession, and society. Medical morality has been transformed into a formal, systematic study of a whole range of issues of the greatest significance to humanity. Now the major challenge is one of identity, or inter-relationships and connections between the theoretical and the practical. Bioethics has outgrown its beginnings."...

Please, see the link to obtain the complete paper....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11657316

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Instead of the traditional emphasis on the sanctity of life, bioethics began to stress the quality of life, meaning that many damaged humans, young and old, don't qualify for personhood because their lives have lost value.

                                                                              ----  John Leo

The challenge is for bioethicists to position themselves to be on panels, boards and other decision making bodies where oublic policy positions wil be established—where the exploding changes in health care that are now underway will be addressed. Arthur L.

People ask, “Is the science going to run ahead of the ethics?” I don't think that’s always the problem. I think it’s that the science runs ahead of the politics. Bioethics can alert people to something coming down the road, but it doesn't mean policy and politicians are going to pay attention. They tend to respond when there’s an immediate crisis. The job of the ethicist, in some ways, is to warn or be prophetic. You can yell loudly, but you can’t necessarily get everybody to leave the cinema, so to speak. ~ Arthur L

Great question Dear Mariano,

To my opinion bio-ethics has no sense in our days and same is for the origin of this complex and important word.

Ethics in sciences is lost in the business and in politics. The prefix - Bio, keeps only its materialized conception and I recall a recent question here in RG by Vladimir, Moral or science? What is more important?

By sure more important is to have a job, a salary, if possible a grant – that is true for the majority. So, where is Ethics?   

Bioethics, is just for the politicians and the roundtables, for the scientific committees that keep going in general in silence ( their job), for the newspapers and the media, and in order to cover the ongoing business.

I think as politics failed in many places in this planet, same is for the churches and the scientists.

In example, what is bioethics for the Christian Church today?

Bio-ethics relates to Democracy, justice, hungry, food, work, life, no hope, civilization, atrocities, wars, morals, children, education, corruption in sciences and more.

Life and ethics are very human sciences. Their origin is contemporary of humankind, but after atrocities of the second world war, it was neccesary to rethink and reflect the dignity of the human life and the ethics of the human behaviour.

Your direct question was answered by our esteemed colleagues, better than I could have done.

I might only add that it makes sense that such a field would have been created. As science has been advancing in leaps and bounds lately (in the past century especially), human ethics codes have to keep up and adapt. I've already suggested that just maybe, scientific research is less efficient than it might be, for funding reasons and so on, which may not be a completely bad thing. We do need to let philosophy catch up and keep up.

One example from a BBC show I caught just last night. As people live longer and longer, a new criterion has emerged that didn't really exist a few decades ago: "quality of life." The idea that in some cases, a vastly increased life span might not be desirable to the individual, if that longer life consists only of suffering without respite. This is something new that science has created, and now we as humans have to deal with it. Our moral/ethical code has to be updated, to accommodate what science has wrought.

Nothing all that startling, really. Ethics and philosophy in general have not been standing still. Why should we expect any of this to become frozen? It will not. People's views on any number of subjects have changed. This is as it should be.

Before going to talk about 'Bioethics', simply ethics means "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity".

I believe all professions follow some standards, behavior, values, and some guiding principles.

As per the literature survey mentioned by Thomas Percival started around 1803 used to follow by philosophers, theologians, and a few physicians. Later started animal ethics, environmental ethics and some other disciplines.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bioethics

http://www.iep.utm.edu/bioethic/

I.The Origin of Bioethics: a Brief Historical Overview

http://inters.org/bioethics

‘Testing in the East’: an episode in Cold War bioethics

http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/testing-in-the-east-an-episode-in-cold-war-bioethics/12011

Dear Mariano Ruiz Espejo,

Bioethics teaching about the moral side of human activity in medicine and biology.

In a narrow sense, the concept of Bioethics refers to the full range of ethical issues in the doctor-patient interaction. Ambiguous situations are constantly arising in the practice of medicine as a product of the progress of biological science and medical knowledge, require constant discussion in the medical community and among the general public.

In a broad sense, the term refers to the study of bioethics social, environmental, health and socio-legal problems concerning not only the person but also any living organisms included in the ecosystem surrounding the man. In this sense, bioethics is a philosophical orientation, evaluates the results of the development of new technologies and ideas in medicine and biology in general.

Regards, Shafagat

What is the right thing to do and the good way to be? What is worthwhile? What are our obligations to one another? Who is responsible, to whom and for what? What is the fitting response to this moral dilemma given the context in which it arises? On what moral grounds are such claims made?



 Bioethicists ask these questions in the context of modern medicine and healthcare. They draw on a pluralistic plethora of traditions, both secular and religious, to spawn civil discourse on contentious issues of moral difference and others on which most people agree. Bioethicists foster public knowledge and comprehension both of moral philosophy and scientific advances in healthcare. They note how medical technology can change the way we experience the meaning of health and illness and, ultimately, the way we live and die.



 Bioethics is multidisciplinary. It blends philosophy, theology, history, and law with medicine, nursing, health policy, and the medical humanities. Insights from various disciplines are brought to bear on the complex interaction of human life, science, and technology. Although its questions are as old as humankind, the origins of bioethics as a field are more recent and difficult to capture in a single view.



https://www.practicalbioethics.org/what-is-bioethics

The notion of bioethics is commonly understood as a generic term for three main sub-disciplines: medical ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics.

The term Bioethics (Greek bios, life; ethos, behavior) was coined in 1926 by Fritz Jahr, who "anticipated many of the arguments and discussions now current in biological research involving animals" in an article about the "bioethical imperative," as he called it, regarding the scientific use of animals and plants.

In 1970, the American biochemist Van Rensselaer Potter also used the term with a broader meaning including solidarity towards the biosphere, thus generating a "global ethics," a discipline representing a link between biology, ecology, medicine and human values in order to attain the survival of both human beings and other animal species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics

http://www.iep.utm.edu/bioethic/

Nothing that you do in science is guaranteed to result in benefits for mankind. Any discovery, I believe, is morally neutral and it can be turned either to constructive ends or destructive ends. That’s not the fault of science.

— Arthur W. Galston

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Bioethics is a very, very important field. As we get more and more in the arena of understanding science and getting better opportunities, the fact that you can do things with biological sciences that have an impact on a human being means you must have ethical standards.

                                                                  ----  Anthony Fauci

Bioethics

Bioethics is a rather young academic inter-disciplinary field that has emerged rapidly as a particular moral enterprise against the background of the revival of applied ethics in the second half of the twentieth century. The notion of bioethics is commonly understood as a generic term for three main sub-disciplines: medical ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics. Each sub-discipline has its own particular area of bioethics, but there is a significant overlap of many issues, ethical approaches, concepts, and moral considerations. This makes it difficult to examine and to easily solve vital moral problems such as abortion, xenotransplantation, cloning, stem cell research, the moral status of animals and the moral status of nature (the environment). In addition, the field of bioethics presupposes at least some basic knowledge of important life sciences, most notably medicine, biology (including genetics), biochemistry, and biophysics in order to deal successfully with particular moral issues. This article also contains a discussion about the vital issue of moral status—and hence protection—in the context of bioethics, that is, whether moral status is ascribed depending on rationality, harm, or any other feature. For example, it might well be the case that non-sentient beings such as plants and unique stone formations, such as the Grand Canyon, do have a moral standing—at least, to some degree—and should not be deliberately destroyed by virtue of either their instrumental or intrinsic value for human beings. The last part contains a discussion of the main bioethical theories including their main line of reasoning and complex challenges in contemporary philosophy.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/bioethic/

Hello,

In addition to the concepts already well placed, in my opinion, in addition to these concepts is necessary to take into account the various points of

on moral, scientific, and social dilemmas involving bioethics, society and the natural environment.

When speaking about bioethics, it should be mentioned the four major principles of bioethics, universally accepted: the duty not to inflict harm on others and do the job own good, as good practice, justice (recognition of the equality of human beings and fairness in the distribution of risks and benefits, avoiding discrimination, segregation or marginalization of human beings), autonomy (the right to decide and respect for life choices of each individual) and beneficence (obligation to promote the good of others following its own criteria of good). These principles are the starting point and true common bond of all ethical formulation. But not all theory: bioethics also seeks methods to help professionals make ethical decisions or solve problems caused by conflicts of values. In this important field surveys and experimental studies are performed which results often depend policy measures or legislative management.

Rationale and methodology are applied to specific issues that currently occupy bioethics, can recognize some of these topics: genetics, cloning, problems at the beginning and end of life, doctor-patient relationship, ecology ... It can be said that the bioethics is where problems arise regarding scientific advances and that directly or indirectly affect humans. It is important to promote forums involving representatives of all stakeholders (scientists, politicians, ethicists, philosophers, etc.) so that they set all opinions and sensitivities without exclusion and these issues reflectively and responsible debate.

Few Examples of Bioethics committees by the fusion (Amalgame) of Science &Politics.

Amagalme: alchimiste du moyen âge amalgama de l'arabe amal al-djamā : fusion, union charnelle.

Read on wiki & other sources:

1)  “Abortion in Ireland is illegal unless it occurs as the result of a medical intervention performed to save the life of the mother. It is prohibited by both the constitutional protection of the right to life of the unborn and by legislation.”

2) Abortion is illegal in the Republic of Ireland, except where the pregnancy presents a real and substantial risk to the mother's life. This includes the risk of suicide.

3) Induced abortion, or the voluntary termination of pregnancy, is a controversial issue in Mexico. The procedure is offered on request to any woman with up to twelve weeks into a pregnancy in Mexico City, but forbidden in 18 out of 32 Mexican state constitutions (except in case of rape) and only 13 allow it when the life of the mother is in danger.[1][2]  More than a 679 women haven been accused or sentenced for abortion in conservative-leaning states, such as Guanajuato.[2][4]

4) Abortion in the United States is legal, via the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. However, individual states can regulate/limit the use of abortion or create "trigger laws". Currently, 6 states have trigger laws and 3 other states have laws intending to criminalize abortion.

5) A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or the biosphere. Since World War II it has come to refer to large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.

Bio-Ethics and the right to abortion is criminalized in many places in this planet.

A WMD is not criminalized. 

I am wondering what is Science and Bioethics for the scientists?

PS; I loved the down-voters in this very critical debate.

Dear  Pierlorenzo ,

I still do not understand what the function of committees in Bioethics is in our days.

It is similar to the question of what is the role of corruption in controlling scientific progress !

I agree that personal responsibilities, ethics, morals: this is the foundation of Sciences.

In example, we cannot kill children in the name of “Democracy” and see the data in the TV drinking beer or wine and same time be member of scientific committees that penalize abortion for poor and penalize innocent women because they decided to have a social life;

We cannot be members of scientific committees and keep silent . There are many scientific committees entitled  “ETHICS”!!   Famous Professors.

What is the role of Church – Politics & Science in the modern world and society?!

Ethics in Sciences, let’s put the things on the table.

I attach a very nice song from Jacques Brel: “Les Bourgeois” for the scientific committees that function in silence and in transparency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHi5apc1lQ

I think that the careful study of Bioethics and how It may enlighten our actual work is very important for any good Researcher. Because we could not be aware of each consecuence of our work, but we are morally bound to look for the Good and to avoid the Evil. We have to be Bioethic researchers in the field of biology and Ethics in our daily life.

If someone were a researcher in Nazi Germany or in Comunist URSS, you have to be ready to decide if a Jew is a Human or a rat, or if a Kulak was any peasant who resisted handing over their grain to detachments from Moscow or "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine."

Today we are in front of problems yet more difficult:

Is ethic to eat human meat?, I think that not but aborted babys are sold in some places.

Is ethic to murder an innocent person? No, but most countrys allow that many babys are aborted and in some cases its limbs sold as was shown in the last Plannedparenhood scandal?.

Is ethic to deprive to a diseased person of his/her primary care, as food and water, because his/her life disturb to someone or has a high cost?.

Is ethic to sterilize someone? when many times it is without asking or by mean of delusions (eg. Fujimori's goverment in Peru)?.

Is ethic the eutanacia that made the peoples life dispensable, the Medicine utilitary and It is very easy to hide an intentional murder?.

Is ethic to contamine the only aquifer of a city in order to maximize the production of a mine and its rent?.

Is ethic to perform deadly human experiments on marginalized people?

This are some examples of questions that a good researcher would have to answer negatively in order to avoid became a modern Dr Mengele or a coward complice of others.

What is Bioethics?

Information : Online Articles

"Bioethics" has been used in the last twenty years to describe the investigation and a study of ways in which decisions in medicine and science touch upon our health and lives and upon our society and environment.

Bioethics is concerned with questions about basic human values such as the rights to life and health, and the rightness or wrongness of certain developments in healthcare institutions, life technology, medicine, the health professions and about society's responsibility for the life and health of its members.

Bioethics involves issues relating to the beginning and end of human life, all the way from issues relating to in-vitro fertilisation and abortion to euthanasia and palliative care.

Bioethics has an impact on every level of human community from the local nursing home to the huge international conferences on issues like the Human Genome.

Bioethics is a branch of "applied ethics" and requires the expertise of people working in a wide range disciplines including: law, philosophy, theology, medicine, the life sciences, nursing and social science.

Bioethics is full of difficult ethical questions for everybody: families, hospitals, governments and civilisation.

Fundamental values are at stake: human life, the dignity of the frail and elderly, just healthcare, bodily integrity and the ability to make reasonable decisions.

http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Bioethical%20Issues.html

For a Christian, the origin of the life is God, and the origin of the moral and the ethics is God. Then for them, one cannot know well the Bioethics without knowing and loving to God which is the origin and the end of all.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Bioethics introduction

Please, see ....

Bioethics: Sciences Politics Church

1) wiki - '"The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception".

2) Scentifc positiions at the Prf level are largely drived by political/financial interests .

3) Church (globaly) and Politics are largely merged.

4) Is Science free? and INDEPENDENT so to influence social life? and so express a REAL opinion in Bioethical subjects?

My answer is NO.

"Bioethics has hardened into an activist ideology that pervades the medical world, the schools, and government."

---John Leo

Dear all,

This could be helpful: "The Importance of History for Bioethics"

Link is below

Redards

https://thebioethicsprogram.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/the-importance-of-history-for-bioethics-it-is-what-it-was/

I eard about bioethics specially in decisions about medicine issues, related to human life.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Please, see the attached link for a very interesting Lecture entitled "Bioethics, the origin, the subject-matter - Bioeth"

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1d2JuWHCHO8OrA6ovWeI92LsPZt3OL7ODiAXCrGI8p-0/edit#slide=id.i40

The growing professional disciplines of medical ethics and bioethics have had a profound impact on researchers, bedside doctors, associations of physicians, and government.

                                                        Sherwin B. Nuland

About ethics in the human life, I believe that all the Bible treates of it, since the book of Genesis until the book of Revelation.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

People ask, “Is the science going to run ahead of the ethics?” I don't think that’s always the problem. I think it’s that the science runs ahead of the politics. Bioethics can alert people to something coming down the road, but it doesn't mean policy and politicians are going to pay attention. They tend to respond when there’s an immediate crisis. The job of the ethicist, in some ways, is to warn or be prophetic. You can yell loudly, but you can’t necessarily get everybody to leave the cinema, so to speak.

The origins and evolution of bioethics: some personal reflections.

Pellegrino ED.

Abstract

Bioethics was officially baptized in 1972, but its birth took place a decade or so before that date. Since its birth, what is known today as bioethics has undergone a complex conceptual metamorphosis. This essay loosely divides that metamorphosis into three stages: an educational, an ethical, and a global stage. In the educational era, bioethics focused on a perceived "dehumanization" of medicine by the rising power of science and technology. Remedies were sought by introducing humanities, ethics, and human "values" into the medical curriculum. Ethics was one among the humanistic disciplines, but not the dominant one. In the second era, ethics assumed a dominant role as ever more complex dilemmas emerged from the rapid pace of biological research. As such dilemmas were applied to medical practice, the need for a more rigorous and more formal analysis of their moral status was clear. Philosophically-trained ethicists had an obvious role. They began to teach, write, and profoundly influence medical education and practice. In the third -- and present -- period, the breadth of problems has become so broad that ethicists must, themselves, draw on disciplines well beyond their expertise -- e.g., law, religion, anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and the like. The era of bioethics as a global enterprise is upon us. The original hope for humanizing medicine has not been overtly successful; however, much has been accomplished of value to patients, the profession, and society. Medical morality has been transformed into a formal, systematic study of a whole range of issues of the greatest significance to humanity. Now the major challenge is one of identity, or inter-relationships and connections between the theoretical and the practical. Bioethics has outgrown its beginnings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11657316

The word Bioethics is of the century XX, but clearly it existed Ethics about Life and Biology before. The Christian tradition has many examples of this.

What is Bioethics?

Bioethics is an activity; it is a shared, reflective examination of ethical issues in health care, health science, and health policy. These fields have always had ethical standards, of course, handed down within each profession, and often without question. About forty years ago, however, it became obvious that we needed a more public, and more critical, discussion of these standards.

Bioethics is that discussion. It takes place in the media, in the academy, in classrooms, and in labs, offices, and hospital wards. It involves not just doctors, but patients, not just scientists and politicians but the general public. Traditional ethical standards have been articulated, reflected on, challenged, and sometimes revised; standards for new issues have been created – and then challenged and revised. The conversation is often sparked by new developments, like the possibility of cloning. But bioethics also raises new questions about old issues, like the use of placebos and the treatment of pain.

http://www.bioethics.msu.edu/what-is-bioethics

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

I actually completely suck at being a bioethicist. What I do is history of medicine and patient advocacy. Patient advocacy is actually the opposite of bioethics, because bioethicists are the people who increasingly set up and justify the systems we patient advocates have to fight.

                                                                             ----  Alice Dreger

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Instead of the traditional emphasis on the sanctity of life, bioethics began to stress the quality of life, meaning that many damaged humans, young and old, don't qualify for personhood because their lives have lost value."

                                                                          Author: John Leo

Dear Hazim,

I believe more in "sanctity of life" which is respectful with all ones, while "quality of life" is a term used to destroy others for someones.

Bioethics is a very, very important field. As we get more and more in the arena of understanding science and getting better opportunities, the fact that you can do things with biological sciences that have an impact on a human being means you must have ethical standards.

Anthony Fauci

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Please, see this definition.....

Bioethics has hardened into an activist ideology that pervades the medical world, the schools, and government.

John Leo

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Please, see "UNESCO'S 15 Bioethical Principles"......

The principles of bioethics in health attention are: Non-maleficence, Beneficence, Autonomy of patient, Justice. In origin, Non-maleficence and Beneficence were the main principles. Justice and Autonomy are more recent.

No but I will like to know more about it

An article about the origin of Bioethics, in Spanish, is this.

http://es.catholic.net/op/articulos/63639/y-que-es-la-bioetica.html

The growing professional disciplines of medical ethics and bioethics have had a profound impact on researchers, bedside doctors, associations of physicians, and government.

Sherwin B. Nuland

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"History of bioethics

1. History of Bioethics Seema Daud

2. What is Ethics? The formal study of: –What is right and wrong. –The study of the bases or principles for deciding right and wrong. –The analyses of the processes by which we decide what is right and wrong.

3. Medical Ethics According to the World Medical Association • It is the study of morality, careful and systematic reflection on, and analysis or moral decisions and behavior. • As a scholarly discipline, medical ethics encompasses its practical application in clinical settings as well as work on its history, philosophy, theology, sociology, and anthropology. • Ethical codes in different era were based on the religious beliefs of the people or needs of humanity. Based on definition of “Medical Ethics” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics

4. • Rigid rules were laid down as to experimental treatment. • There was no accountability in failure to cure as long as the standards text book were followed. • Severe penalties were, however, threatened for those who ignore the instructions. Ethics in Egyptian Medicine 2700 BC Hieroglyphic Writing

5. • The code of Hammurabi (Babylon 1900 BC) was the first written laws in the world (282 laws). • King Hammurabi is one of several influential lawgivers depicted in a marble frieze found in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court. • A system of payment based on results and the ability to pay on the status of the patient. • There were penalties for negligent failure, some of which were harsh & severe. • If the physician succeeds, he gets paid. If he fails, at worst he loses his hands. Code of Hammurabi (Louvre Museum, Paris)

6. • Laws with regard to healing the sick, with best diet, according to physician’s judgment and means; • Taking care that patients suffer no hurt or damage. • No administration of poison to anyone. • Not giving any sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child. • Keeping sacred and secret patient’s information within my own breast. Hippocratic Oath 4 BC

7. • Rules about entering patients’ homes, respecting and honoring them by dressing properly and maintaining modesty. • Having entered, the speech, mind, intellect and senses shall be entirely devoted to no other thought than that of being helpful to the patient and of things concerning only him. • The peculiar customs of the patient's household shall not be made public. Oath of Initiation of professional ethics (Charaka Samhita) 1st Century India

8. • Oldest Hebrew medical text, written by a Hebrew physician from Syria • Not to kill not any man with the sap of a root; • Not to dispense a potion to a woman with child by adultery to cause her to miscarry; • Not to disclose secrets confided by the patient; • Not to take bribes to cause injury and to kill; • Not to harden hearts against the poor and the needy, but heal them; The Oath of Asaph in Judaism (3rd Century)

9. • Sources Quran & Sunnah • Islam made it an obligation upon the sick to seek treatment. • Human life is sacred. The saving of one life is regarded to be the same as saving the life of all of humanity. • For every ailment (except old age) there is a remedy. • Actions will be judged according to intentions. • Rulings exist for Euthanasia, Contraception, organ transplant and Abortion etc. Islamic Medical Ethics (7th Century)

10. • Haly Abbas (Ahwazi), devoted the first chapter of his work Liber Regius (Kamel Al Sanaah al Tibbia) to the ethics of medicine. A physician should: • Prudently treat his patients with food and medicine out of good and spiritual motives, not for the sake of gain. • Never to prescribe or use a harmful drug or abortifacient. • Respect confidences and protect the patient’s secrets. • Be kind, compassionate, merciful and benevolent, and give himself unstintingly to the treatment of patients, especially the poor. Advice to a Physician by Haly Abbas Persian physician (10th Century AD)

11. • In Japan: Buddhist Physicians crafted Seventeen Rules of Enjun (6th century) & • In China: Ming Dynasty (14th century) Ethical instruction for healers were discovered which were similar to Hippocratic oath

12. • Thomas Percival (1740–1804) was an English physician and author, best known for crafting perhaps the first modern code of medical ethics. • He drew up a pamphlet with the code in 1794 and wrote an expanded version in 1803, Medical Ethics, or a Code of Institutes and Precepts, Adapted to the Professional Conduct of Physicians and Surgeons in which he coined the expression "medical ethics". • He was also a pioneering campaigner for public health measures and factory regulation in Manchester (Occupational Bioethics) Percival Code of Medical Ethics (UK: 1794)

13. • Bioethics is a native American product. • Bioethics occurred as a ‘reactive response’ to biomedicine’s technology advances and cultural pluralism. • International bioethics began more then a decade after the birth of bioethics in USA. • In the 20th century, there have been numerous unethical & inhumane experiments performed on human test subjects in the United States that were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, or informed consent of the test subjects. • These experiments were funded by USA government, CIA , military & private agencies.

14. Exposure of people to biological and chemical weapons • Mustard Gas Tested on Soldiers via Involuntary Gas Chambers • CIA sprayed: whooping cough virus on Tampa Bay; 12 people died. • The Navy sprayed bacterial pathogens of pneumonia in San Francisco • The Army released millions of mosquitoes in the hope they would spread yellow fever and dengue fever upon Savannah, GA, and Avon Park, FL

15. The deliberate infection of people with deadly or debilitating diseases US Infected Guatemalans with Syphilis and did not give them penicillin

16. Post world war II, Human Radiation Experiments on pregnant women, men & infants Over 4,000 secret and classified radiation experiments were conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and other government agencies involving introduction of radio-active material to Black infants, gonads of Blacks and other ethnics and even cereals for teenagers

17. Surgical experiments • Throughout the 1840s, J Marion Sims, who is often referred to as "the father of Gynecology", performed surgical experiments on enslaved African women, without anesthesia. • One of whom was operated on 30 times—regularly died from infections resulting from the experiments.

18. Surgical experiments • In 1874, Mary Rafferty, an Irish servant woman, came to Dr. Robert Bartholow of the Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati for treatment of her cancer. • Seeing a research opportunity, he cut open her head, and inserted needle electrodes into her exposed brain matter.

19. Psychological & Torture experiments CIA conducted experiments on prisoners & mentally retarded, exposing them to: • Pain • Fear • Sexual abuse

20. • Beaumont's Code (United States) 1833: experimental treatments when all else fails. Get voluntary, informed consent. Stop experiment at subject’s request. • American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics 1847 • Walter Reed (United States) 1898: Introduces written consent “contracts”. Allows healthy human subjects in medical experiments. • Berlin Code, or Prussian Code (Germany) 1900: No medical experiments when subject not competent to give informed consent, in the absence of unambiguous consent, or when information not properly explained to subject. • Reich Circular (Germany) 1932 Concerned with consent and well-being of the subjects. • Nuremberg Code (1947) Medical research • Declaration of Geneva, W.M.A. (1948, 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005, 2006) • World Medical Association International Code of Medical Ethics (1949) • Declaration of Helsinki, application to medical research (1964, rev. 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000) • Belmont Report (1979) • AMA Code of Medical Ethics revision (2001)."

Please, see the link....

http://www.slideshare.net/drseemadaud/history-of-bioethics

There's a Bioethics Institute which claims having a connection the the Catholic Church in Catalunya: 'Institut Borja de Bioètica', 'Universitat Ramon Llull', Barcelona, they speak Spanish, I guess somebody there may speak English, but Institutes are not a source of neither law nor commandments: 'Prophets concluded in John the Baptist', (Lc 16, 16), those after Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, are: 'Preachers'.

Also, in the Valencia University, the socialism lover Victoria Camps wrote several books about ethics and its history

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

........

"Bioethics Principles:

Early founders of bioethics put forth four principles which form the framework for moral reasoning.

• Nonmaleficence - One should avoid causing harm. The healthcare professional should not harm the patient. All treatment involves some harm, even if minimal, but the harm should not be disproportionate to the benefits of treatment.
• Justice - Benefits and risks should be fairly distributed. The notion that patients in similar positions should be treated in a similar manner.
• Beneficence - One should take positive steps to help others. Considers the balancing of benefits of treatment against the risks and costs; the healthcare professional should act in a way that benefits the patient
• Autonomy - one should respect the right of individuals to make their own decisions by respecting the decision making capacities of autonomous persons; enabling individuals to make reasoned informed choices."....

These 'Four Principles' have been one of the most widely discussed issues in Biomedical Ethics with arguments for and against them. The authors' claim has been tested by research conducted in different cultures and societies.

Please, see the link....

http://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/bioethics.php

Instead of the traditional emphasis on the sanctity of life, bioethics began to stress the quality of life, meaning that many damaged humans, young and old, don't qualify for personhood because their lives have lost value.

John Leo

I was said first regulations ever concerning experimentation in human beings were issued in XIX century by the Prussian govt, after Neisser deliberately inoculated several tenths of persons with Syphilis, to test his vaccine, in the line of the Tuskegee and Guatemala experiments.

The issue of experiments in humans went to the performing arts, in the Opera by Alban Berg: 'Wojcek', but there are also theater pieces about this.

The first human study was considered the hiring of Lavoisier, Ben Franklin, and another, by the French Academy, upon request of Louis 'XVI', to ascertain if Mesmerism or: 'Animal Magnetism', was a true fact, they concluded it wasn't,

J Denis, in the times of Louis 'XIV', transfused goat or sheep blood to humans, miraculously, nothing happened, raising doubts about if the transfusion was actually done.

A Bourbon in the kingdom of Sicily had the idea of knowing if the original language of mankind was Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, [The Nun saint Hildegard of Bingen wrote a treaty, and a dictionary of over 1'000 words, of the: 'Arcane language'], and for this purpose, the Bourbon made kept isolated from human voice a group of very young infants, all of them died. 

The 'Third Reich', issued laws regarding human experimentation that banned what was done later in the concentration camps.

btw: 'saint', comes from the Latin: 'Sanctus', and this, from 'Sanctio'= 'Sanction', putting it in the line of : 'Taboo', rather than in that of: 'Justice', that if in Latin has a connection to: 'Ius dicere', 'issuing a sentence', a term, between two interests in conflict, in the Bible: 'Just', means: 'Fair', 'Righteous', and has very little or nothing to do with courts.

The Latin term: 'Lex', cognate to 'Law', may have the same etymology as the Sanskrit: 'Laks', meaning: 'Edict/ Announcement', in Spanish: 'Bando', you know that: 'Ghossanna', is a Sanskrit term, meaning: 'Proclamation', in the line of Latin: 'Ave!', the English: 'Hail!', or the German: 'Heil!', and that, also in Sanskrit: 'Yuhuvah Adonayanam', means: 'We (two) sacrifice to the sundown/ twilight', wonder if it had a connection to the worship of Hebrew towards Jerusalem during their times in Babylon...

One of the roots in Bio-ethics may be that it provides an opportunity to open positions in universities, religious groups,...and have some guys receiving a salary; as the Principle of Peter pointed: 'The existing workload can be expanded indefinitely as to occupy all the working hours'.

Commandments, we have the Ten, and saint Paul pointed: 'Sin entered the world because of the law, as before the law, there was sin, but it wasn't imputed'.

Offenses are prosecuted only upon request of an offended part, and very few types of offenses are the job of: 'Public prosecutors'

An anecdote about Bio-ethics I had was, during a Clinical meeting, a pediatrician, then acting as responsible person of the facility, pointed that for requesting an VIH test, an special consent in writing from patient had to be obtained, my objection was that you don't explain in full all tests you request, unless the patient asks, be it just because the lack of time ample enough, and as third persons may be involved, sometimes it would be even good not discussing tests as VIH or T pallidum, I also asked in which list of commandments was this requirement, or in what issue of the official state bulleltin, where laws were published, this rule was entered.

Of course, if: 'Expert opinions' are the lowest grade of evidence, if an evidence at all, rules need something more than a self-proclaimed or supported by their family, friends, fellows from parish,..: 'Bioethics expert, authority or teacher', to have some force, it's not uncommon that the ones who propose this kind of: 'commandments', treat as enemies those who refuse to endorse the proposal, or as anti-social elements, starting to act against them.

No need to remark that for any punishment to be applied, first, a law must exist, and second, but not least, a legally acceptable court procedure must be followed to impose the punishment, the: 'I'm in command and you must obey me', is acceptable in very rare circumstances, probably none in the medical life, if you want someone doing or not doing a certain procedure or test, just take care of case by yourself, physicians are not the executive arm of another one, nursery was designed for this purpose, and even in professions where therapies applied are not the professional's choice, same as the one who pays a prescription medicine is not the one who writes the prescription, it's a matter of division of work, safety, and economy, time of a phsycian used being more expensive than that of helping professionals.

If an Institute indicates they're Catholic, this doesn't mean theirs is Official Catholic Ethics; besides the Martin Luther considerations about: 'Free Exam', which reavive the command to saint Augustin: 'Tolle et lege'= 'Take up and read', only the bishop of Rome is supposed to speak: 'Ex Cathedra', with no risk of wrong saying, but just on very special and explicitly declared occasions, during all the time he was in command of the Catholic Church, John Paul II said nothing: 'Ex-cathedra', meaning nothing out of the possibility of error, so, everytihg he said is arguable and able not to be accepted by the faithful, I guess.

Regards, + Salut

I think that documents of the Church about life, moral and ethics have had since that Jesus Christ founded the Church in the first century. In the sacred history many other manifestations of Yahveh told us about the life and ethics. But the term "Bioethics" is much more recent even existing in practice ethics of life since the begining of the man in the earth.

Lesser Known Theories of Bioethics

Bioethics treates also of the qualities of the mean of the life, as geology, environment, purity of air, soil and water, etc.

.The Origin of Bioethics: a Brief Historical Overview

All activity within the sphere of health care, from time immemorial and in all cultures, has been imbued with both moral and religious significance, to such an extent that healing has been considered as a divine gift. Prayers and rituals accompanied the curative act and in temples dedicated to the gods of convalescence, such as Asclepio in the Greek and Roman civilizations, where physicians were also priests, their elected registration testified to the prayers and gratitude of the patients.

Following this period a great asclepiad, the Greek physician Hippocrates (5th century B.C.), maintained that the art of healing should be regarded as a scientific activity, based upon observation and on the natural effects of the attempts to cure an illness. He was, therefore, attempting to separate medicine from religion, yet not from moral roots as the medical arts for Hippocrates epitomized a love for humankind. As shown by the history of medicine, in all western traditions, the doctor has always sought to work according to moral precepts regarding competence and dedication with respect to the ill, mindful to avoid further damage and injustice, and curing also – above all in the Jewish-Christian tradition – the poor and infirm, foreigners and even enemies. Therefore, all medical associations from the Middle Ages up to and including all of the first part of the 20th century have preserved images of a trustworthy, dignified and respectable doctor dedicated to the service of mankind and, consequently, medical ethics have always had a stable nucleus of moral warnings and ideals, in spite of social and cultural variables regarding environments and trends.

However, immediately after the Second World War medical ethics reached a turning point, due to the advancements taking place within the medical sciences and through the introduction of technology in medical intervention. The ethical code that had traditionally supported the medical profession had to confront new questions, raised directly as a result of the extraordinary progress being made in the biomedical sciences: what is the definition of the death of a man? What are the limits for the use of resuscitation and for sustaining life? What are the consequences of organ transplants? What are the implications for interventions on new-born life and on the human genome? As a response to these questions, philosophers and theologians, jurists and sociologists, together with doctors and scientists, began to rethink and revise the old standards. Governments therefore instituted commissions to elaborate and recommend guide-lines and the tribunals began to hear and formulate ethical arguments in line with their sentences encouraging legislators to approve laws regarding these matters. This, therefore, began the “bioethical movement” that brought about a drastic and profound revision of the centuries-old professional ethics that had governed the behavior of doctors and their relationships with patients. Medicine also forced moral philosophy to extend its fields of interest outside of the arid, theoretical debates – “thus saving its life” according to S. Toulmin (1982), and as such precipitated a healthy renewal – and to assume a co-responsibility within the environment regarding bioethical questions.

The United States of America was the cradle for the birth of this movement where bioethics moved initially from a situation of alarm to a state of deep concern with respect to scientific progress and of a society that paradoxically seemed to undermine the capacity for the survival of humankind. The discoveries in those years, and in those immediately following, announced in the field of genetic engineering the frightening possibility to create biological weapons and to alter the same statute of the diverse forms of life, of species and individuals, favoring a movement of “catastrophic” ideas and fears. In this sense the Dutch oncologist Van Rensselaer Potter, who coined the term “Bioethics” in an article published in 1970, had intended to assign to the “new discipline” the task of combining biological knowledge with the knowledge of a system of human values. He, in fact, had characterized the danger for the survival of the whole ecosystem into an unnatural split between the two environments of knowledge, namely the scientific and the humanistic. So, for this reason, he foresaw the urgency for a new knowledge that not only finalized the ability to understand natural phenomena and to explain them, but also a much tighter way to discover them and to use wisely the scientific-technical knowledge that favors the survival of the human race and to improve the quality of life for future generations. Therefore he called bioethics the science of survival, considering it destined to form a “bridge” between those two spheres of knowledge.

Besides that original vein of bioethics, there is another “inheritance” to be considered today, which is now prevailing with respect to V.R. Potter’s view. In these same years, in fact, the development of bioethics received a strong input from the young obstetrician-gynaecologist André E. Hellegers, also Dutch, who was appointed in 1971 to direct the Kennedy Institute of Ethics (initially called the “Kennedy Center for the study of human reproduction and bioethics,” therefore also introducing here the new word), at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., a university founded by the Jesuit fathers, whose atmosphere he remembers to have been congenial regarding the deepening awareness of philosophy and theology. Hellegers was called in 1964 to integrate the “Pontifical Commission for the Studies on Family, Population and Birth” set into motion by John XXIII (1958-1963) during the time of the Second Vatican Council and significantly enlarged upon by his successor Paul VI (a kind of first example of these bioethics commissions established in the following years by various national governments). He played a role of great importance within that commission as a member of the executive committee and as the secretary of the pastoral section, so achieving a notable experience for the future development of bioethics. For Hellegers bioethics had to have a “maieutic” dimension, able to recognize the values there involved through a fruitful dialogue and comparison among medicine, philosophy and ethics. The object of this new field of study had to be the ethical aspects implicit in clinical practice. It will be Hellegers who introduces the term bioethics within the international community and in the university programs, and inserts it into the field of biomedical sciences, elaborating a conception of the discipline that corresponds to that which prevails today. Hellegers has also had the merit to indicate a specific methodology for this new discipline, that is interdisciplinary, foretelling that the clinical bio-ethicist would become more expert than the philosopher or the moral theologian. He was convinced that the direct study of biological problems would have brought forward the ethics itself and, utilizing the precision and rigor of the scientific components, would have been founded and developed that which would have been called later the “ethics of principles” (see below, IV).

And so it was from this viewpoint – and not from the original one accepted by Potter – that the term bioethics was introduced and sanctioned in a definitive way by the powerful Encyclopedia of Bioethics (New York 1978, 19952). By the first edition of this work, bioethics came to be defined "as the systematic study of human conduct in the area of life sciences and healthcare, insofar as this conduct is examined in the light of moral values and principles" (p. XIX); as regards medical ethics, it would include: a) problems concerning values that rise up in all the healthcare professions, not only in those that are medical, but also those of the nurse, the pharmacist, the psychologist, the health administrator, etc.; b) biomedical research and that carried out in the field of psychological and behavioral sciences, also independently of the therapies related to such research; c) a broad band of social problems, such as those related to the public health sector, to medicine at work, to demographic control, and to healthcare on an international level; d) the life and health of mankind in relation to that of the ecosystem, considering animal experimentation and the protection of the environment.

The Catholic philosopher Daniel Callahan had a similar view. He was co-founder in 1969, together with the psychiatrist W. Gaylin, of the famous Hastings Center. This Institute played a relevant role in the diffusion of bioethics through the research projects based on a medical-social level, opening up the horizons of bioethics if compared with Potter’s perspective, and contributing to the development of educative projects for the large public and guide-lines for workers, collaborating moreover on the preparation of many important entries of the Encyclopedia of Bioethics. It was really this work that was responsible for, and brought about the development of bioethics as a discipline. According to Spinsanti, the Encyclopedia was born before the discipline whose body of knowledge it was presumed to present, so disconcerting a number of ideas about the subdivision into other different subject matters and their academic arrangements. This fact would indicate that bioethics will not become a shrub with a precarious existence but rather a tree with far-reaching roots, which extend deeply into Western culture, in the historical developments of medical practice and in the theoretical developments of philosophical thought (cf. Spinsanti, Forward in Gracia, 1993).

Bioethics has therefore been a “revitalized” study of applied medical ethics, its freshness coming not from technology or from the novelty of problems, but rather from the method with which such themes had to be tackled, because of both the diversity of disciplines involved and the pluralistic context of modern society. Such methodologies have given a significant weight to theology and to philosophy so that they cannot be ignored; and above all Christian theology, whose reflections must not be viewed as ideologically opposed against a presumed “laity” of bioethics (see below, III.2), that would exclude all religious references from this field of study. Paraphrasing Shakespeare in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (cf. V, I, 15-17), it must be recognized, therefore, that “the pen” of theologians and philosophers has given "to a airy nothing a local habitation and a name": the home is that of the Study Centers that have rapidly diffused bioethics thanks to so many Conferences and publications; the name is that which has originated putting close together, in a somewhat spontaneous and intuitive way, the two terms biology and ethics.

http://inters.org/bioethics

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Bioethics has hardened into an activist ideology that pervades the medical world, the schools, and government.

                                                                        ----  John Leo

Bioethics and Policy—A History

By Daniel Callahan

The word “ethics” makes many people nervous. It can connote religious or ideological dogmatism, with hard-nose rules about right and wrong. Or it can mean an endless quest to determine just what is right or wrong—a quest uselessly mired in 2,500 years of disagreement. Yet whatever one perceives ethics to be, it is impossible to escape dealing with it. We have to ask how best to direct our personal lives, how best to live with other people, and how best to organize and manage our society. For Aristotle, ethics was a branch of politics, and politics needs to be rooted in some notion of the common good and the need to develop assorted laws, policies, and other means to regulate society.

It has been said that, in stable times, one hardly has to think of ethics at all. Rules for living our private lives and living together with others are settled and taken for granted. A worry about ethics typically emerges when serious political, scientific, and cultural changes are afoot. That was exactly the case with the emergence of bioethics. Prior to the 1960s, medical ethics was mainly in the hands of physicians. It had scarcely changed from the ancient Hippocratic tradition and focused almost exclusively on the welfare of patients and medical professionalism.

By the 1960s, however, a wide range of new ethical problems came rushing into view, all of them driven by spectacular advances in medicine and biology. The old medical ethics could not contain their scope and variety: new genetic knowledge, contraception and safe abortion, organ transplantation, a new definition of death, sophisticated ways to keep people alive (often too long), the first signs of anxiety about health care costs, and a more educated public that was less willing to accept “doctor knows best” physician paternalism. The issues were moving well beyond the boundaries of the old medical ethics, and the word bioethics was coined to capture that rich complexity.

From the first it was understood that bioethics had to cast a wide net, moving from the most intimate doctor-patient encounters at the bedside to the most public kinds of decisions on the provision of health care. Good ethics in that context meant working at both ends of a spectrum: a serious grappling with basic issues of human nature, rights, and dignity—where should medicine be taking us?—and dealing with the most practical of policy matters. The latter meant the fashioning of regulations for the allocation of, say, scarce organs for transplantation, or determining appropriate rules for terminating treatment of a dying patient. It soon came to mean, as well, the fairest way of organizing a health care system and paying for ever more expensive medical care.

That attempt to work through the full spectrum of issues has had to cope with an understandable but troublesome tendency in our public discourse: the larger and more fundamental human questions that should be engaged are put aside, and the focus is mainly on those issues that lend themselves to some concrete legal or legislative outcomes acceptable in a pluralistic society. The cases the United States Supreme Court chooses to hear are illustrative of the problem. The Supreme Court reportedly tries hard to avoid taking on questions at the basic constitutional level, preferring that as many issues as possible be dealt with by lower courts. The Court has long understood that the more basic the issue, the more divisive it will be.

Something similar happens with public policy debates, which are not known for comfortably taking on deep problems of social philosophy. Bioethics is willing to engage in such debates. But it recognizes that, with policy issues, action is ordinarily what is desired, and of a very specific kind—such as rules to regulate human subject research. While bioethics must speak to that dimension, the historical uniqueness of so many of the pertinent issues do not allow for too sharp a distinction between the different philosophical and political levels of analysis. To establish good law for the definition of death, for example, it was necessary to ask some profound philosophical questions. What is it about a person that separates him from the living or the dead: his intact, working brain, or the functioning of all his major organs? Would it be for or against our notions of human dignity to allow life-saving organs be sold, or would it be likely that only the poor would be willing to sell them?

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/briefingbook/bioethics-and-policy-a-history/

I think that the science of Bioethics was originated with the use of this term in the preceeding century XX, but the science has not got age but the times of discovering.

The recent encyclical Laudato si treates of Bioethics.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Dear Mariano

it is nice question and I wish I can help you but it is not in my field.Regards

People ask, “Is the science going to run ahead of the ethics?” I don't think that’s always the problem. I think it’s that the science runs ahead of the politics. Bioethics can alert people to something coming down the road, but it doesn't mean policy and politicians are going to pay attention. They tend to respond when there’s an immediate crisis. The job of the ethicist, in some ways, is to warn or be prophetic. You can yell loudly, but you can’t necessarily get everybody to leave the cinema, so to speak.

— Arthur L(eonard) Caplan

Humanitarian instinct sound and consistent with the mind about all that is good and what is bad.

Humanitarian instinct sound and consistent with the mind about all that is good and what is bad.

I've found an address for a Master in Bio-ethics, but it seems language choice is limited to Spaniard, or to Spain's Spanish, whatever you prefer

  http://www.ebioetica.es/EBIOETICA/inicio.html

I think that the human life is not all competitive evolution but respectful behaviour too.

The Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera given by Pope Francis yesterday is other example of the ethics in the Christian tradition and renovation.

The use of fetuses as organ and tissue donors is a ticking time bomb of bioethics.

— Arthur L(eonard) Caplan

Dear Ali,

Such practices are inmoral gravely. What ethics could it be claimed if such practices do not respect the human life?

A condemnation of such practices for all men of good will is in the Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 63.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

please, see...

There is an old tradition of ethics in the human life in the Catholicism.

"Bioethics has hardened into an activist ideology that pervades the medical world, the schools, and government."

Author: John Leo

The semantic origin of the word Bioethics was of the century XX, but Ethics about Human Life existed several milleniums before. The tradition of Abrahamic religions are examples of it.

Bioethics] is a phony branch of elite philosophy whose principle purpose seems to be to justify allowing badly ill or disabled people to die.

unknown

There is an ontologic Bioethics which considers essential the contents of the Christian revelation. I think this is the most prudent via to be bioethicist with a cultural background and religious tradition.

Jesus said: "who believes in me, he will not be confounded."

Personalism is other principle of Christian Bioethics. All ones must be respected as persons for being person with a sacred dignity.

In the bioethics community, this is widely understood as utterly out of the realm of coherent human subject protections and a failure in the duties of a tenured professor.

Laurie Zoloth

The term Bioethics has less of a century, but the ethics about life has the same time that the humanity.

It was necessary a moral voice in the Biology and Medicine and all science connected with them. The science by itself and without moral reference is or could be as a madness.

A good article on the origin of Bioethics, in Spanish.

http://www.bioeticaweb.com/la-construcciasn-de-la-bioactica-a-travacs-de-los-informes-y-las-declaraciones-fj-ramiro/

The origin of the term Bioethics is not the origin of the Science about the life or of the origin of the Philosophy of its ethics. These have very long history, the term only decades.

If the term bioethics was used since the years 70 of the past century, the life, the biology and the ethics existed many centuries before. The term bioethics was necessary before the advancements of sciences of the life and the necessity of ethics in them.

The Pope invites to renew the allianz between the scientific community and the Christian community.

http://www.forumlibertas.com/papa-los-cientificos-no-somos-los-duenos-la-naturaleza/

Is it possible that a scientist believes and practices his/her faith? Yes, it is possible and it is better in a context where the faith is common among the scientists.

The times of Bioethics seem to be times of declarations of principles in medicine, biology, ecology, etc. All these things are good given with good intention.

The origin of Bioethics has been carried by declarations of principles in defense of human rights and of persons. This is a good way, to defend the highest value of the creation, the human being.

All the life of man in the earth needs an ethics in his behaviour, for example, since God gives his first commandment to Adam and Eve, our first fathers.

Ethics differences the good and the evil. In the life all is not good, hence the necessity of ethics to know what is good about the human life and its environment.

Life and ethics are connected by natural and divine laws. Psychology and Behaviour Sciences treate of these things, as well as Theology.

Bioethics is more science than biology, medicine, geology, etc. because it is studied as a philosophical manner of understanding the human life and its environment.

The teachings of the Catholic church have precepts and someones are about ethics in the life, as commandments of God.

The birth of child Jesus, the Lord, was it important for Bioethics? I think that undoubtly yes.

"I think it’s time we recognized the Dark Ages are over. Galileo and Copernicus have been proven right. The world is in fact round; the Earth does revolve around the sun. I believe God gave us intellect to differentiate between imprisoning dogma and sound ethical science, which is what we must do here today.

Debating federal funding for stem cell research as Republican Representative (CT)." Christopher Shays

Dear Fikrat,

A dogma does not imprison but liberates because all dogma (of the Church) is true and to know the truth is always a liberation of the lie. A true dogma does not limit.

 "Mahatma Gandhi said that seven things will destroy us. Notice that all of them have to do with social and political conditions. Note also that the antidote of each of these "deadly sins" is an explicit external standard or something that is based on natural principles and laws, not on social values.

Wealth without work

Pleasure without conscience

Knowledge without character

Commerce (Business) without morality (Ethics)

Sience without humanity

Religion without sacrifice

Politics without principle "

© 1990 Stephen R. Covey. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

What would other day be better to celebrate the day of Bioethics than the day of Christmas? Because Jesus is the Life and the Lord.